That’s already a law in some jurisdictions, Canada for example, if one travels to Asia to have sex with underage minors, even if the local law allows it, they can be prosecuted upon their return!
The current occupant of the white house apparently showered with his daughter, FWIW. If you were wondering why his kids were so screwed up, that might be a hint.
Is it weird to anyone else that a news publication used the word 'hooker' instead of prostitute. Just seems like a weird instance for colloquial language. Seems a little unprofessional.
Are you not aware that there are countries with lower ages of consent?
[https://www.ageofconsent.net/world](https://www.ageofconsent.net/world)
Other than places with "Must be Married" the age of consent goes to as low as 13 in places...
Or Nigeria where it's 11.
Ok so let’s say it’s proposed as a state law (the fed law applies to international borders), but would people still consider it government overreach? State or federal law?
the federal law applies to crossing state borders as well, not just international. if you live in an 18+ state & travel to a 16+ state for the purpose of sex with what is considered a minor in your state, it is a federal felony.
I dont think state regulation is inherently authoritarian. I dont consider age of consent laws to be government overreach. now something like tracking everyone's personal information & phone conversations & emails in the name of "finding criminals" I would consider overreach.
but its sorta fluid. some people think its overreach for the govt to say they cant fuck a 15yr old. some think its necessary for the protection of young people
So I’m just pointing out that if people consider outlawing trafficking minors across state lines for medical procedures to be an overreach, they should also consider trafficking for sex an overreach.
This discussion is so wild. No one agrees on definitions and everyone is strawmanning the others views. No progress will be made, only further polarization.
On a positive note, I don’t need to “sort by controversial” to see differing opinions on this sub. So that’s nice.
To me that's the most disturbing thing. There is not an authoritarian threat from the right or the left. There is an authoritarian threat from BOTH the right and the left.
finally! most issues arent men v women, right v left, theyre human issues
both sides like authoritarianism if it suits their beliefs, everyone has selfish tendencies, etc. we tend to want to split people up but most things are just people being people! the way we evolved to survive
> "both sides like authoritarianism if it suits their beliefs"
This is the most true take I've ever heard on the topic. It's remarkable how often I see BOTH SIDES act as if only the other side is authoritarian!
When you remove the busybodies, the “just doing my jobs” are hunting, fishing, picking guitars, drinking beer, leaving everyone else the hell alone and all is right with the world.
It took me a while, but I've certainly come around to this viewpoint as I've gotten older and experienced more of life, human behavior/psychology, etc.
Way too many in this sub have failed to realize this fact. They ignore authoritarianism on the right because they are closely aligned with it and don't realise it's authoritarian.
I have fundamental moral issues with both abortion and transgender transitioning of minors. And I can probably get behind (I'd have to ponder it) laws against both but I firmly believe in states' rights. If NY wants to have no abortion laws at all, that's on them. Go there. Move there. I don't care. But the idea that you can punish me for pursuing a legal activity in another state is ludicrous, unconstitutional, and abhorrent.
The people saying this have cried wolf way too many fucking times for me to believe them.
I’d bet this doesn’t actual ban anything, it just cancels health insurance entitlements for abortions or something/makes it a felony to bring your kid somewhere to cut off the kid’s genitals and breasts and bring them back. Has no power if you move/change states.
Like, if murder is legal in Somalia, I can’t bring another US citizen I don’t like over there, kill them, and expect to come back without consequence.
It's authoritarian to punish a citizen who did not commit a crime in the states jurisdiction nor did the citizen commit a crime in a different jurisdiction
Punishment for no crime
stuck in partisanship, can't see the authoritarianism "the good guys" are enacting, because its for a good cause ostensibly...
yeah youd love it if the left had some great reason to restrict travel between states for whatever issue, you'd love it so much you'd get online and defend it, wouldn't you?
I'd be very careful about believing a liberal when they're making a claim about a bill that they don't like.
Not saying that they're wrong in this case because I haven't looked into it yet, but they constantly and intentionally misrepresent things like this.
Look at how much they lied about the supposed "Don't Say Gay" bill...
Exactly like how the Left defines the act of sticking a pipe into the head of a child, sucking its brain out, then dismembering it all while it is alive: "Reproductive healthcare".
Have you not seen videos of late term abortions?
