A Tennessee Republican hopes to establish an “abortion trafficking” felony for adults who help pregnant minors get an out-of-state abortion without parental permission, an effort reproductive health advocates argue will run afoul of constitutional rights such as interstate travel.
Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, filed House Bill 1895 on Monday. The legislation would establish a new Class C felony, which could carry three to 15 years in prison, for an adult that “recruits, harbors or transports” a pregnant minor for the purposes of receiving an out-of-state abortion or for getting abortion medication.
You must log in or register to comment.
Reminder that the Civil War wasn’t because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.
He repeatedly said he had no desire to do that.
The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn’t force another state to follow their state laws.
And we’re still having the same argument apparently.
Conservative states have always wanted to force their laws on liberal states. Because they see their state residents as property/serfs that the ruling conservatives control.
Yeah, there was only one right that was in question. The average confederate soldier was there because he wanted to protect the white mans ability to own slaves because he thought he was going to get rich doing it once the war was over.
Nope.
The majority of soldiers for the south were lied to and genuinely believed they were fighting for states rights.
They didn’t know they were fighting for a more powerful federal government that would have the ability to force some states to follow the laws of other states.
Ironically the civil war was the final push that made the feds do what the south wanted to begin with. It’s just the feds sided with northern states not southern states.
Do you have any sources? I never heard of confederate soldiers being lied to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Morale_and_motivations
Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one’s home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.
Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters…
Only the wealthiest southerners could read and write, and if you were from the South and wealthy, it’s a pretty safe bet your family owned slaves.
But the vast amount of southerners were too poor to ever afford slaves. So that greatly skews the sample.
But even the ones who explicitly stated they were fighting to keep slavery legal, the feds and Lincoln were adamant they weren’t going to outlaw slavery on a federal level.
So those traitors who said they fought to keep slavery legal, were fighting to prevent something that wasn’t going to happen. They just thought it would because the leaders of the Confederacy lied to them about it.
Just like the 1/6 traitors believed the reason they were attempting to overthrow the American government, was because they thought Biden stole an election.
Just because a conservative believes something, doesn’t mean it’s true.
I see nothing here of soldiers being lied to.
They weren’t. Its just like today where they were steeped in propaganda. Thats no excuse. We should have crushed them after the war. Since we didn’t we have had to repeatedly deal with the traitors.
Even now we should be crushing Texas instead of playing their games. We are responsible for enabling their abhorrent behavior.
Well, I can’t think of a simpler way to explain it.
I’m sorry you can’t understand, but You’re doing that thing where you start replying to my other comments and wanting to have the same argument multiple times, and I just don’t have the motivation or energy to help people who do that.
Your argument doesn’t seem all that separated from the Nazi Nuremberg defense
“I was just following orders”
The world collectively decided that defense would not stand
You should learn to read, then, like those poor confederates. You’d be better off with some literacy.
Then, by all means, link me to the part where they say they were lied to.
“Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters…”
You’re really handwaving away what’s called a primary source of information. Those letters are actually really important for understanding what was going on in the heads of the soldiers at that time. The fact that they were explicitly writing about the right to own slaves shows that they were aware of what explicit right they were fighting for.
The South believed that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery. Even if your claim is that true that Lincoln didn’t want to, you must remember that “perspective is reality”.
deleted by creator
Because I believe the south’s word because it’s the truth: The war was about Slavery, which is why they wanted to secede from the union. They wanted to keep human bondage till the end of time.
Thank god we won, I just wish we killed more of them, though.
Shit, accidentally deleted when I meant to edit. My bad.
Was going to add “halfway over” instead of over because Lincoln never mentioned outlawing slavery till the civil war was halfway over.
But I don’t get listening to the conservative lies over what was actually happening.
Do you think 1/6 was Republicans trying to save an election from being stolen?
That clearly wasn’t what happened, but that’s what conservatives claim.
And you apparently want to believe anything they say
Dude, you deleted your entire comment and are trying to frame the guy like if he’s believing GOP talking points. OP disagreed that it wasn’t about state rights, and it was about slavery. And now you’re here saying he’s believing lies? You’re the liar, my guy.
I did, like I said I did…
Because the delete and edit buttons are tiny on a phone and right next to each other…
But after all the insults you’ve thrown out this morning, I’m just going to block you.
