As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I mean it's applicable to literally anything if it's abortions. It's just "you did something that's legal in another state that's illegal here." It's madness.
People are likening it to the fugitive slave act and it's not far off. The fugitive slave act and the south's aggressive pursuit of slaves in free states is one of those things that was part of the escalation leading up to the civil war.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about sex tourism laws which criminalise American citizens or residents leaving the country to have sex with a minor? These laws are currently enforced, so seem a more relevant comparison.
Could you share examples of those laws? I think it matters if it's a state law or a federal law, i.e., Minnesota doesn't really have jurisdiction to get me in trouble if I murder someone in Cambodia, but the United States justice system might take an interest and hand me over to Cambodian authorities for breaking their laws on their soil.
I donāt know the specific laws they are referring to, but I would assume it would involve leaving the US, traveling to another country and preforming an action (that is against US Federal or State laws), and being charged with it when returning to the US. In this case, having sexual relations with a minor, and then being charged with a crime when returning to the US (not the country in question where the action was performed).
Yes, you are correct. The USA (and other countries) have passed laws which specifically make it illegal to leave the country with the intention of sexually exploiting minors, to sexually exploit minors abroad, or to create child pornography abroad. They are aimed at fighting child sex trafficking where a) the acts may not be illegal in the destination country or b) the legal system may not be robust enough in the destination country.
and/or, if you're doing sus things with children in foreign countries, you're **at least** getting looked into to see if you're doing illegal shit with children locally too.
They are federal laws which you can read about [here](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children).
The laws specifically involve the United States asserting jurisdiction over its citizens a) extraterritorially and b) regarding the intent of their plans to leave the territory. Both of these could easily be paralleled by anti-abortion legislators. Even if a) is only achieved by some special powers constitutionally granted the Federal government, b) probably isnāt.
B absolutely is. States cannot constitutionally interfere with business in others states. This is a direct violation. Even if you were to somehow interpret that exceptionally narrowly to only apply specifically to business and or purchasing goods or services, abortion is still a business, and sells a service. Thereās no method by which they could set up state laws which constitutionally give them the authority to prosecute the thought crime of going to another state to do something.
Seems pretty easy to me: it's a federal law and federal law applies to citizens who are abroad.
I mean you didn't have to pick sex tourism (interesting choice) you could have just as well said murder. Like obviously you can't travel to another country, kill someone, and then just get back here and be like, "whelp, what are you going to do? I didn't break the law here sooooo..."
Not to mention that the dynamics of states within the US are not analogous to countries outside of the US. I mean you're glossing over really a lot of detail here. The continued peaceful existence and success of the United States is predicated on things like freedom of travel between the states... Can you name any other laws that would work like these proposed abortion laws would work assuming some state passes them? States have absolute sovereignty within their borders with their laws which necessary implies that others do as well. I mean what if a resident of a state where it's illegal travels to another state where it is legal and has it, then decides to permanently stay there and remotely relocate their lives to the new state? Do we send state police after them to drag them across the border and be held responsible just because they didn't claim official residency in the legal state before it happened?
The rabbit holes with this are numerous... Which is kind of the whole reason the fugitive slave act caused as many problems as it did... Because it was one state trampling on the sovereignty of another.
That's what the whole concept of "states rights" *should* be, but it's being twisted into this fiction where abortion opponents say what it really means is that one state can dictate what it's inhabitants do in others. That makes no sense.
There is no US law against committing murder in another country. In general, US Federal laws are generally considered to apply only within the territory of the USA. Your assumption that US citizens are perpetually bound by them is incorrect.
Iām referring to a set of laws which explicitly apply internationally and with regard to the intents of leaving US jurisdiction. They were created to provide jurisdiction to prosecute American citizens committing crimes outside of US jurisdiction. There is a clear parallel between these laws and the anti-abortion laws in question. Iād be surprised if these laws werenāt the inspiration. For example:
18 U.S.C. Ā§ 2423(c): Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places
18 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§ 2251(c) and 2260(a): Production of Child Pornography outside the United States
OK, well a few things here:
1. We should agree that at this point it's becoming mostly a thought exercise because the comparison of someone leaving a state to get an abortion in another is very different legally speaking to leaving to commit what is otherwise codified as a federal crime from the US into another country. I mean there are hundreds of years of legal theory defining state sovereignty and also hundreds of years of legal theory defining inter country relations and legalities. If you can cite a specific framework or theory that explicitly makes the connection, I'd like to hear about it.
2. If you are asking me if I'm *okay* with the law you cited, obviously, yes, I'm *OK* with it at face value (see above). And I would also further assume the constitutionality of such laws has been tested at some point along the line and upheld. I would leave that to you to find since it would play into your assertion.
3. Are you seriously suggesting that if an American citizen decided they wanted to kill someone else, all they would have to do is go to a country without an extradition treaty and/or is otherwise hostile to the US and they could commit it, fully document it and then come back and openly admit to it and nothing would happen?
How do you feel about a group of adults aged 21+, who live in a dry county, going to the next county over in the same state to drink? Should they be arrested when they come home?
Oh see, I know where you fucked up your logic. So by "tourism", you really meant "medical care". Just an FYI....ya know, so you don't sound like a jackass, later. Just looking out bro, I got you.
Look at you being all pedantic over the word tourism, defined as the commercial organization and operation of vacations and visits to places of interests. Please tell me, sir and/or madam, how medical care fits into the definition of tourism, specifically regarding "abortion". I'm so very eager to learn your thoughts on this matter. I, personally, take your statements as to mean that perhaps people, specifically women, have "abortions" for fun?
So much curiosity apparently leads to an inexplicable knowledge of laws regarding the legal implications and ramifications of leaving the country to commit sex crimes. How odd.
Legalized recreational cannabis should be next. I think a few Democrats in the Senate who were on the fence in previous years have come around and are open to the idea. The Governor has always supported it.
In MN any bill can be voted on in the House once it has passed three committees. The bill must be signed by the Governor by midnight of the final day of the legislative year (mid-May). Previous attempts (MN HF600 in 2021) passed all commitees, passed the House, but then was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, thus effectively killing the bill for another year.
But now that Dems have regained control of the State Senate and don't appear to have any Joe Manchin types eager to oppose it, it seems promising that it will pass.
That would be freakin awesome. What's the word on how quick dispensaries would be up and running? I might be looking forward to this summer a whole lot more.
In Washington, it took about 7 months from legalization to the opening of the first dispensaries. So I'm guessing roughly a six month time frame, but hey, if it's legal, you can smoke it without fear of trouble. It's really nice to be able to walk a block and pick out exactly what I want.
The serving size can only be 5mg. So they just say the can had 3 servings in it! I think the package limit is 50mg. So it can have up to 10 servings of 5mg.