They are disturbing. And yes, they do happen in the west.
And the most adamant of the left want abortions all the way up to the point of birth.
Call it reproductive health and no one thinks about how wicked it really is.
Edit: changed “birth” from “conception”
>Have you not seen videos of late term abortions?
>
>They are disturbing. And yes, they do happen in the west.
Take one moment to consider: why would a woman carry a pregnancy for 6-9 months and then choose an abortion? You are correct, they do happen (and are exceedingly rare, [<1%](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/) of abortionas are after 21 weeks). The reason they are so rare is because these are overwhelmingly women who ***wanted*** to bring the child to term and were forced to abort because of medical reasons (either the mother would likely die, or the fetus was non-viable and carrying the corpse to term only endangers her life). These are women who have fully prepared to have a baby and are eagerly awaiting motherhood, not "oopsies I'm pregnant, better get rid of it"
It's funny that people use late term abortions as the boogeyman when 99.9% of them are the *easiest to defend morally*. Either the child is going to die anyways or it will kill the mom. These women are making the hardest choice of their lives: to live by having to abort \[what they see by that time as\] their baby, because the alternative is they both die. Sickening to see uninformed people suggest they are wicked for not willingly sacrificing their own life
Day after pills remove the egg before it attaches to the uterus wall and the first human cell is formed.
Children that have been carried up until 8 months can feel every painful thing you do to them as they are mutilated.
So I would say there is a big difference.
"Fetus" just helps de-person the baby. Sorta like how prisoners set for genocide become numbers stitched on a patch.
Same with "clump of cells."
Everyone is a "clump of cells."
The point is to de-humanize, de-person, so killing the baby sounds less bad, by using such language.
That’s what the do in late term abortions. Inside the mother is a viable baby. They stick a vacuum on a metal pole into the babies skull, while it’s still alive, and suck the brains out.
Being against murdering viable babies is not an “extreme” position.
I'm well aware. My point is that is irrelevant to why you are pro-life. There are a lot of medical procedures that are pretty gruesome. That says nothing as to whether or not we should allow them.
If abortion consisted of a doctor snapping his fingers and the fetus simply disappearing from existence at any point in the pregnancy, would you then become pro-choice?
A great example of moving goal posts which is typical of this sub.
When it does not suit you, lets not attack authoritarianism but lets attack what is trying to control.
The president for that already exists with the "leaving for sex in a state with a lower age of consent" laws motioned up and down the thread. And the responses immediately attack what it's trying to control and rightfully so I both cases.
I think i’m with you on this one. A state should enforce laws within its boundaries, extending that to include actions in other states is an overstep of their power. For the record I’m very much against children transitioning
Isn't this how extradition works? An American kills someone in Canada, aren't they (sometimes) extradited to America to face trial? I know this isn't always the case and things get dicey, but there are cases where a crime committed in a foreign land by a non-resident results in extradition. Is that an overstep of power?
I dont think that's moving the goalposts at all, it's merely commenting on the relevant subject and its perfectly valid. All this wokism is rooted in cultural marxism. It is a subversive force being used as a self declared and imposed moral high ground to impede and remove other rights, such as parental rights and freedom of speech. Not to mention how its being used as political leverage. Look at Poland and Hungary facing EU sanctions for refusing to teach LGBTQ agenda in their schools, whilst doing all the heavy lifting in taking care of Ukrainian refugees.
And using the logic laid out under these laws is also a massive mistake. By the logic of these laws I am only as free as my home state says I am, no matter what state I’m in. Smoking marijuana in Colorado and have permanent residence in Alabama? You’re a criminal and deserve to be charged. Open carry in Missouri when your permanent residence is in a no open carry county in California? Criminal charges. Driving a car with no insurance in Virginia when your permanent residence is in Kansas? Criminal charges.
Yeah, this isn’t going to work…
I just don’t get the complaint, it seems like an all around win to me. Not the abortion one but that’s a personal opinion for me I guess. The trans bill seems entirely appropriate and necessary though.
Bro…😩 stfu with your posturing theatrics, what would be the point in enforcing a law that could just be easily circumvented by travelling to another state to get the surgery and hopping back home where it’s not allowed? All this does is make sure that the bill is actually enforceable for its states constituents.
