NEW ORDINANCES WOULD BAN DRIVING THROUGH CITIES AND COUNTIES EN ROUTE TO ABORTION CARE
abc13.com
Yup, boarder towns in red states are going to start stopping women as they travel through their towns to make sure they aren't pregnant.
Yup, boarder towns in red states are going to start stopping women as they travel through their towns to make sure they aren't pregnant.
Lol just remember that all people that vote Republican support this.
"Under His Eye."
May the Lord open. 🤮
most republican voters don't even know what tf they're supporting through their votes, other than their personal trigger issue. they just vote for the R.
That’s not even close to a valid excuse.
It's not, you're right, but it's how it is for them.
You are so depressingly right. My father is very pro-choice, but once Trump happened, he stopped giving a shit about anything other than getting Trump back in office and/or making sure no Democrats are elected ever again. He has no idea what is actually going on other than what fox and Newsmax tell him, and he doesn't care.
He's the only family I have, and to see him like this now has just destroyed a part of me.
I lost my mother. She was always an idiot when it came to politics, but my step-father was progressive and toned her down a lot. He died and she married a reactionary and now she's a die-hard Trumper alternative-facts maniac. I hardly talk to her any more - I hope it was worth it for her.
Me too. I love my father, he is an amazing dad and always helped me when I needed anything, anything at all.
But the last few years every single conversation ends up in politics. He just talks about how Trump is the most amazing thing that ever happened to the states, and that he waits for him to get back into the office once again because he was the best president ever.
If I tried to object he would yell at me for being wrong, so nowadays I just silently stare at him until the subject changes.
Sad to say, but that’s exactly how fascism succeeds. Ordinary Germans didn’t necessarily know or care what the Nazis were doing, but they were creating jobs and igniting patriotic passion in society, and that was all many cared to know.
That’s why regular people were forced to walk through liberated camps to witness what their tacit support had wrought, and why the allies recorded it so we could witness it now. Because fascism doesn’t succeed chiefly by the actions of fascists, but through the inaction of the barely engaged masses.
“I took your rights away through intentional ignorance, not malice.”
Well, it does not sound good no matter how you put it.
That's no excuse.
Of course. Anything else would be Big Government Overreach.
Remember
kidsadults dangerously close to popping out unwanted kids, Don't talk to the policeYou ain't gotta tell them where you're going, what you're doing, or why you're there. You get pulled over, hand them what they ask for and keep your mouth shut
This applies to EVERYONE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Every day is shut the fuck up friday.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
"I decline to answer any questions without an attorney present."
"I do not consent to any search."
Tattoo those sentences on the inside of your eyelids.
The "hand them what they ask for" is important in Texas. It used to be legal to refuse to present ID unless you were being detained. As of the 1st, that's now a crime.
Woah seriously?
The "papers please" phrase has been a hyperbolic meme as the prime example of fascism, and Texas just put that into law?!
How is this not a fourth amendment violation?
Multiple states now have a mandatory ID law where if police stop you you must provide identification (technically the police need to have a reasonable suspicion you may have committed a crime, but that's a super low bar to pass). You don't necessarily have to have an ID on you, but you do have to provide your name, address, and maybe DOB depending on the state. Of course in the case of a traffic stop you obviously need a driver's license.
To quote supreme court Justice alito "there is no 4th in regards to drugs". So yeah just claim it is to stop drug trafficking and then fir what ever else you want.
This applies if you're driving and get pulled over. You're not required to show an ID in other situations. If you're arrested, you must give your name, residence, and date of birth. If you're detained, you are not required to give information, but you can't give false information.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm (see 38.02)
It is crazy that you need to think like a criminal or a corporate espionage target, but...
Consider backing your phone up and then wiping it. Some business folks do this to avoid having sensitive information on devices they must hand over to the TSA. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/how-can-i-wipe-and-restore-tablets-and-phones-for-travel/
And ffs, leave it at home or put it in a faraday bag (<$20 on Amazon), because phones track where you go, and the government will absolutely use that against you.
This.
