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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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”.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        No, the leaders of the South told the citizens of the South that was going to happen, and that they were on the side of “state rights”…

        Because that would get the most people to fight for them in a Civil War…

        When the two sides are saying two different things, why are you choosing to believe the traitors word over Lincolns?

        He explicitly said in in his inauguration speech that he wasn’t going to outlaw slavery, and he kept saying it until the Civil War was halfway over…

        Why do you believe conservative lies from over a century ago?

        • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 years ago

        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

        • FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

        • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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

            • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                2 years ago

                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

                • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  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.

                • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  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.

    • kimjongunderdog@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

              • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                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.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                2 years ago

                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.

                • Restaldt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  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

            • kimjongunderdog@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              “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.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

          • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s also factually incorrect, since the Feds specifically implemented a law mandating that Northern states return slaves.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • BillDaCatt@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      With the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I am not holding my breath that the free commerce clause will apply to abortion.

  • PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Not being allowed to get your RAPED DAUGHTER life saving medical procedures is called FREEDOM and SAVING THE CHILDREN!

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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

  • Bone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    May all the mothers and daughters of these Republicans be the first to suffer these new laws.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

  • SpiceDealer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

        • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.