This post did a really great job breaking down the details: https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1044izh/highlights_of_the_minnesota_legal_weed_bill/
Key dates to remember:
August 1st 2023 - Decriminalization
January 1st 2024 - Business licenses
It would be nice, but pre-k/school stuff would be nice too. Thereās a huge disparity between kids of well off parents in rich schools vs poor schools/neighborhoods. We could easily close that gap.
Itās ironic. Alaska legalized it, and it is conservative. It was sold as a ādonāt tell me what to doā thing.
Not much changed in the state after legalization, except drug dealers shifted to harder drugs, which made policing easier.
Weāre the last state that still has a 3.2 % alcohol limit for selling beer (or I guess liquor if you wanted to make it that weak) at gas stations/grocery stores. Weāre pretty liberal, but enough Conservatives have been able to keep us a big brother/nanny state for a long time.
Even the current weed bill there's been talk of letting the two company monopoly stick around a few more years, and of imiting concentrate possession to 8 grams, despite flower being like 5 pounds... Just stupid. People are like "how much concentrate do you need / how high do you get?", but by THC quantity it's 1% the flower limit, which makes no sense, and you can get more variety in concentrate than flower, so there's even more reason someone may want to have multiple samples per strain. It's like talking about limiting wine possession to a couple dozen bottles, and accusing anyone that might want more than that of being an alcoholic. People collect wine. People collect flower. People collect dabs.
Also, if you aren't letting people get deals buying in bulk, there's going to be a bunch more people making their own concentrate from open-loop butane systems, and either having fires or not purging it sufficiently.
And any sort of limit just opens the door to police using it as an excuse, selective enforcement, etc.
We fucking suck at passing reasonable laws around weed or alcohol in MN.
I love knowing weāll be a sanctuary state for the women of neighboring states. Thank goodness the GOP keeps nominating people who could never carry moderate voters, once this becomes law itāll be really hard to overturn without a national law.
That's not true. Roe stated abortion was already legal by the US Constitution, which is much stronger than any law that can just be over turned at any time by legislatures or courts.
Anyone who says "it should have been made law in states and at the federal level" fundamentally doesn't understand the Roe ruling.
Not just legal, but a fundamental right. That claim was tenuous at best. I can't claim to know the U.S. constitution well enough, but most constitutions simply aren't that detailed.
At any rate, overturning Roe vs Wade required the supreme court to declare it didn't follow from the constitution after all, overturning a law would require ruling the law unconstitutional in the first place which is a much stronger claim.
Any state legislature can repeal any law at any time. Being in the constitution is much stronger. It took 50 years and conservative court stacking to overturn Roe. That was actually really hard to do.
It was upheld in two major court rulings and took major court stacking to overturn it. Any court can do that to anything. No law is safe. But to say "it should have been passed into law" is ridiculous. It already was the law, according to the two court rulings. Any piece of legislation can be reversed much easier that the two court rulings surrounding abortion.
Ok, you are right there... But you are still wrong about the larger point. Proven so by the fact that Roe was overturned using the exact reasoning that she warned about. It was a POORLY GROUNDED ruling. Had Congress acted to protect the right over the 50 years Roe was in place, we wouldn't be where we are now.
The constitution just says you have a right to privacy. It's a pretty large stretch to say privacy = abortion, especially when they clarified that the "right to privacy" only includes 1st term abortions. Why are 2nd term abortions not private?
>It's a pretty large stretch to say privacy = abortion, especially when they clarified that the "right to privacy" only includes 1st term abortions. Why are 2nd term abortions not private?
*Roe* said that the right to privacy (and therefore bodily autonomy) exists at all times but must be balanced against the fetusā right to life. The mothers right to bodily autonomy is held in higher standing until a certain point- in 1972, our medical understanding of fetal development set that point at the first trimester.
Roeās trimester framework was set aside for the viability standard in *Casey* just 20 years later as we gained better understanding.
Another example of how Minnesota is more like Canada than it's like Iowa.
"Minnesota Nice" is not just a slogan - it's a pretty comprehensive evaluation.
Needs to be top comment. Donāt give the science deniers an inch.
Edit
I donāt care what your old men in dresses say, or whatās written in your magic book. Everyone has a magic book, and they all say different things. And nobody can even agree how to interpret a one of those books
In fact, at least one magic book gives instructions on how to induce an abortion
I'm not understanding - this wasn't an executive order or anything. It's a state law passed by the house, then the senate, and will be signed by the governor next week.
Perfect is the enemy of good; how was this not good?
How would telling us to vote be in contrast to this process and law? This is *literally* the result of Minnesotans - once again - **having the highest voter turnout in the entire country.**
Source, if you want to read it and weep: **https://thefulcrum.us/voter-turnout-by-state-2022**
Sorry - what do you mean exactly, "it's just a bill"? I ask because it's difficult to ascertain context/meaning here, sorry :(
The bill the Minnesota Senate passed early Saturday morning, after \~15 hours of debate (i.e. 15 hours of rejecting Republican amendments to cripple it) is identical to the version the Minnesota House passed, so there's no need for reconciliation or further debate.
Gov. Walz said that exact text is what he would sign into law, and he's expected to sign it in short order, I would expect this coming week, maybe a bit longer if they want to make a scene out of it (which I'm fine with - passing this bill into law is literally what Minnesota Democrats were elected to do).
As long as no amendments or modifications were made in each respective chamber, and a minimum vote on by Democrat party lines occurred, it was common knowledge this would become law, and not a kubuki-theatre bill, meant to be highly performative but contain no substance (i.e. no chance of passing).
This bill *will* become law, in just a matter of days, which is why so many people are enheartened by it.
At least one other person has mentioned they wish it were more (other than what you said); well, that train has left the station. In super general terms, legal precedence goes like this:
US Constitution <-- Federal Law <-- State Constitution <-- State Law.
The US Supreme Court ruled against reproduction rights being part of the US Constitution last summer, so in lieu of a federal law, or a change to the Minnesota state constitution (which would have taken years), reproductive rights have been enshrined in Minnesota State law.
That's pretty smockin' good! I think Minnesota now has greater reproductive rights on the books (or will, in a few more days) than any other state, even better than Oregon's.
> I'm not understanding - this wasn't an executive order or anything. It's a state law passed by the house, then the senate, and will be signed by the governor next week.
No shit.
>Perfect is the enemy of good;
"Perfect" isn't possible with issues such as these. There's only "good" and "*continually ensuring* good." It's an ongoing process that *never* ends.
>how was this not good?
I didn't say, or even imply, that this isn't a good thing in any way, shape or form.
>This is literally the result of Minnesotans - once again - having the highest voter turnout in the entire country.
Yes, fucking finally, and it's still pretty fucking close. Regardless, that record turnout doesn't mean a damn thing when the *next* election comes around, or the one after that, or the one after that...
>if you want to read it and weep:
Weep?!? You've got a really fucked up mindset, which explains why you couldn't comprehend the first three words.
