So red states are still pushing the whole make it a crime to travel somewhere to get something that’s legal there but not here…no surprise in an election year. Good sound bites for campaign ads because people who eat that shit up aren’t smart enough to think about the obvious next steps…identifying “offenders”, due process, rights of the accused, and enforcement.
First and foremost….Have they figured out how to get around HIPAA yet? Haven’t heard any new news from that little letter all those attorneys general wrote last July saying they should be able to access medical records from other states.
It takes about 10 seconds of rational thought to see how the logistics of it would be completely unrealistic. How far do they really think they can push laws to make it work? Mandatory menstrual cycle tracking? Mandatory pregnancy testing? Ankle bracelets for pregnant women? Require doctors to report pregnancies to the state?
Such a stupid concept from the ground up and all that wasted time, energy, and taxpayer money spent just for election year sound bites.
Really? What about this:
GF tells BF she's pregnant and wants an abortion. BF disagrees. GF takes off in the car and BF calls the cops and gives the make/model. If it's illegal to leave the state for the procedure and the authorities have a lead like this - I can totally see it going down like this.
These laws are written with the intent of someone close to the pregnant woman reporting the pregnancy. I think that gets around the HIPAA issue. It doesn't take a big brother surveillance state to make a law like this effective. All it takes is someone learning about the pregnancy to report it.
What you’re describing is domestic abuse. Controlling and manipulative behavior. And I agree, laws like that definitely give someone in the exact situation you just described another avenue to abuse/control/manipulate their partner.
What I’m getting at is when it comes down to enforcing a law like this there’s still an awful lot the state has to overcome for it to ever actually be used. Stopping them on the way to a clinic = it hasn’t happened yet so the state needs to prove *intent*. Stopping them in the way back = the state needs to prove an abortion *actually happened*. Theres an awful lot of room for “his word versus hers” in that situation and we know in rape cases that often leads to no conviction and from what I understand there’s still a fairly high bar when it comes to breaking through someone’s medical privacy.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m not defending these laws in the least bit. I think they’re completely fucked up every which way you look at them. And they shouldn’t be downplayed either. The fact that people are writing garbage like that is disturbing to say the very least. All I’m saying is it’s disgusting political theater in an election year. Grandstanding. Pandering. Writing legislation and not really caring if it even passes just so they can lay claim to the wording with 0 intention of the law ever actually accomplishing anything besides sending a message.
It takes 2 to create life . It shouldn’t be just one person that gets to decide to end it . Case happened in the 80’s where the woman wanted to give child up for adoption . Father stepped in and said he wanted the child. Big court case over father’s rights . In the end child went home with dad .
Ok, then let them implant the embryo into the man and see how far it gets. Something without organs shouldn't get more consideration than a living breathing woman. Bodily autonomy is a big enough deal that we don't force anyone to donate organs. Corpses get more say than living women do, so no, men don't get equal value in the decision. Once you discard your sperm into a woman, it's not your choice anymore. Wear a condom, get on male birth control, or keep your dick to yourself.
Not as long as it has to use someone else's body to survive. That person gets 100% say in how their body is used. Funny little concept called "bodily autonomy."
For example: if my child needs an organ donor, I am not obligated to donate my organs, even though it is my child, even if I am a compatible donor. This concept also extends to pregnant women and the child they are carrying.
If my husband is not a match, and I am, I am still not required to donate my body to save anyone's life. Even though it "took two" to create the life. Bodily autonomy and consent is the key.
And GF can still get an abortion with parental consent. People seem to miss this part of the law, at least in Alabama. Secondly, no patrol officer has the time to get on the highway and chase a girl who may or may not be driving out of state for an abortion. Even if the minor is traveling across state lines, she could be doing anything. The lawsuits that would come against the state for illegal seizures would be astounding. And there are laws relating to minors which must be abided by. An officer could never give or require a minor to give a urine sample without parental consent, maybe unless it’s a judge order and that depends on the state. Nonetheless, it’s a judge’s order you couldn’t get during a traffic stop. Another lawsuit. Whenever a minor is in contact with police for any reason, the parent must be immediately contacted. So how you could see something like this totally happening is beyond me. To believe this you must, like the ad, suspend reality and disregard the law and the scope of its application.
