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
    112
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year 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
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        14
        ·
        1 year 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
            7
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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.

    • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year 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
            1 year 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
            3
            ·
            1 year 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
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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.