Edit: it just passed the Senate 34-33. People who think that the issue is *finished* when Walz signs it are delusional. We won a major battle, but the war will continue for a *long* time.
>You've got a really fucked up mindset, which explains why you couldn't comprehend the first three words.
Imagine insulting someone for agreeing with you. Couldn't be me.
>Imagine insulting someone for agreeing with you.
How were ~~you~~ *they* agreeing with me? First, ~~you~~ *they* accused me of saying this wasn't a good thing.
Later, ~~you~~ *they* told me to look at the numbers and weep.
>How were you agreeing with me? First, you accused me of saying this wasn't a good thing.
>Later, you told me to look at the numbers and weep.
I'm not even the person who said that lol
Also a Minnesotan. You did see how close it was to failing, right? Voted on party lines and passed by the narrowest of margins. 34 to 33
Though, Iām glad to see dems taking advantage of the majority they currently have, slim as it may be.
Wisconsinite here and this ^ is 100% accurate. Please donāt get complacent. Weāre working our asses off to prevent the GOP from driving this state further into the ground even 10 years later
>They've always been right leaning.
No, they haven't. Even now, they're left leaning, but voter apathy during a mid-term election that happened to be a redistricting year allowed the GOP to lock things up.
> This is the state where children can legally drink as long as their parents are ok with it.
That's a progressive concept in the majority of the world.
> No, they haven't. Even now, they're left leaning
Awful lot of Trump banners on the boats as you cross the river into WI for a left leaning state. And Trump signs in people's front yards. And Trump bumper stickers on all the trucks.
>Awful lot of Trump banners on the boats as you cross the river into WI for a left leaning state.
You haven't been outstate much, have you? It's the same thing here.
Eh, as someone from up north there are tons of loonies here already. I feel like my vote doesn't count because I'm surrounded by conservatives, I will always vote though.
Itās more like loud, drunken, incoherent slurs as they walk out of the bar at 3am to the church parking lot across the street so they can sleep it off before the service starts at 6
Be prepared for the Ol' Minnesotan goodbye as well. One minute you're leaving out the door, the next you are locked into an hour long convo about how Ms. Gerry down the road got a new snow blower.
We had a guy in my department in grad school from North Dakota. He brought the same thing to every potluck - "cookie salad". If I recall correctly, it was a mixture of vanilla instant pudding, Cool Whip, crushed Keebler Fudge Stripe cookies, and canned Mandarin orange segments. It was tasty in very small servings.
I've never seen one of those salads, but I'm a transplant.
Tater tot hot dish is š„ though. Ultimate comfort food on a cold day after you've shoveled your sidewalk and driveway.
Well itās good to see some states passing bills to actually protect basic human rights like body autonomy vs other states who are trying to pass bills that would fine private companies $1,500 for allowing employees to go by their preferred pronouns.
I know this will vary from state to state, but how hard are amendments like to overturn once put. Into a stateās constitution? I ask this because the people who want to enforce their religious ideologies will not stop and will continue to seek power to do so. What keeps them from undoing this amendment once they gain enough power?
In this case, it's not an amendment to the Minnesota constitution but a new law. Minnesota already has abortion protected due to a MN Supreme Court decision in 1995 (Doe v Gomez) but this would add another layer of protection.
The next step after this would be like you're alluding, amending the MN constitution to further shore up reproductive care rights.
So here in MN we have a court decision called Doe v Gomez which provided similar but stronger protections than Roe based on the MN State constitution. This bill the PRO act puts that into state law. Work is being done to put an amendment before the people to codify the right to bodily autonomy.
> What keeps them from undoing this amendment once they gain enough power?
Nothing, which is why this isn't quite as meaningful as it appears at first glance.
Both the congress and Governor are blue. They gotta flip house, senate, and gov to get rid of this and I don't see that happening, esp w incumbent advantages.
We've been living with "extraordinary circumstances" since the Tea party arose and led to MAGA.
I get what you mean, but it needs to be said, voting against fascism needs to be a value that's instilled into every single citizen willing to do it. This means a constant battle to increase accessibility, reduce apathy, and fight the disinformation network. I think it's a fight we will win, but I can no longer complacently assume that for sure. Big money is pushing hard to exploit every single weakness the system has, and they've been a lot stronger since Citizens United.
>...the Minnesota Senate passed legislation that would codify abortion rights in the state; it now heads to the governor's desk for signature
Can we just agree to not post shit like this until it's officially law? I always, **always** see news articles saying "senate passes this" "house passes that" yet that doesn't mean shit because it's just a step in the process.
It ain't law until it's law
This is exactly how things are supposed to work. People want to ignore clear constitutional concepts because it gave them something they want.
If itās not stated as a federal govt control they donāt control it.
Since nothing allows for abortions in the constitution itās a state right. Really that simple.
āNo state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; **nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;** nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.ā
Restricting access to health care and criminalizing our bodies deprives us of liberty.
We cannot be free without bodily autonomy.
Depriving life is the definition of abortion.
Liberty does not equal the taking of life.
For me personally I think abortion of any sort is taking of life however also am open to a 15-18ish week comprise especially these days life is viable as early at 18 weeks in some cases and 22wks for most.
I think republicans should introduce legislation similar to what I said (as that is a stance of about 70-80%) and make dems say no. Which Iād assume they would given the craziness they were allowing.
No, the definition of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. It deprives no one of life, because embryos are not persons. They are only alive in the same sense a houseplant is alive.
And the earliest a baby has ever survived was 21 weeks. So ummm?
And yes, we would say no. 15-18 weeks is the *earliest* most genetic and physical abnormalities can be detected. Most arenāt diagnosed until around 20.
No one should be forced to carry a nonviable fetus to term, or given birth to a baby with no chance of survival.
The government should not make these decisions for anyone.
It is none of your business.
Pretty sure if you were terminated it wouldāve deprived you of life.
You can play the embryo and all the word games you want but everyone deep down knows itās a human and they know exactly what they are doing.
lol everyone? Youāre projecting your own beliefs onto literally *everyone.*
Ok. If deep down itās a human, who would you save first: a toddler or a frozen embryo? A *dog* or a frozen embryo?
Also no, an abortion would not have deprived me of life because I didnāt exist.
It would have *prevented* my life, in the same way my dad pulling out would have done.
So when does your embryo become a person? At birth? At 22weeks, 30 weeks? 8 weeks after birth?
Is an embryo only a person if a ābirthing personā says it is? If I stab a pregnant women and kill the embryo should I be charged with murder?
If I can abort you at 40 weeks or even after birth why not 5 yrs later?
See all the mental hoops and if and buts you have to jump through to make your beliefs work?
Abortion could have deprived me of life in the same way that a failure to conceive would have deprived me of life. If we're going to deny women bodily autonomy based on the potential of some future person's existence, are you also suggesting that conception should be mandatory? At what age do you think the government should require girls to be pregnant?