Don't be friendly. You didn't just come from a friend's house. Because for all you know, the cops may have been staking out his house, and if there's actually any illegal activity going on there, you just implicated yourself as being a part of it or at the very least a customer, whether or not you were actually there to engage in illegal activity or actually just visiting a friend.
Whatever that smell is, you don't smell anything. I don't care if it's a funky air freshener or you're carrying a truckload of weed. You didn't smell anything and you've never so much as smoked a joint in your life. Saying "The last time I smoked was......." is admittance that you use controlled substances and in some cases could give the cop reason to believe that you're still under the influence.
No, you don't know exactly how fast you were going because you're paying attention to the road, not the speedometer. You were just going with the flow of traffic.
I don't care if you were supposed to be there half an hour ago. You're not late for anything. Asking the cop to hurry or whatever because you're late is just going to get him to intentionally take longer either just to make your life miserable or in hopes that you'll become frustrated and start saying things you wouldn't normally say so he can get more info out of you.
And I fucking hate Hate HATE the "ask if you're being detained. Ask if you're free to go" advice. All this does is antagonize the cop. All it does is make them believe that you're nervous about something, and they're going to want to know why. And if you start off the conversation being adversarial like that, the cop is much more likely to try to make your life as miserable as possible. Watch an episode of COPS. When most people try this line of defense, they often do so in the most unnatural way possible, acting as if they're still in the process of memorizing a script. It just gives off the impression that you have something to hide. The only time you should ask "am I free to go" is after the cop already gave you your documents back and you're just clarifying whether or not he's done yet. The only time you should say things like this are when they are a direct response to a cop's question or actions where that kind of response would be appropriate. But randomly blurting out "Am I free to go? Am I being detained? I do not consent to this!" or other lines at random just pisses the cop off and gives them the idea that you've got something to hide. So what do you say instead of that? FUCKING NOTHING.
If it's truly just a routine traffic stop, give them the documents, say nothing, take the citation or whatever, and be on your way. Take the rest of it up with the judge. The only time you should be saying anything at all, is if it's absolutely necessary and if it looks like it's going to go beyond just a routine stop.
I've seen too many people either try to be overly friendly, believing that if they're forthcoming the cop will work with them, or just argumentative and turning what would have been a routine citation into an arrest because they either admitted to actual crimes they committed in the process or got a little too argumentative with the cop and ending up in cuffs and facing an obstruction charge.
“Excuse me ma’am, I’m going to need to see your uterus before you can leave Texas”
"Blessed Be the Fruit."
"Ma'am please exit the vehicle and get on the mobile gyno exam bed. I'm also going to need your license, registration and a detailed lifetime sexual history. This is all very routine and for your safety I assure you."
That has to violate the 4th Amendment.
From The Bill of Rights:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can’t just assume any & all pregnant women are going to get an abortion, so that’s not probable cause.
as if these lunatics care for the constitution and its rights, unless it benefits them.
Nah, they never gave a shit about the Constitution. It's just like the Bible for them, they can tell their voters it says whatever they want it to and they know damn well none of them have ever read it and never will.
And the bible means whatever they want it to mean. They make whatever argument will support their position of power, credible or not.
They haven't even gone to the trouble of making a version of the Bible that supports their worldview.
That's not true! Every time a room full of 6 years gets shot up they read half of the second amendment! They never read the rest but go fuck yourself if you're going to stop them from murdering rooms of children.
Just need an attorney that wants to stand agaisnt this. Every woman pulled over in these cities should call them up and he sues the city under the 4th ammendment.
They'll all go broke pretty quick and their courts will be tied up permanently. Either the town will financially collapse or realise that the law is just to harrass people.
The people that would want to die over this are probably, sadly enough, the ones who cannot even afford to do so as they'd be financially ruined for the rest of their life just for the cost of a lawyer alone.
I'd think the commerce clause would be the applicable one here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Dormant commerce clause and right to travel.
These are the same cunts who want trump to be our dictator. What more need be said?