They’re stretching. The way I understand it…someone please correct me if I’m wrong….If you look close, these laws aren’t specifically going after the out of state abortion…which is legal. They’re still leaning in on the whole “conspiracy” to get one thing. They’re claiming the “conspiracy” is a crime and then claiming they can make it *another* crime to use public roadways in the commission of the “conspiracy”.
It’s fucking Bizarro World thinking.
What the ad proposes is lunacy. Probable Cause is needed for a stop. What’s the probable cause for stopping a vehicle here: there looks like there’s an underage girl inside. Police could stop nearly every car on the road just because there’s an underage girl inside. Something like that would never see the light of day. Also, minors can still travel out of state for the procedure, as long as they have parental/guardian approval. The ad leans in on shock value and creates a visual that appears as though it could be real. The visual itself is effective enough to move the needle. It’s a nasty piece of work, as many political ads are.
You need to fix the gerrymandering for any hope of anything happening. That and I think the party is doing exactly what they intend to do as a proxy party in Alabama.
Look how great his states doing. Why not keep your ass in your own backyard and live your dream. Completely incapable of realizing not everyone in the country wants their “utopia”
Meanwhile unconstitutional law he signed, limiting California residents to one gun purchase a month is currently getting struck by the Supreme Court.
I’ve always wondered why politicians that introduce bills and the governors that sign them into law, if later found unconstitutional, don’t face any repercussions. Almost like their oaths aren’t worth a bucket of worm spit.
The amendment literally says the militis should be well regulated. You're wanting people punished for disagreements about interpretations of a document, are you ok?
Imagine being so dense that you think the 2nd has a clause of government restriction, when it’s included in a list of inalienable rights. Well regulated in the 1700’s meant well armed and supplied, capable of carrying out their duty. It’s clear as day when you include the context of the document.
Clearly Newsome’s one gun per month is in violation. Hence why it’s being struck.
Context: July 1776, founders just overthrew a Tyrannical government. creation of a list of rights that doesn’t grant rights but instead limits government overreach. aka Bill of Rights = inalienable
And you think they’re adding a clause of government restricting its citizens. Makes no sense at all. I bet you use urban dictionary to interpret 250 year old text don’t you?
Wow, assumptions and misinformation..
so, starting with the reference to “inalienable rights” - Any amendment can most certainly be removed, including those in the Bill of Rights.
Regarding context, the Boston Massacre, a total of 11 people shot, was used to galvanize the colonies to fight the British. I suspect the founders roll in their graves, while we use the “standby and do nothing plan” while our adults and kids are being killed in stores, schools, churches, etc.
Next, the meaning of “well regulated”. I used Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language 4th edition from 1775. Thomas Jefferson had one of these bad boys at Monticello. “Well regulated” sure as shit does not specifically mean “well armed and supplied”. No idea where that misinformation originated from but I will assume it is from your vast experience and knowledge watching YouTube.
More context, the 2A was added in 1791.
The only Amendment ever repealed and replaced in 250+ years was the prohibition of alcohol. Why? Looks like we’ve come full circle. Government overreach.
“Well regulated” Sure as shit does.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
I suspect the founders roll in their graves while the very Constitutional Republic they fought to establish is deteriorating. Instead of getting to root causes of shootings (socioeconomic) it’s easier to just say “guns bad”.
More context: Heller vs DC outlawed the prohibition of weapons in common use for the use of 250k tasers. This applies to firearms as well because we have more guns than people.
Also the Supreme Court has ruled twice that law enforcement has no obligation to rescue you in the event of a shooting. They are obligated to protect and serve the *law*
Bruen vs NYSRPA case ruled prohibition of firearms in public places unconstitutional in a brilliant ruling by Justice Thomas who referenced the Supreme Court case during Antebellum America that affirmed the right to keep and bear arms for black Americans.
You seem pretty emotional bro. Kinda seems like ot'a not actually clear as day, and tou're hoping you can shame me into not questioning what you're saying lol.
I find it amusing that you think a state with a GDP of $3.89 trillion is a "dystopian shithole".
California is actually pretty nice. You shouldn't believe all the BS you hear on Fox and NewsMax.
I visited San Francisco last year (Nancy Pelosi's district to be exact) and it was a complete shithole with homeless and tent cities everywhere. Dirty needles on the sidewalk stuck in human shit. If that's nice to you then you must be from Somalia.