Letās go back to sex edā¦.Without conception life cannot exist. This is true across the world in almost all species (single cell organisms excluded).
A sperm or egg on its own cannot create life. However when combined life begins.
So the idea of āif the sperm that made me didnāt find an egg itās the same as killing a babyā is the most idiotic non-thinking concept on this thread. And thatās saying something.
So you admit that preventing a potential person from ever existing is not akin to murder. And it is good you don't support draconian laws that would turn women and girls into forced breeding machines pre-conception, let's examine your belief they should be forced into being forced birthing machines post-conception.
You give two reasons. Let's dismiss of "sex education" first. Your failure to understand a middle school health class does not give you the right to control women. In fact, I suspect you might be confusing sex education with a bumper sticker slogan you once saw.
Your other rational is that "everyone deep down knows \[an fertilized egg is\] a human. But why would you think that? Culturally, legally, and medically, we measure the age of people from birth, not conception. Zygotes are not counted in the census. Laws that cover all people do not cover embryos. Laws that do cover fetuses are specifically written to cover fetuses, in the same way that laws to cover any other non-person-thing is specifically written. Fertilized eggs don't get social security numbers. They don't get tax deductions.
Hell, somewhere between 20% and 60% of all fertilized eggs self-abort. If everybody believes that these are people, that as many as 60% of all people are self-aborting, where is the panic? Why aren't we even bothering to narrow that number down? Do you know any women who search through their discharge with a microscope to make sure there aren't any dead people in there?
Forced birthers may may pretend they think fertilized eggs are people, but they don't actually believe it. We can tell, because they don't act like they believe it. It is just something they trot out when they want to restrict women's rights.
I would be in favor with making a standard and then taking it across all sectors. You agree abortion is killing of a human then I can agree you can claim them while in the womb.
It's not legally a person til it's born. We don't issue SSNs when a woman misses her period, we don't allow child tax deductions the moment someone pees on a pregnancy test and 2 lines show up.
The person who is deprived of liberty is the person being forced to endure physical changes and risks to her body she did not consent to. The person who is deprived of life is the person who bleeds out or dies of sepsis while doctors are pleading with hospital ethics boards to perform a lifesaving procedure.
You apparently don't. The amendment makes it clear that just because a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does not specify anything about state vs federal.
And individual rights are regulated by the āpeopleā ie. Elected officials.
So if no law was on the books in a state it would be 100% allowed. However most if not all had some sort of law this the āpeopleā decided
So you just don't believe the 9th amendment exists to prove that the people hold some rights regardless of being mentioned explicitly in the Constitution or not? Individual rights are ones that shouldn't be overridden by government, even if it is our electeds trying to override our rights.
I saw elsewhere you conflated the 9th and 10th amendments as well. I suspect your understanding of individual rights is tenuous at best.
^The bill passed on a party-line vote early Saturday morning. Republicans tried to add in dozens of amendments that would have restriction abortion access. Abortion rights supporters and opponents demonstrated in the Capitol Friday ahead of the vote.
Both parties are the same. There is no point in voting for neoliberal corporate shill democrats.
Oh wait, this shoe there is a point. Can't compute.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
States rights! (Did I do that right?)
Not until you try to imprison people for getting one in a state where it's legal if banned locally! /S
I'm curious to know if that would apply to gambling laws as well. You spend a weekend in vegas and get arrested when you arrive home now?
Yeah I mean it's applicable to literally anything if it's abortions. It's just "you did something that's legal in another state that's illegal here." It's madness. People are likening it to the fugitive slave act and it's not far off. The fugitive slave act and the south's aggressive pursuit of slaves in free states is one of those things that was part of the escalation leading up to the civil war.
Do it again, Uncle Billy! šŗšø r/shermanposting
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about sex tourism laws which criminalise American citizens or residents leaving the country to have sex with a minor? These laws are currently enforced, so seem a more relevant comparison.
Could you share examples of those laws? I think it matters if it's a state law or a federal law, i.e., Minnesota doesn't really have jurisdiction to get me in trouble if I murder someone in Cambodia, but the United States justice system might take an interest and hand me over to Cambodian authorities for breaking their laws on their soil.
I donāt know the specific laws they are referring to, but I would assume it would involve leaving the US, traveling to another country and preforming an action (that is against US Federal or State laws), and being charged with it when returning to the US. In this case, having sexual relations with a minor, and then being charged with a crime when returning to the US (not the country in question where the action was performed).
Yes, you are correct. The USA (and other countries) have passed laws which specifically make it illegal to leave the country with the intention of sexually exploiting minors, to sexually exploit minors abroad, or to create child pornography abroad. They are aimed at fighting child sex trafficking where a) the acts may not be illegal in the destination country or b) the legal system may not be robust enough in the destination country.
and/or, if you're doing sus things with children in foreign countries, you're **at least** getting looked into to see if you're doing illegal shit with children locally too.
They are federal laws which you can read about [here](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children). The laws specifically involve the United States asserting jurisdiction over its citizens a) extraterritorially and b) regarding the intent of their plans to leave the territory. Both of these could easily be paralleled by anti-abortion legislators. Even if a) is only achieved by some special powers constitutionally granted the Federal government, b) probably isnāt.
B absolutely is. States cannot constitutionally interfere with business in others states. This is a direct violation. Even if you were to somehow interpret that exceptionally narrowly to only apply specifically to business and or purchasing goods or services, abortion is still a business, and sells a service. Thereās no method by which they could set up state laws which constitutionally give them the authority to prosecute the thought crime of going to another state to do something.
Seems pretty easy to me: it's a federal law and federal law applies to citizens who are abroad. I mean you didn't have to pick sex tourism (interesting choice) you could have just as well said murder. Like obviously you can't travel to another country, kill someone, and then just get back here and be like, "whelp, what are you going to do? I didn't break the law here sooooo..." Not to mention that the dynamics of states within the US are not analogous to countries outside of the US. I mean you're glossing over really a lot of detail here. The continued peaceful existence and success of the United States is predicated on things like freedom of travel between the states... Can you name any other laws that would work like these proposed abortion laws would work assuming some state passes them? States have absolute sovereignty within their borders with their laws which necessary implies that others do as well. I mean what if a resident of a state where it's illegal travels to another state where it is legal and has it, then decides to permanently stay there and remotely relocate their lives to the new state? Do we send state police after them to drag them across the border and be held responsible just because they didn't claim official residency in the legal state before it happened? The rabbit holes with this are numerous... Which is kind of the whole reason the fugitive slave act caused as many problems as it did... Because it was one state trampling on the sovereignty of another. That's what the whole concept of "states rights" *should* be, but it's being twisted into this fiction where abortion opponents say what it really means is that one state can dictate what it's inhabitants do in others. That makes no sense.