Unfortunately, there are already reports of police stopping women in cars on the highway to check if the women are pregnant and off to another state. The notion that a locality or state has the right to violate your privacy in order to veto your travel if it's for purposes they don't like seems impossible to square with the 4th Amendment or the Commerce Clause, but I guess that's not stopping these people
How could a police officer legally determine if a woman in a car is going to get an abortion or is just travelling out of state? Women may not be showing when they get an abortion and from a vantage point outside of a car you can't really tell if a woman is pregnant anyway. Plus they could just be pregnant and driving somewhere out of state. It seems like unreasonable search to stop every woman at the boarder and question them about where they are going. And on top of that why would a woman confess to going to get an abortion when stopped? Unless they had panflets and a confirmation printed out in plain view in the car it would be impossible to prove intent once a police officer pulls someone over. If they enforce this law I think there will be a lot of lawsuits about unreasonable and illegal stops by the police, and I think the women suing will win.
All good points. Unfortunately, this probably means they'll stick to doing the unreasonable and illegal stops on people they think won't be able to afford to bring lawsuits.
Also, questions of 'is this actually legal?' have a fine way of becoming moot when the it's cops doing the lawbreaking and who polices the police, right? Especially in states with long history of good-old-boys justice networks
You're correct, going to see a lot more old Civics and Malibus stopped for this, won't often see a new Lexus or Acura being pulled over for a womb check.
Interesting point, in America the poor and minorities are always treated different. I think any lawyer who wanted to put together a big lawsuit could probably work probono for some but that'd be no guarantee.
You fail to understand what these laws are actually ment to do. These laws are to give the illusion of righteousness, but all they want to do is control women. They see women as objects and not human. A woman traveling alone, not on their watch. They give two shits about the baby they just want a brood sow to keep pumping out poor laborers and to be shackled to a man for ever.
I though about it some more and the lawmakers probably don't even care about actually arresting people. The threat could be enough to deter some people. And on top of that if they make someone late to or miss an appointment, in the lawmakers mind they just "saved a life". (I personally believe that life occurs at fetal viability and that abortions should be allowed before that point, and after that point should the mother's health come into jeopardy.)
They shoot them and check the autopsy. Merica.
I have not heard of this but I imagine they just look for woman drivers by the border, pull them over for something fake, then ask them if they are trying to get an abortion, and if they said yes then the cop can collect the bounty.
It's the "something fake" that is illegal and is the crux of the issue with the law. It's almost unenforceable legally. If they pull over every woman and question them that would be blatantly discriminatory based on gender. If they pull over every person it would be a huge waste of time and resources. There is no way to determine if a woman is pregnant when she is seated in a moving car, and unless the doctors office she is going to is in sight of the boarder there is no way to legally determine where she is going.
How do you say freedom in fascist American?
$$$$
You fire a high-powered rifle into the air.
*at a school
*Into a school.
It's weird isn't it how everyone that's "pro-life" is also "pro-gun" and "anti self-determination". It's almost as if their priorities are completely skewed.
Its almost as if its a naked show of power and threats with no larger concepts or thought behind it.
You can have all the freedom™ you want as long as you only do what I would do with all the freedom that I want.
*except when I have to go outside of the limit of freedom because a special case but it's me so it's ok.
Or you can have all the freedom you want as long as I get an ever increasing cut.
Freedom™ was a great book though. (sequel to Daemon)
I think they say "privilege".
Nah, they won't admit to privilege.
The last civil war was predicated by slave states sending squads north to round up any black people they find.
The next one might start because of states hunting down pregnant women outside their borders.
The Union should have scorched earthed the South and executed all of the leaders and ex-US military officers who defected to the CSA. Instead, you allowed them to live and fester like moldy spores. Now the contagion is fruiting again.
Doesn't work. The only time scorched earth ever works is if you literally kill or displace every living person there. Otherwise, the survivors will hate you and will raise their children to hate you.
Well it sure as fuck doesn’t help if you not only fail to seriously punish rebel military leaders in any meaningful way, but also later allow people from a bunch of rebel states to erect monuments to rebel leaders and politicians, and otherwise glorify a defeated rebel government whose core reason for being was to enshrine the policy of enslaving people.