I was hoping just ignoring and not responding to you would be enough, but apparently it’s not.
Because you’re a liar? Good riddance.
Now you’re asking off topic questions, we’re talking about the civil war here.
But to supplement you, no, I do not believe the election was stolen. Now let’s get on back to the civil war.
Cool
When Lincoln and the traitors disagreed about why the civil war started (after it started) and we have actual proof from Lincoln saying he wasn’t interested in federally banning slavery …
Why are you taking the words of the traitors over Lincoln?
I thought the modern analogy would help, but I think it just confused you more unfortunately
I remember you from the last time this topic came up. Homie, I mean this as genuinely as possible, I’m honest to God trying to help; I think you should consider taking some communications or public speaking lessons or something. There’s a lot of good books or resources on YouTube on the matter if classes don’t make sense for you. You kind of just come across as a troll. Idk if that’s on purpose, but that’s why people react so badly to what you’re saying. It’s not your ideas, it’s you, it’s how you communicate.
Responding with an ad hominem is pathetic. Stay on topic or fuck off with insults.
Ironic.
Sometimes a man’s character in an argument must be taken to account, depending on the context.
Example: A Neo-Nazi arguing about racial science. I personally don’t think anyone should give that guy the time of day.
Or…
Maybe seeing people still falling for conservative propaganda from over a century ago is a little frustrating considering how conservative propaganda literally just resulted in another attempt at overthrowing the democratically elected government of America…
Maybe, just maybe, some things are worth getting upset about
I understand that it’s impossible to tell if someone is being genuine on the internet, so I’m begging you to break out Hanlon’s Razor and assume that I’m just stupid instead of malicious.
Look, if you wanna be upset, by all means, knock yourself out, you’re going to unironically have a great time on the internet. If you want to do something productive and actually persuade people instead of just get worked up, then it would absolutely be worth your time to work on persuasive writing and speech.
So, pointing out that the Civil War was about Slaves is conservative propaganda? How does that make any sense?
I see your point, but to say that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery is as stupid as holocaust deniers.
From how I read the comment above yours, it doesn’t imply the civil war wasn’t about slavery.
It was about the south wanting to strip state rights away from states that disagree with them.
The topic at the time was they thought once someone was a slave, they’re always a slave. Even if they’re in a state where slavery is illegal. So in that respect, it was about slavery.
But they’re literally doing the same thing right now by trying to criminalize someone crossing state lines to get an abortion.
Which is why the specifics matter.
If they start another civil war about their residents traveling out of state for abortions where they’re legal, you could say that civil war was about abortion, but that’s not really accurate.
Because just like back then, Dems aren’t trying to force Southern states to change their laws. Just saying one state can’t change another states laws.
The root cause is conservative states trying to force liberal states to follow conservative laws from a different state.
Reminder that the Civil War wasn’t because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.
He implied it wasn’t.
I guess it’s in how you read it. I don’t read it as such. Edit: maybe it’s because I take the entire comment into consideration instead of just one line in the entire comment.
deleted by creator
Only if you stop reading after the first sentence. They only implied that the war wasn’t fought over abolition, not that it wasn’t about slavery.
The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn’t force another state to follow their state laws.
The above clearly implies that slavery, and how it was enforced by federal law, was the reason the civil war was started.
No they didn’t. At all. They said it wasn’t about BANNING slavery, not that it wasn’t about slavery in general. They very specifically said it was about southern states wanting to force northern states to return slaves when those states disn’t even have legal slavery.
It was still about slavery and “states rights” even in what they said, just not the south reeing about a national ban - at first.
That’s the entire fucking reason the “states rights” argument has ANY air, because it DID start as a despute on how far a state’s laws went. That doesn’t mean it was magically not all revolving around slavery.
It’s also factually incorrect, since the Feds specifically implemented a law mandating that Northern states return slaves.
Yep, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which was part of the 1850 Compromise.
And, at the time, the Supreme Court agreed. In one of their most reviled and embarassing decisions. Let’s watch them do it again and again now.
American citizens who reside in one state are not the property of that state and cannot be prohibited from traveling to other states. Case closed.
With the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I am not holding my breath that the free commerce clause will apply to abortion.
Taking bets …dude has a few minors he’s raped and doesn’t want to escape.
