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.

  • ironhydroxide
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    From how I read the comment above yours, it doesn’t imply the civil war wasn’t about slavery.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months 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
        ·
        10 months 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.

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

        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.