Yeah. The response to Germany and Japan post WW2 was ideal. Ban the symbols and idols of the past movement, but throw money at the population to help them rebuild.
Edit: and execute the leaders
Germany: yeah, pretty much.
Japan: …not really.
Seems to me they did that anyway.
That's what I'm saying. The North waffled. They should have either gone full Marshall plan or full genocide. And note that I don't think genocide was or is politically palatable.
That's what happened when we gave traitors a free treason pass too, though. Seems to me the only choice is in how many traitors hate us.
well that's a type of freedom I've not heard of before
It's all about States Rights.
...to oppress your freedom.
It used to be an insult to mistakenly ask some woman of she's pregnant.
Now pretending to be just fat will be an ultimate defense
Edit:
This also explains why cars collect our sexual data and genetic material
And now cops will have the excuse to sexually assault women driving and force them to take pee tests on the side of the road.
Or planting evidence?
The Republicans can see their power slipping as young people are becoming more aware and involved, and it seems as though they've gone into overdrive in an attempt to save their wretched ideology. Just about every day there's at least one story about them taking things to the next level, and it's gotten out of control.
Anyone who has seen the plan the Heritage Foundation laid out for replacing career experts in regulatory agencies and government offices with their own far right people in order to literally, in their own words, dismantle the administrative state, should be terrified.
They want autocracy, with them at the top. Forever. And now that it is getting more and more unlikely that could happen democratically, they're taking matters into their own hands before it's too late for them and their party dies.
EVERYBODY NEEDS TO VOTE. READ THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S RECENTLY RELEASED PLAN, AND FUCKING VOTE.
Where can you find the Heritage Foundation's plan? I've checked out their website but any mention of it seems buried.
Is there any way I could upload a file? I have it downloaded, but can't find it on their website anymore.
They named it "Project 2025." If you use that when you search, you should be able to find it. Weirdly, before I had that search term, I was also having trouble finding it. Makes my tinfoil hat tingle a little bit.
Doesn't it, though? After all these eyes and articles on what they're doing, it's a little hard to find it now. Hmm...
Weirdly, I was having issues finding it searching on Google until I found a little bit and realized they called it "Project 2025”. If you search for that along with "heritage" you'll find the plan itself, as well as discussion about it.
It's very bad news.
Which only shows how mindfucked those people are. I mean, what will they do? Stop random cars with women inside, interrogating them and testing their blood for potential pregnancies?
probably that.
ir they will put out a bounty for anyone who reports that a women they know is planning to go out of state for an abortion.
Yep. Totalitarian regimes have always loved the snitches principle. Nazi Germany, the Eastern Block, China...
Some of those lunatics seem to think people are aborting pregnancies right up to the ninth month. That you might be able to see without having them pee on a test. But then what? Jail them until the baby is born? Refuse travel? Ah, American freedom is the most free of all freedoms.
Driving While Pregnant. Never thought I'd see the day.
doesn't this violate freedom of travel...
Just travel with a gun in your car, then you win all the freedom in america
...and probably the 4th amendment and commerce clause.
Cool it with the all caps titles homie
Yes it's an important topic, so it deserves attention, meaning use normal capitalization so people don't just downvote and autoblock you for excessive caps
Tell me you want to ban women from leaving their homes without telling me you want to ban women from leaving their homes.
There isn't a single freedom they won't take from us.
They won't take away the right to bear arms. It's a pretty standard practice of authoritarian governments but if they try that the illusion will instantly be dispelled. They've already convinced their base they need weapons to fight off communists so it's not really necessary to strip that right.
Give scary minorities guns and the right will start backing all kinds of gun control ordinances.
Source: Reagan
Ironically in a gun control law supported by the NRA.
They're perfectly OK taking guns from Those people.
Not from white people, no.
"A woman travelling with a gun across state lines? She's clearly doing that to have an abortion, so therefore her weapon and her car can be seized under civil asset forefiture since they were being used in the commission of a crime. I mean, what other reason would there be for a woman to need to travel across state lines other than to have an abortion?"
