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
    114
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 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
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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
        7
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        8 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
            7
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            8 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.

              • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                They weren’t. Its just like today where they were steeped in propaganda. Thats no excuse. We should have crushed them after the war. Since we didn’t we have had to repeatedly deal with the traitors.

                Even now we should be crushing Texas instead of playing their games. We are responsible for enabling their abhorrent behavior.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                8 months ago

                Well, I can’t think of a simpler way to explain it.

                I’m sorry you can’t understand, but You’re doing that thing where you start replying to my other comments and wanting to have the same argument multiple times, and I just don’t have the motivation or energy to help people who do that.

                • Restaldt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Your argument doesn’t seem all that separated from the Nazi Nuremberg defense

                  “I was just following orders”

                  The world collectively decided that defense would not stand

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Nope.

                    What I’m doing would be more like trying to understand why Germans fell for propaganda and fought for the nazis.

                    It doesn’t excuse what they did.

                    But if we don’t understand why they did it, how are we supposed to prevent a future generation from falling for the same shit?

                    Because, again, we just saw a group of conservatives attempt to overthrow the American government because they believed propaganda.

                    Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, we should try to prevent there from being another “next time”?

                    You don’t think that’s something that’s important?

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                You should learn to read, then, like those poor confederates. You’d be better off with some literacy.

                  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Literally linked and quoted above, and you’re too fucking stupid to read. Many were manipulated or were not fighting over slavery specifically. That doesn’t magically make the conflict not about slavery, it’s just context that goes to explain how the south is so brainwashed about it. It’s true, NOT because what the south believes today, but because of what literally happened.

                    Again, it’s just nuanced context. It’s not a claim about the war not revolving around slavery. Fucking learn to read.

            • kimjongunderdog@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 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.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          8 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@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 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
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 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
            8 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.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months 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
      ·
      8 months 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.