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
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months 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
      5 months 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
        ·
        5 months 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
      ·
      5 months 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
        5 months 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
          ·
          5 months 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.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Responding with an ad hominem is pathetic. Stay on topic or fuck off with insults.

            • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months 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.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                They shouldn’t give him the time of day because he’s WRONG, not because he’s a Nazi. … I know that’s a difficult sentence to parse because Nazis are wrong on basically everything, but it is VERY important.

                • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  But we’re saying he’s wrong because of his character and his character may inherently lead to some beliefs that are… incompatible with a sane society.

                  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    The point is, Nazis are bad because they logically and imperically think really fucking stupid things and want to do really bad things.

                    It should not EVER matter what label someone attaches to themselves. It should only matter if what they want is backed by evidence and reality and ideally some compassion and grace. That simply is not true of Nazis. They’re bad because they’re stupid monsters who are wrong. It shouldn’t matter if they all start calling themselves activists or take over the Libertarian label. Their ideas and desires are wrong.

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

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                It says a lot that your issue isn’t any of the people still falling for conservative propaganda…

                But that I’m not being persuasive enough, hell, if that’s your only problem, wouldn’t a better use of your time using your superior communication skills to help them understand?

                But I’ll never have to try and explain this to you again, if you don’t want to see my comments either, it’s a very simple process for you as well

                Takes less than a second

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Because that’s not what actually happened…

                It was because the south wanted the feds to force the north to return escaped slaves, even tho they were no longer slaves once they got to the north…

                I genuinely don’t understand why people don’t understand why those aren’t the same things.

                The topic at the time did involve slavery, but what the south started the civil war about was the feds refusing to force northern states to enforce laws that didn’t exist in the northern states.

                It wasn’t to keep slavery legal in south. Because Lincoln wouldn’t stop saying he had no desire to federally ban slavery, because he thought that would be enough to appease the south and avoid civil war.

                Bringing us full circle to why the details still matter:

                Appeasing conservative governments never works, they’ll never be happy unless they get everything they want. So why meet them halfway?

                The line will need to be drawn eventually anyways