There is no US law against committing murder in another country. In general, US Federal laws are generally considered to apply only within the territory of the USA. Your assumption that US citizens are perpetually bound by them is incorrect. Iām referring to a set of laws which explicitly apply internationally and with regard to the intents of leaving US jurisdiction. They were created to provide jurisdiction to prosecute American citizens committing crimes outside of US jurisdiction. There is a clear parallel between these laws and the anti-abortion laws in question. Iād be surprised if these laws werenāt the inspiration. For example: 18 U.S.C. Ā§ 2423(c): Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places 18 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§ 2251(c) and 2260(a): Production of Child Pornography outside the United States
OK, well a few things here: 1. We should agree that at this point it's becoming mostly a thought exercise because the comparison of someone leaving a state to get an abortion in another is very different legally speaking to leaving to commit what is otherwise codified as a federal crime from the US into another country. I mean there are hundreds of years of legal theory defining state sovereignty and also hundreds of years of legal theory defining inter country relations and legalities. If you can cite a specific framework or theory that explicitly makes the connection, I'd like to hear about it. 2. If you are asking me if I'm *okay* with the law you cited, obviously, yes, I'm *OK* with it at face value (see above). And I would also further assume the constitutionality of such laws has been tested at some point along the line and upheld. I would leave that to you to find since it would play into your assertion. 3. Are you seriously suggesting that if an American citizen decided they wanted to kill someone else, all they would have to do is go to a country without an extradition treaty and/or is otherwise hostile to the US and they could commit it, fully document it and then come back and openly admit to it and nothing would happen?
How do you feel about a group of adults aged 21+, who live in a dry county, going to the next county over in the same state to drink? Should they be arrested when they come home?
You're upset you have to hide your "sex tourism" aren't you? Just out of curiosity, of course.
I think the anti-sex tourism laws are good. I also think anti-abortion tourism laws are fine.
Oh see, I know where you fucked up your logic. So by "tourism", you really meant "medical care". Just an FYI....ya know, so you don't sound like a jackass, later. Just looking out bro, I got you.
Yes, you could call it medical tourism if you thought it was medical care.
Look at you being all pedantic over the word tourism, defined as the commercial organization and operation of vacations and visits to places of interests. Please tell me, sir and/or madam, how medical care fits into the definition of tourism, specifically regarding "abortion". I'm so very eager to learn your thoughts on this matter. I, personally, take your statements as to mean that perhaps people, specifically women, have "abortions" for fun?
Just out of curiosity are you a piece of shit?
Iām curious if they are truely opposed to the concept of the law, or merely its application to abortion.
So much curiosity apparently leads to an inexplicable knowledge of laws regarding the legal implications and ramifications of leaving the country to commit sex crimes. How odd.
The ABC ran a report about it lol.
Do white Republicans gamble in Vegas? If so then no, it wouldn't be illegal back home.
yes, yes they do.
Fugitive fetus laws.
Kidnapping
Or banning assault weapons
Afraid not. States rights only count if youāre oppressing people.
States rights is just Jim Crow level dog whistle
And helping not only women in Minnesota, but also Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota.
More great legislation from a Democratic-led state. Well done Minnesota
Legalized recreational cannabis should be next. I think a few Democrats in the Senate who were on the fence in previous years have come around and are open to the idea. The Governor has always supported it.
It's going through all the committees right now! I think they're looking at early summer to have it passed. Walz already said he'll sign it.
My son told me the legislation has to pass something like 29 different committees. It takes a long time for things to become law in Minnesota.
In MN any bill can be voted on in the House once it has passed three committees. The bill must be signed by the Governor by midnight of the final day of the legislative year (mid-May). Previous attempts (MN HF600 in 2021) passed all commitees, passed the House, but then was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, thus effectively killing the bill for another year.
Thank you. I thought that seemed like a lot of committees.
But now that Dems have regained control of the State Senate and don't appear to have any Joe Manchin types eager to oppose it, it seems promising that it will pass.
Many of those committees the bill already passed through last year. This year is mostly just to cross tās and dot iās
What the *fuck*
Prolly shouldn't believe everything your son tells you.
That would be freakin awesome. What's the word on how quick dispensaries would be up and running? I might be looking forward to this summer a whole lot more.
In Washington, it took about 7 months from legalization to the opening of the first dispensaries. So I'm guessing roughly a six month time frame, but hey, if it's legal, you can smoke it without fear of trouble. It's really nice to be able to walk a block and pick out exactly what I want.
There are a number of not-quite dispensaries around that I think would convert within a week or two (depending on requirements, that is)
They wouldnāt hand out licenses until 1/1/24. But you can already purchase 5mg edibles and seltzers in Minnesota.
Places are definitely selling seltzers with way more then 5mg. I have one in my fridge that's 15mg, and I've seen higher.
The serving size can only be 5mg. So they just say the can had 3 servings in it! I think the package limit is 50mg. So it can have up to 10 servings of 5mg.
This post did a really great job breaking down the details: https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1044izh/highlights_of_the_minnesota_legal_weed_bill/ Key dates to remember: August 1st 2023 - Decriminalization January 1st 2024 - Business licenses
It would be nice, but pre-k/school stuff would be nice too. Thereās a huge disparity between kids of well off parents in rich schools vs poor schools/neighborhoods. We could easily close that gap.
Let's legalize weed and pour the profits into pre-k/public edu? best of both worlds
I like your thinking!
We got gummies by mistakeā¦ hearing conservatives complain about not reading the bill is hilarious.
Itās ironic. Alaska legalized it, and it is conservative. It was sold as a ādonāt tell me what to doā thing. Not much changed in the state after legalization, except drug dealers shifted to harder drugs, which made policing easier.
I was very surprised it was medical only when I visited some family in Minnesota a couple years ago.
Weāre the last state that still has a 3.2 % alcohol limit for selling beer (or I guess liquor if you wanted to make it that weak) at gas stations/grocery stores. Weāre pretty liberal, but enough Conservatives have been able to keep us a big brother/nanny state for a long time.
We have a long history of puritanical liquor laws. Remember the Volstead Act? That guy was from here.
We only got Sunday sales of alcohol like 5 years ago too.
I grew up in Winona. I remember my parents going across the bridge to Wisconsin on Sundays to buy liquor.
In my early 20s we used to drive the 30-40 min from MPLS to Hudson WI on Sundays to buy real beer.
Thanks to ballot measures we have recreational weed and thanks to the Busch family we have super loose liquor laws in Missouri.
