Tennessee Republican files 'abortion trafficking' bill for pregnant minors - eviltoast

A Tennessee Republican hopes to establish an “abortion trafficking” felony for adults who help pregnant minors get an out-of-state abortion without parental permission, an effort reproductive health advocates argue will run afoul of constitutional rights such as interstate travel.

Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, filed House Bill 1895 on Monday. The legislation would establish a new Class C felony, which could carry three to 15 years in prison, for an adult that “recruits, harbors or transports” a pregnant minor for the purposes of receiving an out-of-state abortion or for getting abortion medication.

    • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I guess it’s in how you read it. I don’t read it as such. Edit: maybe it’s because I take the entire comment into consideration instead of just one line in the entire comment.

    • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Only if you stop reading after the first sentence. They only implied that the war wasn’t fought over abolition, not that it wasn’t about slavery.

      The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn’t force another state to follow their state laws.

      The above clearly implies that slavery, and how it was enforced by federal law, was the reason the civil war was started.

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

      No they didn’t. At all. They said it wasn’t about BANNING slavery, not that it wasn’t about slavery in general. They very specifically said it was about southern states wanting to force northern states to return slaves when those states disn’t even have legal slavery.

      It was still about slavery and “states rights” even in what they said, just not the south reeing about a national ban - at first.

      That’s the entire fucking reason the “states rights” argument has ANY air, because it DID start as a despute on how far a state’s laws went. That doesn’t mean it was magically not all revolving around slavery.