"A trans person already broke into one of our elementary schools and shot several children. How long are we going to ignore the obvious mental disorder that is transsexuality? Not accepting the gender that Almighty God assigned to them at birth is itself a mental health issue that should disqualify trans people from carrying firearms at all under our red flag laws......."
"The crime rates in many of our larger cities is out of control. In order to combat the increasing crime rates in many of our minority-populated cities where local law enforcement has proven to be ineffective, any city with a crime rate above X percent, a population above X thousand people, or in any area labelled to be a "high crime district", we are introducing legislation to ban and confiscate all firearms in the affected areas."
White people who have the God-given right to shoot targets with weapons that are grossly overpowered for that purpose have little to nothing to fear. But Republicans in some cases already have tried to test the waters of these arguments to see what they can get away with. I will gladly bet you the left body part of your choice that not only will the GOP try something like this, they'll do it while the rest of the 2A nuts cheer them on.
Remember, most gun advocates believe "We" have the right to bear arms. And when they say "We", they mean themselves. Not you. As long as you're only going after the guns of those people, the right won't have a problem. And you and I both know what I mean when I say "those people".
My dude, gun control was their idea in the first place.
These Republicans are just disgusting people.
Note that the police aren’t involved. It looks like this is another one where they want other citizens to take the risk by spending their own money, for laws the cities/counties must know can’t hold up in court. However, the people most likely to be targeted also are not likely to have the funds for the protracted court battle, so this is fear and control, and wouldn’t be applied equally
They basically want border towns to become civilian ran security checkpoints by the sounds of it.
You stop for gas in Bumfuck, TX and the clerk gets to pressure you about what you're leaving the state for. If they think you're "one of those types", this ordinance gives them the authority to make your life a living hell. Doesn't even matter if you're actually getting an abortion, just that they "think" that you are.
This is basically how the Boarder Patrol and Texas Rangers started as slave hunters trying to stop people from escaping to freedom in Mexico.
I thought that said ordnance for a second, and that fit with Texas, so my brain didn't double check at first.
So what are you in jail for?
I guess the Fourth Amendment only applies when convenient.
I'm guessing these will fall on 14th amendment grounds.
Traveling to another state to access services that are illegal in your state is a privilege of US citizens.
I'm pretty sure it's in the main body of the Constitution somewhere that all citizens may travel freely between and among the several States. Don't even need to get to the BoR.
Edit: found a review - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S2-C1-13/ALDE_00013789/['travel']
There's a Supreme Court ruling that the right to travel may not be deprived without due process of law, so it's considered part of the 5th amendment.
Yeah, I think so. They probably know it's not enforceable, but are hoping ignorance wins the day and fearful people will follow their laws. It's terrible.
I think it's to appease their ignorant base and get through the next primary. And for a bonus they can complain about the radical liberal courts overturning their good and moral laws.
This is the really concerning part. You know exactly how the SC would rule on that.
And the state of texas is trying to fend of charges related to an on the clock miscarriage by saying fetuses have no rights, while also pushing some of the toughest pro life laws.
Except not even a full citizen has a right to someone else's body. I'm sure their song would change if they were forced to donate marrow, blood, and kidneys.
Just take away federal highway money.
I just asked someone what the Dems should be expected to do. This is a good answer
It's what the feds threatened to do when Wisconsin and Louisiana wouldnt change drinking laws to 21.
So its been done before.
this from the party of "feedom"
Epitome of small government!
But see, it's not another department and they can say that it doesn't cost any more money, so of course, it's still "small government".
They have never believed in freedom. They are the philosophical heirs to slavers. The fact that they call themselves Republicans now is of little import
I'm not from the USA, but all sensible people from there that care about living in a non fascist state should be panicking right now. Your "democracy" is now in direct threat and the people need to rise up and show that they won't let this shit pass. Besides voting, get out in the streets and protest. Do everything that needs to be done to show that the loud minority is just that, a minority.
To keep fascism from rising up, you need to be intolerant of the ones who show no tolerance. Your enemy has no moral bounds and will do anything to achieve their hateful goals, if it comes down to it then violence is not immoral if you're violent against someone who gets off on people suffering, it's self defense.