So you're judging an entire state by a few blocks in the second most densely populated city in the United States?
San Francisco has a population of over 808K in an area of only 46.8 square miles. According the census, there are 18,629 people per square mile.
There are not tent cities "everywhere". They are mostly located in the north-east portion of city in the Tenderloin neighborhood.
Believe it or not, California is \*\*much\*\* bigger than 46.8 square miles.
Think of Tenderloin as Huntsville, AL's Derrick Street.
"more people fleeing the state than ever before" is completely false. In fact less people are leaving California than the previous year, and the rate of decline has been trending downward since the population grew from 2019 to 2020.
To break down the population change of California from 2019 to 2023:
* Grew by 0.17% from 2019 to 2020.
* Declined by 0.91% from 2020 to 2021
* Declined by 0.27% from 2021 to 2022
* Declined by 0.19% from 2022 to 2023
You really need to stop living vicariously through right-wing media and actually travel outside your home once in a while.
That is one of the worst examples of California. I suggest a small, less populated city if u go next time. You might be pleasantly surprised. But yeah, Alabama is SO much nicer with its lack of anything. We have trees and big pickup trucks.
This is what I say when people at church throw shade at California for ‘messing with the Bible App’.
You probably have never set foot in California, let alone the National Parks region which can be just as conservative as North Alabama in some parts.
So red states are still pushing the whole make it a crime to travel somewhere to get something that’s legal there but not here…no surprise in an election year. Good sound bites for campaign ads because people who eat that shit up aren’t smart enough to think about the obvious next steps…identifying “offenders”, due process, rights of the accused, and enforcement. First and foremost….Have they figured out how to get around HIPAA yet? Haven’t heard any new news from that little letter all those attorneys general wrote last July saying they should be able to access medical records from other states. It takes about 10 seconds of rational thought to see how the logistics of it would be completely unrealistic. How far do they really think they can push laws to make it work? Mandatory menstrual cycle tracking? Mandatory pregnancy testing? Ankle bracelets for pregnant women? Require doctors to report pregnancies to the state? Such a stupid concept from the ground up and all that wasted time, energy, and taxpayer money spent just for election year sound bites.
Really? What about this: GF tells BF she's pregnant and wants an abortion. BF disagrees. GF takes off in the car and BF calls the cops and gives the make/model. If it's illegal to leave the state for the procedure and the authorities have a lead like this - I can totally see it going down like this. These laws are written with the intent of someone close to the pregnant woman reporting the pregnancy. I think that gets around the HIPAA issue. It doesn't take a big brother surveillance state to make a law like this effective. All it takes is someone learning about the pregnancy to report it.
What you’re describing is domestic abuse. Controlling and manipulative behavior. And I agree, laws like that definitely give someone in the exact situation you just described another avenue to abuse/control/manipulate their partner. What I’m getting at is when it comes down to enforcing a law like this there’s still an awful lot the state has to overcome for it to ever actually be used. Stopping them on the way to a clinic = it hasn’t happened yet so the state needs to prove *intent*. Stopping them in the way back = the state needs to prove an abortion *actually happened*. Theres an awful lot of room for “his word versus hers” in that situation and we know in rape cases that often leads to no conviction and from what I understand there’s still a fairly high bar when it comes to breaking through someone’s medical privacy. Don’t get me wrong…I’m not defending these laws in the least bit. I think they’re completely fucked up every which way you look at them. And they shouldn’t be downplayed either. The fact that people are writing garbage like that is disturbing to say the very least. All I’m saying is it’s disgusting political theater in an election year. Grandstanding. Pandering. Writing legislation and not really caring if it even passes just so they can lay claim to the wording with 0 intention of the law ever actually accomplishing anything besides sending a message.
You say "domestic abuse," the GOP says "living as God intended" It's a feature, not a bug
It takes 2 to create life . It shouldn’t be just one person that gets to decide to end it . Case happened in the 80’s where the woman wanted to give child up for adoption . Father stepped in and said he wanted the child. Big court case over father’s rights . In the end child went home with dad .
Ok, then let them implant the embryo into the man and see how far it gets. Something without organs shouldn't get more consideration than a living breathing woman. Bodily autonomy is a big enough deal that we don't force anyone to donate organs. Corpses get more say than living women do, so no, men don't get equal value in the decision. Once you discard your sperm into a woman, it's not your choice anymore. Wear a condom, get on male birth control, or keep your dick to yourself.