The laundry list of Republican politicians who have CSAM on their PCs, have done shit to kids personally, or lured children online grows.
Grows where, you ask? Well, we’re up to page 49! https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook
Illinois just enacted a law that prevents alpr companies from sharing data outside of the state in order to protect people coming into the state for abortion.
Colorado did that over a year ago: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/polis-abortion-colorado-executive-order/73-dc981276-f6ec-4507-94cd-fee301fb80ba
Not being allowed to get your RAPED DAUGHTER life saving medical procedures is called FREEDOM and SAVING THE CHILDREN!
Taking a minor out of state without parental consent is already a crime in most states, no?
It’s ot about logic, it’s about hiving police a reason to pull you over and search you without a warrant. Half the cars on the roads have at least one woman in them, which is now probable cause since you could be taking that woman to get an abortion.
As the laws catch up with the times and we see the gradual legalization of marijuana, “do i smell weed?” is getting replaced by “is that a pregnant minor you’re trafficking across state lines for an abortion?” Cops gotta continue to make their $ and harass innocent citizens somehow
May all the mothers and daughters of these Republicans be the first to suffer these new laws.
This is about children. No child should suffer through pregnancy. I don’t care what their politics are or what their parents’ politics are.
Just the ones who voted republican. There are plenty of innocent who can’t afford to move/travel.
Gotta crack some eggs to make an omelette.
Maybe let them get birth control without their parents’ permission? They block that too
interstate travel has been a problem between states before roe fell
there are border like police agents at some borders already and have been for years
terry stops fully allowed with no need for suspicion of cause and some state borders are constansty watched for people crossing between states and this also applies to backroads
some of those backroads between states have been shut down since cannabis becoming legal in certain states became a thing
surprised there have not been more articles about this over the years
This is my home state, sadly. A bunch of backward religious zealots that were it not for secular institutions America would a mirror image of Saudi Arabia but Christian.
Clearly, the cons in these states think they OWN the people in them.
Remember just how much gaslighting the cons (and their tone-policing defenders in the “liberal media”) did when it came to talking about the Gilead states and how that’s not really a thing, don’t worry, even the reddest of states will have freedoms.
Actually, from a legal standpoint, I think that they’re on solid legal footing. I know that people may not want to hear that, but it is the truth.
You cannot take a minor across state lines to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, even if it is legal in the state they travel to. A 20 year old guy cannot, for example, take a 15 year old girl to a state where the age of consent is 14 in order to have sex with her. The same line of reasoning would apply here.
Now I’m not saying it’s right by any stretch of the imagination. Applying this law under similar reasoning will do exponentially more harm than good for teenage girls in the state. But looking at it from a strictly legal standpoint, this law would be valid. Immoral, but valid.
I’m gonna need a legal citation for this claim.
You cannot take a minor across state lines to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, even if it is legal in the state they travel to.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2002-transportation-minors-18-usc-2423
Section 2423(a) of Title 18 prohibits anyone from transporting any individual under the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity. It imposes a maximum 15 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine under Title 18.
That’s the most on-point that discusses the issue. But try bringing a minor out drinking across state lines, or gambling, or any other illegal activity and see how quickly charges get tacked on for the involvement of a minor. Sex is one of the few cases where laws vary so greatly from state to state, and abortion is probably the next biggest thing now.
If anyone has an example of where it’s currently perfectly legal to bring a minor across state lines without parental consent to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, I’d love to hear it.
This only seems to specify, “…with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity.” So I would be lead to believe this law only covers “prostitution or any criminal sexual activity”. I don’t believe one could expand this law to cover any activity that is illegal under the original state’s laws as your original comment stated.
Criminal sexual activity such as getting an abortion after they got pregnant from rape and need lifesaving abortion wich is illegal in their own state.
You conveniently ignored the part where I also said that engaging in other activity with a minor such as drinking, gambling, etc. are also illegal and will result in charges for involving a minor as well.
And for all the downvotes I get, I have yet to see anyone cite an example of where it’s perfectly legal to actually bring a minor across state lines to engage in activity that is illegal in the home state, especially without a parent’s permission. Because it seems that the downvotes are less about the validity of the statement and more because it’s something people just don’t want to hear. Try bringing a minor across state lines for any activity that is not legal for them in their home state. When you get released from prison, remember to let me know how that worked out for you.
