Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this even possible? Could they prosecute people smoking weed in Michigan or gambling in LV? I don't think this would stand. Sounds like fear mongering.
You're absolutely correct. It's obviously not possible. This is just more liberal "the sky is falling" hysteria.
If Roe is reversed there will no doubt be attempts to put into place some wacky laws and many of those will then be struck down by the courts.
Note that if the SCOTUS does reverse Roe, it's not saying you can't have legal abortion, all it's saying is that it's up to the state and not the federal govt.
Then, depending upon the states laws they'll have to review those.
I personally do not see how you can ban someone from going to another state and doing something there that is legal. That would be gross over-reach.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 12 days ago)
35,640 posts, read 18,001,275 times
Reputation: 50681
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
You're absolutely correct. It's obviously not possible. This is just more liberal "the sky is falling" hysteria.
The reason we think Texas is trying to ban women who are pregnant from going to another state for an abortion is because they SAID THAT.
Read the article in the OP. You can choose to ignore the threats politicians make; but that's not terribly wise if it's about an issue that matters to you.
When they say they're planning to not allow pregnant women to leave Texas for an abortion, sit up and take notice.
And that's not "sky is falling" that's once burned twice wary.
Abbott et al say they will build a better safety net, but I don't believe them. These are the same folks that don't want anyone with more than $3,000 or so income per year to get Medicaid, that fought increases in CHIP coverage for years, and have said on a number of occasions that getting pregnant is a personal responsibility issue, and nothing to do with the state.
A women has every right to chose what she does with her body up until she chooses to have unprotected sex. She loses that right when it involves another innocent human being. In fact, that goes for everyone, everyday, too, no matter the circumstances.
No one has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, at least until the fetus is viable. That's a personal decision for the woman, and no one's business but hers.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 12 days ago)
35,640 posts, read 18,001,275 times
Reputation: 50681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
If Roe is reversed there will no doubt be attempts to put into place some wacky laws and many of those will then be struck down by the courts.
Note that if the SCOTUS does reverse Roe, it's not saying you can't have legal abortion, all it's saying is that it's up to the state and not the federal govt.
Then, depending upon the states laws they'll have to review those.
I personally do not see how you can ban someone from going to another state and doing something there that is legal. That would be gross over-reach.
This comes kind of close to the Mann Act, "crossing state lines for immoral purposes".
I could see that a court that was willing to bend this into a pretzel, could see that abetting getting women out of Texas, across a state line for abortion could fit that legal criteria.
That is what the "morning after" pill is for. It does not take nine months to figure out that a condom broke. I imagine it is figured out quite quickly, like right after intercourse... And, if men and women only had sex with their spouses, I imagine the "men removing condoms during sex" drops quite drastically when there is a legal obligation for the potential consequences of doing so.
That is why women should only have sex with men they are married to (and vice versa), that way there is a legal obligation to provide for the child. It provides protection for the woman. (In my mind and morality, the man should provide for the mother and the child, but it is easier to convince people from just the legal perspective.)
The legal obligation to support a child is not limited to a child conceived in wedlock.
You think a man should provide for the woman? Interesting, my manager is a woman whose husband stays home, because she was able to get a better job than he could. Should women always stay home with the children, regardless of the economics?
Those two categories only make up less than 2% of all abortions. (It is closer to 1% but I do not have the exact figure.)
For that, they make a "morning after" pill. It is not exactly a surprise if unprotected sex occurs, regardless of how it happened, that the woman could get pregnant.
Birth control fails. In the real world, birth control's overall success rate is 90%. That means a woman may not know she is pregnant until a month or more after sex, at which point the morning after pill is not an option.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
