Heh. The web archive about to get banned along with the gutenberg library.
South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
121–130 of 217 posts
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#122> 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…
This is a distraction. There have always been antiabortion crazies lurking in the woodwork. The state just chose to pull the trigger on this particular shitshow at this particular moment because it suits their agenda. Don't get me wrong. There is definitely an abortion rights disaster in progress. It's just that this disaster was manufactured only to distract from a larger, more powerful, disaster. Have you noticed h…
> Have you noticed how expensive everything is lately?
Have you noticed that supply and demand can change prices? Such as supply of young people performing labor in an aging country demanding ever more labor, or international conflicts and responses to infectious diseases disrupting supply chains. And of course, the government’s monetary response, but the point is that unless you have a source for a conspiracy, I do not see why it should merit consideration.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#123> 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…
If we accept the premise that abortion is baby murder, then the moral implications are clear: (1) exceptions on rape are grotesque as we'd be condoning baby murder as a form of trauma relief, (2) cross-state or even cross-country baby murder is just as grotesque, (3) doctors and medical systems must have extreme culpability as they are part of an assembly line of baby murder.
How does Constitutional case law factor into the question of mass baby murder?
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred. The Constitution was amended 12 times in the 1900s, the last being 1992. There are still multiple pending amendments. And, as a Union of States, each also with constitutions and amendments, how do you treat the overall legal entity? Most developed nations are about the size of a US state - and some are slowly banding into la…
1992 amendment was proposed in the 1700s, you have to go back more than 50 years to get to the next amendment. > Do you have some list of developed nations rate of constitution updates? Yes. https://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/chronology/#
It's missing state constitutions. The US is a United States of America - a union of semi-autonomous states.
Picking only a high level misses that there are higher levels (such as world treaties and laws we are entered into) and ignores that the US is a conglomeration. When you'd pick Germany, but ignore EU rules, it's somewhat like picking Texas, and ignoring US.
It seems you're not really comparing frameworks very well.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#125How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause? SC would have no recourse for web hosts that have no nexus within it's borders? Are they going to start to force local ISP's to block out of state hosts?
> How is this allowed in light of the interstate commerce clause?
It's complicated.
Obviously a website cannot simply proclaim to only facilitate the dissemination of information to people exclusively in one state, or to exclude people in another. There is practically no concept of mutual exclusivity or mutual inclusivity on the internet, so then it's abjectly "interstate" or even "international". But it's not that simple.
The commerce clause tends to apply to federal laws, of things that transit state or territorial lines. Just because something could transit a state line, does not mean the all things in all states are automatically under federal regulation, or that federal regulation has supremacy. Obviously certain things are legal in one state but not in others, and things might be legal or illegal at a federal level regardless of interstate commerce.
The question is, is free speech subject to interstate commerce? What about commercial speech (which is afforded less 1st amendment protections)? Since we are talking about free speech, commercial or otherwise, does the idea of commerce clauses even apply? According to Heller case, and recently reaffirmed by the NY v Bruen case, when dealing with civil liberties the courts must apply strict scrutiny.
So it might boil down to a simple 1st amendment case without any commerce clause mental gymnastics.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
Quoted post unavailable.
Laws should be made based on reason, justice, and after due consideration and we'll reasoned discussion not empathy, emotion, or crises of the moment. Doing that will only lead to poorly conceived and implemented laws that fail at their purpose and give power to demogauges and the power hungry.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Should every movement be painted with the same brush as the worst people in the movement?
Conversely, should every movement be painted with the brush of their best people?
This is a bit... difficult to take seriously. They are being painted by the general actions at large that they are causing. If you want them to be seen in their best light, try to get their best light into the spotlight.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#128Not 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…
There is speech that is not considered protected by the first amendment. I suspect the states would argue the promotion of committing unlawful acts to be unprotected speech.
Where this would fall afoul is likely interstate commerce. South Carolina can't declare a website hosted in California illegal due to jurisdiction. They might be able to convince ISPs to block them, though.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment isn’t acknowledging that long-term solutions are necessary but not sufficient to make whole the continued injustice of trauma and death that will result from laws that deprive reproduce rights. It’s important to keep in mind there is a current and ongoing number of people who are dying, who have died, who are being deprived medical care (some who aren’t even pregnant!) and that an amendment to the consti…
Personally, I don't feel the idea of government is legitimate, but if you do, then you must abide by the process, for better or worse. There was plenty of time between Roe v Wade and present to pass an amendment or secede, so clearly the matter wasn't urgent.
No, there is nothing saying that just because you believe government is necessary that one must consider the government wholly, uncritically sufficient.
Re: South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
Quoted post unavailable.
I don't pretend to know what is best for everyone nor dictate my morals to them. So if SC thinks they should have a law to do whatever, that's their business. If the people living there don't like it, they should work to change the law, or start lynching politicians, whichever is easier, that's for the people of SC to decide.
As for the people not in South Carolina, they should work to pass an amendment or secede from the union, those are the only legal options if you believe in how the federal government is supposed to work (maybe there's a 3rd option to kick out SC?).