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.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months 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.

  • BillDaCatt@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months 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.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months 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

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months 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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months 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.

    • kimjongunderdog@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months 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
        0
        ·
        10 months 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
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months 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.

            • kimjongunderdog@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months 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.