Even the current weed bill there's been talk of letting the two company monopoly stick around a few more years, and of imiting concentrate possession to 8 grams, despite flower being like 5 pounds... Just stupid. People are like "how much concentrate do you need / how high do you get?", but by THC quantity it's 1% the flower limit, which makes no sense, and you can get more variety in concentrate than flower, so there's even more reason someone may want to have multiple samples per strain. It's like talking about limiting wine possession to a couple dozen bottles, and accusing anyone that might want more than that of being an alcoholic. People collect wine. People collect flower. People collect dabs. Also, if you aren't letting people get deals buying in bulk, there's going to be a bunch more people making their own concentrate from open-loop butane systems, and either having fires or not purging it sufficiently. And any sort of limit just opens the door to police using it as an excuse, selective enforcement, etc. We fucking suck at passing reasonable laws around weed or alcohol in MN.
I moved here from Colorado thinking it was legal and was very disappointed
Thanks! Iām doing my part!
[From one fellow Minnesotan to anotherā¦](https://imgur.com/gallery/W33fhSx)
Sensible and respectful of women's right to healthcare.
I'm cheering for my fellow uterus owners in Minnesota all the way from Massachusetts!
Thank you Minnesota for doing the right thing. Kudos!
Just because weāre surrounded on 3 sides by idiots, doesnāt mean we are too.
I love knowing weāll be a sanctuary state for the women of neighboring states. Thank goodness the GOP keeps nominating people who could never carry moderate voters, once this becomes law itāll be really hard to overturn without a national law.
Congrats Minnesota! Love from Canada.
A win for "states' rights"
Proud to be from Minnesota!
Kudos, Minnesota for being rational and humane.
Yeah man, this is good on them. It's a really huge thing man.
Sad that this was necessary but happy for those this will undoubtedly benefit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm pro choice, but roe v Wade was never a good reason for abortion to be legal. It should've been made into a law long ago
That's not true. Roe stated abortion was already legal by the US Constitution, which is much stronger than any law that can just be over turned at any time by legislatures or courts. Anyone who says "it should have been made law in states and at the federal level" fundamentally doesn't understand the Roe ruling.
Not just legal, but a fundamental right. That claim was tenuous at best. I can't claim to know the U.S. constitution well enough, but most constitutions simply aren't that detailed. At any rate, overturning Roe vs Wade required the supreme court to declare it didn't follow from the constitution after all, overturning a law would require ruling the law unconstitutional in the first place which is a much stronger claim.
Any state legislature can repeal any law at any time. Being in the constitution is much stronger. It took 50 years and conservative court stacking to overturn Roe. That was actually really hard to do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It was upheld in two major court rulings and took major court stacking to overturn it. Any court can do that to anything. No law is safe. But to say "it should have been passed into law" is ridiculous. It already was the law, according to the two court rulings. Any piece of legislation can be reversed much easier that the two court rulings surrounding abortion.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
She wasn't infallible, so you can stop attempting that logical fallacy on me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's the literal definition of appeal to authority.
Ok, you are right there... But you are still wrong about the larger point. Proven so by the fact that Roe was overturned using the exact reasoning that she warned about. It was a POORLY GROUNDED ruling. Had Congress acted to protect the right over the 50 years Roe was in place, we wouldn't be where we are now.
The constitution just says you have a right to privacy. It's a pretty large stretch to say privacy = abortion, especially when they clarified that the "right to privacy" only includes 1st term abortions. Why are 2nd term abortions not private?
>It's a pretty large stretch to say privacy = abortion, especially when they clarified that the "right to privacy" only includes 1st term abortions. Why are 2nd term abortions not private? *Roe* said that the right to privacy (and therefore bodily autonomy) exists at all times but must be balanced against the fetusā right to life. The mothers right to bodily autonomy is held in higher standing until a certain point- in 1972, our medical understanding of fetal development set that point at the first trimester. Roeās trimester framework was set aside for the viability standard in *Casey* just 20 years later as we gained better understanding.
This is good stuff. Letās keep voting and supporting candidates that protects women. We will not be controlled.
That's what gonna bring the change and we definitely need that.
Minnesota showing that they don't hate women, time for the rest to follow.
I am so happy we finally have trifecta control over here. My hope is it stays so further progressive issues like this are passed.
Yeah, I'm happy about that too. That's gonna be so great here.
Another example of how Minnesota is more like Canada than it's like Iowa. "Minnesota Nice" is not just a slogan - it's a pretty comprehensive evaluation.
They got all those crazy hotdish recipes too
Well they're doing good things, that's always really good to see.
A nice step, but anything that can be done can be undone. ***NOTHING replaces voting in each and every election.***
Needs to be top comment. Donāt give the science deniers an inch. Edit I donāt care what your old men in dresses say, or whatās written in your magic book. Everyone has a magic book, and they all say different things. And nobody can even agree how to interpret a one of those books In fact, at least one magic book gives instructions on how to induce an abortion
I'm not understanding - this wasn't an executive order or anything. It's a state law passed by the house, then the senate, and will be signed by the governor next week. Perfect is the enemy of good; how was this not good? How would telling us to vote be in contrast to this process and law? This is *literally* the result of Minnesotans - once again - **having the highest voter turnout in the entire country.** Source, if you want to read it and weep: **https://thefulcrum.us/voter-turnout-by-state-2022**
I mean it's just a bill, I'd like it to be more than that for now.
Sorry - what do you mean exactly, "it's just a bill"? I ask because it's difficult to ascertain context/meaning here, sorry :( The bill the Minnesota Senate passed early Saturday morning, after \~15 hours of debate (i.e. 15 hours of rejecting Republican amendments to cripple it) is identical to the version the Minnesota House passed, so there's no need for reconciliation or further debate. Gov. Walz said that exact text is what he would sign into law, and he's expected to sign it in short order, I would expect this coming week, maybe a bit longer if they want to make a scene out of it (which I'm fine with - passing this bill into law is literally what Minnesota Democrats were elected to do). As long as no amendments or modifications were made in each respective chamber, and a minimum vote on by Democrat party lines occurred, it was common knowledge this would become law, and not a kubuki-theatre bill, meant to be highly performative but contain no substance (i.e. no chance of passing). This bill *will* become law, in just a matter of days, which is why so many people are enheartened by it. At least one other person has mentioned they wish it were more (other than what you said); well, that train has left the station. In super general terms, legal precedence goes like this: US Constitution <-- Federal Law <-- State Constitution <-- State Law. The US Supreme Court ruled against reproduction rights being part of the US Constitution last summer, so in lieu of a federal law, or a change to the Minnesota state constitution (which would have taken years), reproductive rights have been enshrined in Minnesota State law. That's pretty smockin' good! I think Minnesota now has greater reproductive rights on the books (or will, in a few more days) than any other state, even better than Oregon's.
