this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
300 points (99.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3233 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I see your point, but to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is as stupid as holocaust deniers.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

From how I read the comment above yours, it doesn't imply the civil war wasn't about slavery.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 9 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.

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Reminder that the Civil War wasn't because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.

He implied it wasn't.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 0 points 9 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 -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's also factually incorrect, since the Feds specifically implemented a law mandating that Northern states return slaves.

[–] StinkyOnions@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Yep, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which was part of the 1850 Compromise.