Been panicking since 2015, at this point my body is made up of 90% stress hormones and a giant ulcer.
One of the things to understand about the USA is all the layers to our government. A person living in any arbitrary place in the country has to deal with laws enacted by a Federal government for the entire country, a State government, and possibly more than one local government (perhaps a County government, and a city/town government). The "lower" layers enact policies that benefit the local community directly and which are too detailed for the Federal or State governments, like zoning laws and public school administration.
The US Constitution explicitly devolves powers that are not assigned to the Federal Government to the States, and the States assign powers to local governments where it makes sense. But local politicians are not always the most adept legislators. They are elected from the local community on its own terms. These local politicians may not always understand the limits on their power. One would hope the town lawyer does, but the local politicians are not obliged to listen.
So, what it comes down to is that these policies in some rural Texas town are being enacted by some local politician who may have been elected by 300 people, may or may not be a lawyer, and who may not understand the full extent of whether their policies are even allowed under State law. Yet they are empowered to do it anyway, and when their decisions involve an issue that has nationwide visibility, it becomes nationwide news. People can be upset and shake their fist over it, but nothing can be done unless the citizens of that small town decide to change it (or their State government finds that they never had the power to do that in the first place).
"I am engaged in private interstate commerce. I have a valid license and this vehicle is registered with the state. You have no cause to stop me. I am free to go."
This one knows how to get themselves arrested for failure to comply and resisting arrest.
I did "win" against a border guard on a bus once, but I am probably too much of a coward to refuse to show me ID again. Next thing I know I am being arrested for assault due to bleeding from my gunshot wounds and they feared for their life because I had a Swiss army knife in my pocket.
I am panicking. I live in Ohio and am currently on track to leave to a safer state by March. Idealy I can join with other like minded people and come back in a few years with a rifle and air support.
Texas is not the USA and this proposal is absolutely not Constitutional.
We're not panicking.
Slave catchers and preventing black people from leaving for free states. That worked well in the 1860s.
So you're telling me, you and all your pregnant friends, all six of them are on your way to the last Blockbuster on earth?
...uhm... yes?
well, that checks out. Always wanted to go, myself.
You guys still calling it the land of the free?
Only the dumb ones
Whoever told you that is your enemy.
And the home of some exclusions apply.
No.
Only in that song before sportsball games.
I wonder how long it will be before this is turned against these weirdos. "California law states you cannot drive over state lines to purchase a gun" is just the first thing that came to mind.
That's what the openly corrupt supreme court is for! They'll rule that buying a gun is protected speech or some other tortured "originalist" rationale.
Nope, buying a gun from out of state is already federally illegal, unless you have it delivered first to an FFL holder within your state of residence. The FFL holder also has to make sure you pass the required background check. This has been the law for decades.
Driving over state lines to buy a gun is already federally illegal my dude. Gun sales to an out of state resident must be delivered to an FFL within the resident's state. Some people think that slogans like "guns have more rights than women in the USA" hold merit, when they have not ever actually researched the extensive gun control laws that we already have in place.
So, the thing to do is buy your guns in the state you live in, before you go driving out of state. Then you can get your abortions and have your guns too.
Please pee on this stick you look pregnant -Officer Barbrady
"May the Lord Open."
Officer, I assure you, no fetus in here, just an excellent burrito.
What if they're not "driving" but "traveling"?
You have to be rich enough to call it summering and then it's allowed.
Facepalm emoji
What app is that? Looks neat.
I'm not sure about that particular app, but I use Sync which is similar and also awesome.
Connect
Looks like Connect.
What are they going to do, make them pee in public on the side of the road?
I'll remind you that cavity searches are just something we accept the authorities will do to suspects (let alone the convicted) as a matter of routine.
By comparison, a roadside pregnancy test seems pretty mild.
You're ignoring probable cause to stop or search. And the 14th Amendment. And the Interstate Commerce clause in the US Constitution. And repeated SCOTUS rulings affirming the free right to jnterstate travel for all US citizens.
