Quoted post unavailable.
What religion are you talking about here? Can’t be christianity because the bible never talks about premarital sex directly. Not to mention the abortion instructions given by Moses in Numbers 5:11-31.
South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
61–70 of 217 posts
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#62This is an important time to ensure your representatives aren’t making and voting for policies that take away peoples rights, even if they aren’t your rights they’re violating right now. There is no right deprivation of a minority group that doesn’t also deprive the rights of majority people in the purpose of enforcing oppression.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#63Not a lawyer but doesn't this have serious 1st amendment problems? Article gets into this a bit: "Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said the First Amendment and Section 230, a bill that shields internet providers and tech companies from liability for the posts, photos and videos people share on their sites, provide a strong defense in many instances for websites and providers facing l…
The strategy is one of intimidation.
Agreed. The future path for this law (if it gets passed) is obvious: the South Carolina agency charged with enforcing the law gets sued in federal court, the law is likely put on hold and eventually struck down as unconstitutional. But the "chilling" effect of the law still has a serious impact, despite it being unserious legislation.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#64No post body was provided.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#65> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…
I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group.
And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
But opposing abortion and not caring about the consequences for women and families IS appalling.
Edit: I misread the parent quote.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#67> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…
I always worry when we start painting large groups of people with a single brush and labeling them the enemy. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion that are appalled at something like this or the Texas bounty hunting law. If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
> If we continue to try and paint each other group as a monolithic enemy other division will continue to rise and polarization will increase and the effects will be devestating.
Then perhaps the other group should not have monolithically spent decades fighting against and removing human rights from people I care about.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#68Quoted post unavailable.
God didn't tell anyone that. A few old people wrote some stuff down in a book and now a whole lot of people believe they should follow some but not all of the rules in that book. Do you follow all the rules in your holy book?
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that this can go to a federal court pretty quickly who can then rule on this and block it, and it can be appellead up to the Supreme court, but for the time being it will be stopped, then I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut.
>I am assuming the Supreme Court will defer to whatever the appellate court decided because it is so open and shut. Out of curiosity, what about the current makeup of appellate courts in this region + the Supreme Court makes you think this is going to get shut down quickly?
I can't predict the future, but I also will point out if it gets to the SC it won't be now, it will be the SC 10 years from now.
That being said I would hope this is an open and shut enoght case under the 1st Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause to justify this. Which I would hope overrules personal agendas in the court.
I know a lot of people are upset with the overturn of Roe v Wade, but even the initial judges in that case said the constitutional ground that case was ruled on was shaky, which my understanding is the basic job of the SC is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Now decades of an activist judiciary have distorted that concept as the legislative branch has chosen to abdicate their responsibility for their own gain, but the fact still stands, congress should be making the laws and the courts deciding if they are constitutional.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why are we using a 200+ year old document that represented the preferences of maybe 20% of the country to regulate the internet? Because it and following interpretation provides the boundaries for law in the US. And comparing it to a fetish, or labeling it a 200 year old document, when is has been changed since then (last amended in 1992, still has multiple amendments pending, and can be changed again) is also absur…
The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s. The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new ideas in generations. The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution. We used to update it every decade (at least). Somet…
>The world today is wildly different from the world of the 1970s, and yet we've made no changes to the constitution.
No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights is still a pretty good set of basic rights. Would you be willing to roll the dice on throwing a random out to get a new one? That is what can easily happen when you make changing it easy enough to be done quickly.
Also, why would you want to change the root of all laws at any crazy rate? There is a reason Congress makes new laws, and states make new laws, every single year. You should not need to make drastic changes to the base legal framework just because someone invented an internet - you should be able to apply current legal frameworks, and if that is not enough, make small changes to address such changes. Even small legal changes at the Federal and local levels have significant cost to make needed changes throughout society. Now allow tinkerers to make constitutional changes willy nilly, and guess what the cost will be.
Or do you think it would be better for short-lived political trends to simply rewrite major sections of the Constitution every few years? That seems like an absolutely terrible way to plan a stable society.
>We used to update it every decade (at least). Something has changed, culturally,
Conversely, maybe the overall framework is pretty good, despite each subgroup not getting their way, so it doesn't need changed to add amendments for every tiny whim.