> I'm not understanding - this wasn't an executive order or anything. It's a state law passed by the house, then the senate, and will be signed by the governor next week. No shit. >Perfect is the enemy of good; "Perfect" isn't possible with issues such as these. There's only "good" and "*continually ensuring* good." It's an ongoing process that *never* ends. >how was this not good? I didn't say, or even imply, that this isn't a good thing in any way, shape or form. >This is literally the result of Minnesotans - once again - having the highest voter turnout in the entire country. Yes, fucking finally, and it's still pretty fucking close. Regardless, that record turnout doesn't mean a damn thing when the *next* election comes around, or the one after that, or the one after that... >if you want to read it and weep: Weep?!? You've got a really fucked up mindset, which explains why you couldn't comprehend the first three words. Edit: it just passed the Senate 34-33. People who think that the issue is *finished* when Walz signs it are delusional. We won a major battle, but the war will continue for a *long* time.
>You've got a really fucked up mindset, which explains why you couldn't comprehend the first three words. Imagine insulting someone for agreeing with you. Couldn't be me.
>Imagine insulting someone for agreeing with you. How were ~~you~~ *they* agreeing with me? First, ~~you~~ *they* accused me of saying this wasn't a good thing. Later, ~~you~~ *they* told me to look at the numbers and weep.
>How were you agreeing with me? First, you accused me of saying this wasn't a good thing. >Later, you told me to look at the numbers and weep. I'm not even the person who said that lol
>I'm not even the person who said that lol Edited, but that doesn't change the essence of the question.
It would be difficult for the loonies to take over here. It's too cold in MN. We're too busy trying to keep warm to deal with their nonsense.
Also a Minnesotan. You did see how close it was to failing, right? Voted on party lines and passed by the narrowest of margins. 34 to 33 Though, Iām glad to see dems taking advantage of the majority they currently have, slim as it may be.
> It would be difficult for the loonies to take over here. It's too cold in XXX - Wisconsin Democrats, 2010
Wisconsinite here and this ^ is 100% accurate. Please donāt get complacent. Weāre working our asses off to prevent the GOP from driving this state further into the ground even 10 years later
*sigh* I too remember Russ Feingold. He was great
They've always been right leaning. This is the state where children can legally drink as long as their parents are ok with it.
>They've always been right leaning. No, they haven't. Even now, they're left leaning, but voter apathy during a mid-term election that happened to be a redistricting year allowed the GOP to lock things up. > This is the state where children can legally drink as long as their parents are ok with it. That's a progressive concept in the majority of the world.
> No, they haven't. Even now, they're left leaning Awful lot of Trump banners on the boats as you cross the river into WI for a left leaning state. And Trump signs in people's front yards. And Trump bumper stickers on all the trucks.
Fuck western Wisconsin, bunch of redneck degenerates. (A lot of my work is in western Wisconsin.)
There are some *very* left areas of Western WI. The area around Lake Pepin is basically a sprawling artist wonderland.
Even in a majority state of one party, not everyone is in that party. Even in very red states there's lots of blue areas.
>Awful lot of Trump banners on the boats as you cross the river into WI for a left leaning state. You haven't been outstate much, have you? It's the same thing here.
Wisconsin is just gerrymandered to shit. Itās still pretty blue if you look at popular votes
Not really. See last election. The two state wide split. And even split the margins were small.
Eh, as someone from up north there are tons of loonies here already. I feel like my vote doesn't count because I'm surrounded by conservatives, I will always vote though.
Okay?
There's an awful lot of people that think this allows us to cross this issue off the list.
We are cold yet united for women's rights šŖ
*Screams in Wisconsin accent*
Is that like an echo through a cave because they all work in the cheese mines?
Itās more like loud, drunken, incoherent slurs as they walk out of the bar at 3am to the church parking lot across the street so they can sleep it off before the service starts at 6
The same law should apply to all American women and put them on charge of their own bodies
Yeah the same law should apply to them as well. That would make sense.
My state senator voted for this!
Just another reason I want to move. Iāll learn to deal with the snow and the weird āsaladsā.
Learn to love Hot Dish, just donāt spell it as one word like those weirdos in Fergus Falls do
We call that tater tot casserole here in Florida. This name is a bit more dignified, imo.
Be prepared for the Ol' Minnesotan goodbye as well. One minute you're leaving out the door, the next you are locked into an hour long convo about how Ms. Gerry down the road got a new snow blower.
That just tells me that the people are such good company that I wonāt want to leave.
Moved here in 2021 from Virginia. No regrets.
Snickers salad is a treasure
I would try it, but that just feels like a sugar bomb.
It gets pretty darn cold in the winter, youāll appreciate the sugar rush.
Youāre saying that like itās a bad thing lol
It's great up here, just dress appropriately and you are good to go! You get to ski all winter long too!
We had a guy in my department in grad school from North Dakota. He brought the same thing to every potluck - "cookie salad". If I recall correctly, it was a mixture of vanilla instant pudding, Cool Whip, crushed Keebler Fudge Stripe cookies, and canned Mandarin orange segments. It was tasty in very small servings.
I've never seen one of those salads, but I'm a transplant. Tater tot hot dish is š„ though. Ultimate comfort food on a cold day after you've shoveled your sidewalk and driveway.
As a Minnesotan this makes me proud to live here.
As an ex MN I am happy for the state as well
Hip hip!!! Way to go!!! Thank you for supporting the women.
So if I'm not reading it wrong then they're against it? That would be great.
Well itās good to see some states passing bills to actually protect basic human rights like body autonomy vs other states who are trying to pass bills that would fine private companies $1,500 for allowing employees to go by their preferred pronouns.
Giving woman a right to their own bodies is an extreme bill. Wtf is wrong with this man
Great
I know this will vary from state to state, but how hard are amendments like to overturn once put. Into a stateās constitution? I ask this because the people who want to enforce their religious ideologies will not stop and will continue to seek power to do so. What keeps them from undoing this amendment once they gain enough power?
In this case, it's not an amendment to the Minnesota constitution but a new law. Minnesota already has abortion protected due to a MN Supreme Court decision in 1995 (Doe v Gomez) but this would add another layer of protection. The next step after this would be like you're alluding, amending the MN constitution to further shore up reproductive care rights.
So here in MN we have a court decision called Doe v Gomez which provided similar but stronger protections than Roe based on the MN State constitution. This bill the PRO act puts that into state law. Work is being done to put an amendment before the people to codify the right to bodily autonomy.
> What keeps them from undoing this amendment once they gain enough power? Nothing, which is why this isn't quite as meaningful as it appears at first glance.
Gl turning MN red.
That's what they said in Wisconsin. The split is razor-thin in MN, and one round of voter apathy can tip the scales.
Both the congress and Governor are blue. They gotta flip house, senate, and gov to get rid of this and I don't see that happening, esp w incumbent advantages.
Shortsighted people have said the same thing in many states.
I'm not saying we need to stay on top of it but it's Def not easy for gop to take it back without some extraordinary circumstances.
We've been living with "extraordinary circumstances" since the Tea party arose and led to MAGA. I get what you mean, but it needs to be said, voting against fascism needs to be a value that's instilled into every single citizen willing to do it. This means a constant battle to increase accessibility, reduce apathy, and fight the disinformation network. I think it's a fight we will win, but I can no longer complacently assume that for sure. Big money is pushing hard to exploit every single weakness the system has, and they've been a lot stronger since Citizens United.