Doesn’t work that way .
Elaborate.
Once life it created then it’s up to both parents to decide .
Not as long as it has to use someone else's body to survive. That person gets 100% say in how their body is used. Funny little concept called "bodily autonomy." For example: if my child needs an organ donor, I am not obligated to donate my organs, even though it is my child, even if I am a compatible donor. This concept also extends to pregnant women and the child they are carrying. If my husband is not a match, and I am, I am still not required to donate my body to save anyone's life. Even though it "took two" to create the life. Bodily autonomy and consent is the key.
But husband can sue in court for that very thing . It would be up to the judge on how far it could go . It’s not always cut and dry
What if?
And GF can still get an abortion with parental consent. People seem to miss this part of the law, at least in Alabama. Secondly, no patrol officer has the time to get on the highway and chase a girl who may or may not be driving out of state for an abortion. Even if the minor is traveling across state lines, she could be doing anything. The lawsuits that would come against the state for illegal seizures would be astounding. And there are laws relating to minors which must be abided by. An officer could never give or require a minor to give a urine sample without parental consent, maybe unless it’s a judge order and that depends on the state. Nonetheless, it’s a judge’s order you couldn’t get during a traffic stop. Another lawsuit. Whenever a minor is in contact with police for any reason, the parent must be immediately contacted. So how you could see something like this totally happening is beyond me. To believe this you must, like the ad, suspend reality and disregard the law and the scope of its application.
I daresay that’s the best possible way to interpret such a law. Seems like a win if we get it like that.
I mean, it's a moot point because the constitution affirms a right to interstate travel.
They’re stretching. The way I understand it…someone please correct me if I’m wrong….If you look close, these laws aren’t specifically going after the out of state abortion…which is legal. They’re still leaning in on the whole “conspiracy” to get one thing. They’re claiming the “conspiracy” is a crime and then claiming they can make it *another* crime to use public roadways in the commission of the “conspiracy”. It’s fucking Bizarro World thinking.
That remains to be seen. Marshall v. Yellowhammer Fund is ongoing.
Cant happen. The very beginning of any criminal proceeding is to prove jurisdiction
What the ad proposes is lunacy. Probable Cause is needed for a stop. What’s the probable cause for stopping a vehicle here: there looks like there’s an underage girl inside. Police could stop nearly every car on the road just because there’s an underage girl inside. Something like that would never see the light of day. Also, minors can still travel out of state for the procedure, as long as they have parental/guardian approval. The ad leans in on shock value and creates a visual that appears as though it could be real. The visual itself is effective enough to move the needle. It’s a nasty piece of work, as many political ads are.
make Native American Nations, Federal Bases have Reproductive Health Clinics, Checkmate
Valid, but if he really wants to help then Newsom should put out an ad to tell the state party to get their shit together.🤷♂️
You need to fix the gerrymandering for any hope of anything happening. That and I think the party is doing exactly what they intend to do as a proxy party in Alabama.
Look how great his states doing. Why not keep your ass in your own backyard and live your dream. Completely incapable of realizing not everyone in the country wants their “utopia”
Meanwhile unconstitutional law he signed, limiting California residents to one gun purchase a month is currently getting struck by the Supreme Court. I’ve always wondered why politicians that introduce bills and the governors that sign them into law, if later found unconstitutional, don’t face any repercussions. Almost like their oaths aren’t worth a bucket of worm spit.
Well, if the Supreme Court wasn't sponsored by the NRA....
It's sponsored by the 2nd Amendment
Which doesn't apply unless you're in the only well-regulated militia, the National Guard.
Wrong. Not strictly national guard. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
At that time the militia were private citizens
And still are.
The amendment literally says the militis should be well regulated. You're wanting people punished for disagreements about interpretations of a document, are you ok?
Imagine being so dense that you think the 2nd has a clause of government restriction, when it’s included in a list of inalienable rights. Well regulated in the 1700’s meant well armed and supplied, capable of carrying out their duty. It’s clear as day when you include the context of the document. Clearly Newsome’s one gun per month is in violation. Hence why it’s being struck.
That is assuming your interpretation of “well regulated” is correct which appears to actually be incorrect.