None of which is going to matter when you're in the situation in the moment.
They'll claim driving toward the border constitutes probable cause, and the Federalist Society will make agreement with that a litmus test for their seal of approval. Since the Republican governor won't appoint any judge not on the Federalist Society list ... checkmate.
I don't think cavity searches are as common as you are implying.
Two of you have turned up to say it's not really a big deal, not appreciating the irony that you're proving my point.
Yeah, mainly for entering prison. I can't think of a time I have ever heard of someone getting cavity searched randomly as a suspect, but I am sure there are outlier cases. Which we can probably get rid of due to improved technology, but I guess it could be understandable back in the day. I'm not to familiar with the prison smuggling scene but I imagine introducing cavity searches improved safety factors
I haven't heard of many, but I did hear of one done to a woman on the side of the highway.
Oh I'm sure they have happened, I wasn't trying to dismiss that. I just felt it was building opinions and stances off of outliers
Yeah, that's probably true.
Yeah this really really reminds me of the Soviet Union ca. 1970. The state does not allow you to travel because fuck you.
This is the first time that I've agreed with sovcits: right to travel cannot be abridged, or some shit.
That's not what abridged means.
But they're not wrong about the right to travel, they're just wrong when they think it applies to every method of travel that they want to use.
That and ignoring the 10th amendment completely.
They only like the 2nd and sometimes the 1st (as long as they agree with what you're saying)
They only like the 2nd when they agree with you! Remember the Black Panthers?
Touché
Disregarding the fact that getting an abortion should not be a crime, in general, traveling to commit a crime is not a right.
Bank robbers do not get charged with driving to the bank.
Better comparison is
This puts the cart before the horse in important ways. First, the government cannot (except with probable cause) treat you as if you are presumptively guilty of a crime until it's done with the due process of proving it. Is being female and in a car probable cause?
Second, is it a crime to travel somewhere to do a thing that's legal there?
Here, both the 4th Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the constitution (in theory at least) constrain the state and officers of said state- the 4th protects privacy of person, home, effects, and papers and requires a warrant to search those things, and the commerce clause implicitly forbids states from enacting laws that effectively regulate commerce in another state.
In theory, under the Commerce Clause states are not authorized to enact law to criminalize that which is legal in other states- that authority is reserved to congress. If that's the case, the phrase 'traveling to commit a crime is not a right' is missing an important piece- the crime part. If abortion is a crime here and the person is traveling there to do a thing that's legal there, this isn't a crime.
So weed tourists traveling to get high should get the chair?
Intent to commit crime is not a crime
I think this will drive even more people out of red states.
That's the point. This is about locking red and purpleish states red by driving away non-conservatives.
It's not going to work. You'll just have purple states push blue because people don't like being told what to do.
The purple states that lean blue are much less important to the electoral college than the purple states that lean red. Texas alone negates most of the advantage that would be gained.
I'm aware, I'd argue both would go blue to spite authority. Republicanism is complex and idiotic at this point but it mostly rests on the idea of "fuck you imma do me".
Seems easy enough to just lie and say you're traveling for other reasons. Especially if you're pretty early on in the pregnancy and aren't even showing yet.
America bout to have my ass illegally immigrating to mexico.
What's the opposite of "you had me in the first half?"
"You lost me in the second half"?
Just find a restaurant right next to the clinic and say it's her favorite spot. She's got some wild cravings and it's the only place in hundreds of miles where you can get (insert unique dessert here)
Wild that the people who lose their shit that vaccines are tracking us through imaginary microchips are voting for people who want to track everything we do
Real "Fortress" shit
No, officer, I’m going to the Burger King next to the abortion clinic. This one has the best Impossible Whopper.
WHAT?
Sadistic freaks.
Let faith trample reason
Red states are going to have their prison quotas apparently.
Benjamin get the Musket.
Fucking unreal...
There was a way to title this without sounding like a pretentious douchbag.
law?
On the one hand, it’s important to respect a state’s right to ban abortions. But on the other hand, inconveniencing drivers seems like big government overreach to me.