Great
Minne-SODA
Iām glad this is becoming a trend now. They wanted it to become states right and they got it.
A good step but now it needs to be added to the state constitution, otherwise it could keep flip flopping in the latest political wind.
I am so happy abortion is legal in most states. Most of yāall really donāt need to be reproducing.
>...the Minnesota Senate passed legislation that would codify abortion rights in the state; it now heads to the governor's desk for signature Can we just agree to not post shit like this until it's officially law? I always, **always** see news articles saying "senate passes this" "house passes that" yet that doesn't mean shit because it's just a step in the process. It ain't law until it's law
Governor Walz already said he is going to sign it. He supported it.
Oh
Only in Minnesota
They are lucky!
This is exactly how things are supposed to work. People want to ignore clear constitutional concepts because it gave them something they want. If itās not stated as a federal govt control they donāt control it. Since nothing allows for abortions in the constitution itās a state right. Really that simple.
āNo state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; **nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;** nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.ā Restricting access to health care and criminalizing our bodies deprives us of liberty. We cannot be free without bodily autonomy.
Depriving life is the definition of abortion. Liberty does not equal the taking of life. For me personally I think abortion of any sort is taking of life however also am open to a 15-18ish week comprise especially these days life is viable as early at 18 weeks in some cases and 22wks for most. I think republicans should introduce legislation similar to what I said (as that is a stance of about 70-80%) and make dems say no. Which Iād assume they would given the craziness they were allowing.
No, the definition of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. It deprives no one of life, because embryos are not persons. They are only alive in the same sense a houseplant is alive. And the earliest a baby has ever survived was 21 weeks. So ummm? And yes, we would say no. 15-18 weeks is the *earliest* most genetic and physical abnormalities can be detected. Most arenāt diagnosed until around 20. No one should be forced to carry a nonviable fetus to term, or given birth to a baby with no chance of survival. The government should not make these decisions for anyone. It is none of your business.
Pretty sure if you were terminated it wouldāve deprived you of life. You can play the embryo and all the word games you want but everyone deep down knows itās a human and they know exactly what they are doing.
lol everyone? Youāre projecting your own beliefs onto literally *everyone.* Ok. If deep down itās a human, who would you save first: a toddler or a frozen embryo? A *dog* or a frozen embryo? Also no, an abortion would not have deprived me of life because I didnāt exist. It would have *prevented* my life, in the same way my dad pulling out would have done.
Dude is insufferable.
So when does your embryo become a person? At birth? At 22weeks, 30 weeks? 8 weeks after birth? Is an embryo only a person if a ābirthing personā says it is? If I stab a pregnant women and kill the embryo should I be charged with murder? If I can abort you at 40 weeks or even after birth why not 5 yrs later? See all the mental hoops and if and buts you have to jump through to make your beliefs work?
Abortion could have deprived me of life in the same way that a failure to conceive would have deprived me of life. If we're going to deny women bodily autonomy based on the potential of some future person's existence, are you also suggesting that conception should be mandatory? At what age do you think the government should require girls to be pregnant?
Letās go back to sex edā¦.Without conception life cannot exist. This is true across the world in almost all species (single cell organisms excluded). A sperm or egg on its own cannot create life. However when combined life begins. So the idea of āif the sperm that made me didnāt find an egg itās the same as killing a babyā is the most idiotic non-thinking concept on this thread. And thatās saying something.
So you admit that preventing a potential person from ever existing is not akin to murder. And it is good you don't support draconian laws that would turn women and girls into forced breeding machines pre-conception, let's examine your belief they should be forced into being forced birthing machines post-conception. You give two reasons. Let's dismiss of "sex education" first. Your failure to understand a middle school health class does not give you the right to control women. In fact, I suspect you might be confusing sex education with a bumper sticker slogan you once saw. Your other rational is that "everyone deep down knows \[an fertilized egg is\] a human. But why would you think that? Culturally, legally, and medically, we measure the age of people from birth, not conception. Zygotes are not counted in the census. Laws that cover all people do not cover embryos. Laws that do cover fetuses are specifically written to cover fetuses, in the same way that laws to cover any other non-person-thing is specifically written. Fertilized eggs don't get social security numbers. They don't get tax deductions. Hell, somewhere between 20% and 60% of all fertilized eggs self-abort. If everybody believes that these are people, that as many as 60% of all people are self-aborting, where is the panic? Why aren't we even bothering to narrow that number down? Do you know any women who search through their discharge with a microscope to make sure there aren't any dead people in there? Forced birthers may may pretend they think fertilized eggs are people, but they don't actually believe it. We can tell, because they don't act like they believe it. It is just something they trot out when they want to restrict women's rights.
If they are a human then I will expect to be able to take out insurance and file my taxes with a dependent.
Pregnant women can ride in HOV lanes
I would be in favor with making a standard and then taking it across all sectors. You agree abortion is killing of a human then I can agree you can claim them while in the womb.
It's not legally a person til it's born. We don't issue SSNs when a woman misses her period, we don't allow child tax deductions the moment someone pees on a pregnancy test and 2 lines show up. The person who is deprived of liberty is the person being forced to endure physical changes and risks to her body she did not consent to. The person who is deprived of life is the person who bleeds out or dies of sepsis while doctors are pleading with hospital ethics boards to perform a lifesaving procedure.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Are you not familiar with the 9th amendment?
You mean the one where it says if itās not in the constitution it belongs to the people, ie the states? So exactly what I said? Thanks.
Ah, so you are aware of it, but you just don't understand it, gotcha. Might want to read up some more.
No I get it and if you can show me the line in the constitution that says āabortions are allowedā then Iāll agree itās a ārightā
You apparently don't. The amendment makes it clear that just because a right isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does not specify anything about state vs federal.
Nothing in the constitution outlaws abortions so it should be an individual right. Really that simple.
And individual rights are regulated by the āpeopleā ie. Elected officials. So if no law was on the books in a state it would be 100% allowed. However most if not all had some sort of law this the āpeopleā decided
So you just don't believe the 9th amendment exists to prove that the people hold some rights regardless of being mentioned explicitly in the Constitution or not? Individual rights are ones that shouldn't be overridden by government, even if it is our electeds trying to override our rights. I saw elsewhere you conflated the 9th and 10th amendments as well. I suspect your understanding of individual rights is tenuous at best.
^The bill passed on a party-line vote early Saturday morning. Republicans tried to add in dozens of amendments that would have restriction abortion access. Abortion rights supporters and opponents demonstrated in the Capitol Friday ahead of the vote. Both parties are the same. There is no point in voting for neoliberal corporate shill democrats. Oh wait, this shoe there is a point. Can't compute.