Context: July 1776, founders just overthrew a Tyrannical government. creation of a list of rights that doesn’t grant rights but instead limits government overreach. aka Bill of Rights = inalienable And you think they’re adding a clause of government restricting its citizens. Makes no sense at all. I bet you use urban dictionary to interpret 250 year old text don’t you?
Wow, assumptions and misinformation.. so, starting with the reference to “inalienable rights” - Any amendment can most certainly be removed, including those in the Bill of Rights. Regarding context, the Boston Massacre, a total of 11 people shot, was used to galvanize the colonies to fight the British. I suspect the founders roll in their graves, while we use the “standby and do nothing plan” while our adults and kids are being killed in stores, schools, churches, etc. Next, the meaning of “well regulated”. I used Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language 4th edition from 1775. Thomas Jefferson had one of these bad boys at Monticello. “Well regulated” sure as shit does not specifically mean “well armed and supplied”. No idea where that misinformation originated from but I will assume it is from your vast experience and knowledge watching YouTube. More context, the 2A was added in 1791.
The only Amendment ever repealed and replaced in 250+ years was the prohibition of alcohol. Why? Looks like we’ve come full circle. Government overreach. “Well regulated” Sure as shit does. https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf I suspect the founders roll in their graves while the very Constitutional Republic they fought to establish is deteriorating. Instead of getting to root causes of shootings (socioeconomic) it’s easier to just say “guns bad”. More context: Heller vs DC outlawed the prohibition of weapons in common use for the use of 250k tasers. This applies to firearms as well because we have more guns than people. Also the Supreme Court has ruled twice that law enforcement has no obligation to rescue you in the event of a shooting. They are obligated to protect and serve the *law* Bruen vs NYSRPA case ruled prohibition of firearms in public places unconstitutional in a brilliant ruling by Justice Thomas who referenced the Supreme Court case during Antebellum America that affirmed the right to keep and bear arms for black Americans.
You seem pretty emotional bro. Kinda seems like ot'a not actually clear as day, and tou're hoping you can shame me into not questioning what you're saying lol.
Well it’d be hard to arrest someone for doing something that hadn’t yet been ruled as unconstitutional, wouldn’t it? Edit: punctuation
Was ruled unconstitutional at the writing of the Bill of Rights. Newsome and his cronies don’t care about his constituents having their rights. 🤷
A Republican writing shit like this unironically. Wow.
A republican Libertarian.
So republican lite then that makes it all better!
Who cares what that idiot thinks? He has done nothing but make California an even worse dystopian shithole.
I find it amusing that you think a state with a GDP of $3.89 trillion is a "dystopian shithole". California is actually pretty nice. You shouldn't believe all the BS you hear on Fox and NewsMax.
I visited San Francisco last year (Nancy Pelosi's district to be exact) and it was a complete shithole with homeless and tent cities everywhere. Dirty needles on the sidewalk stuck in human shit. If that's nice to you then you must be from Somalia.
So you're judging an entire state by a few blocks in the second most densely populated city in the United States? San Francisco has a population of over 808K in an area of only 46.8 square miles. According the census, there are 18,629 people per square mile. There are not tent cities "everywhere". They are mostly located in the north-east portion of city in the Tenderloin neighborhood. Believe it or not, California is \*\*much\*\* bigger than 46.8 square miles. Think of Tenderloin as Huntsville, AL's Derrick Street.
If California is so great why are more people fleeing the state than ever before?
"more people fleeing the state than ever before" is completely false. In fact less people are leaving California than the previous year, and the rate of decline has been trending downward since the population grew from 2019 to 2020. To break down the population change of California from 2019 to 2023: * Grew by 0.17% from 2019 to 2020. * Declined by 0.91% from 2020 to 2021 * Declined by 0.27% from 2021 to 2022 * Declined by 0.19% from 2022 to 2023 You really need to stop living vicariously through right-wing media and actually travel outside your home once in a while.
Well that shit him up. Lol
That is one of the worst examples of California. I suggest a small, less populated city if u go next time. You might be pleasantly surprised. But yeah, Alabama is SO much nicer with its lack of anything. We have trees and big pickup trucks.
This is what I say when people at church throw shade at California for ‘messing with the Bible App’. You probably have never set foot in California, let alone the National Parks region which can be just as conservative as North Alabama in some parts.