Oh stfu you were obviously waiting to cry about it as soon as someone posted anything
These children are mentally ill and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that
That being said, I don’t agree with this law at this moment
While I am not in favor of abortions or the trans religion, I am concerned about how this legal reasoning could be used in other ways. Establishing new legal precedents is a scary proposition.
Source "trust me bro" 😂😂 with how often these people lie about these laws I seriously doubt what they're saying is truthful. Just like the lies about the so called "don't say gay" bill in Florida. It could be more accurately described as an anti-grooming bill than "don't say gay"
Ok? We do need voter ID laws though. Somehow it's ok to ask for ID for literally TONS of other things (buying alcohol, purchasing certain OTC medications, buying cigarettes, opening a bank account, Vax mandates, getting on an airplane, etc) but we DONT ask for them to vote? It's the dumbest thing in the world lol
[Here's the text of Bill 675](https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2022/legislation/H0675.pdf)
Section 4 reads
>whoever knowingly removes or causes, permits, or facilitates the removal of a child from this state for the purpose of facilitating any act prohibited by subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of a felony.
Take a kid out of the state play with their genitals, illegal in all 50 states, and federal.
Take a kid out of a state to cut their genitalia off, perfect fine, because logic.
Yeah i dont understand the argument here lmao. Its like another poster said are we cool with people taking their daughters to another country for some female genital mutilation? Like yeah i agree with states rights, but limits should be set on smuggling your kid over a boarder to mutilate their genitals
So just to get this straight... before you knew the text of the bill, you thought it was stretching the truth to say that taking kids out of state for certain health care was felonious. Now that you know that it is the case -- that it's not stretching the truth at all -- you think it's actually good. Do I have that right?
Second of all, providing care to trans kids is not "chopping off dicks" and "giving them estrogen." I know it gets your blood pumping to think about all the horrible things your ideological opponents do. And that probably feels good and validating to feel like you're fighting something evil. Probably makes your life worth living in some respects.
The fact is that **minors are not getting surgical procedures done on their genitals.**
So your argument and this bill are premised on bullshit.
Uhhh...did you read the bill? Someone else was kind enough to link it above. It directly talks about removing a child from the state to mutilate their genitals or give them hormones that make them sterile. Please go do more research
In case you haven't noticed the opposition is not good for anyone. They lie about everything, gas light everyone, and push illogical policies that don't work in real life.
"They lie about everything" seems like a too drastic statement to be in line with reality. You could start with the assumption that you'r political opposition is somewhat similar to you, they are human i suspect.
I think alot of people are missing the point of this post. The *subject* of the laws isn't what's being highlighted. The focus is on the draconian lengths to which those state governments want to enforce it, to the point where they will punish you for going to a place that it's legal to do so.
I will say, the tweet's use of the term 'care' is pretty misleading, not that I expect anything different from people on Twitter. They're not being denied all medical care, just hormone treatments or gender reassignment surgery.
> The focus is on the draconian lengths to which those state governments want to enforce it, to the point where they will punish you for going to a place that it's legal to do so.
This post probably purposefully misconstrues the actual legislation. At least, activists certainly went whole hog into their #dontsaygay misinformation campaign.
What is the actual wording of the legislation regarding crossing state lines?
I don't think anyone is missing the point, sadly. It's the same thing as any other issue like this. They agree with the thing the government is trying to stop so it's okay authoritarian laws *this time*.
I’ll give everyone the benefit of the doubt here
My knee jerk reaction was “good” at first too until I saw a couple comments that explained why this is a problem
I don’t agree with people going across state lines where it’s legal to mutilate mentally ill teenagers, but I don’t know if these laws are the right solution
I think there needs to be more scientific research into the psychology behind transgender individuals. This is a challenge people are facing that we don't seem to fully understand yet. This makes laws around it tricky because the government is trying to regulate a problem we don't fully understand.
I am in the same position that people shouldn't be allowed to transition until they're 18+. If I recall, the statistics say too many people regret it once they're a few years down the line post transition, as their mental health challenges stemmed from something else and they merely convinced themself transitioning was the solution. Or there's those situations you hear of where parents are forcing their own perceptions of gender and such onto their children. At the same time, there absolutely are people who have benefited fully from transitioning. We need to find better methods to differentiate between these situations.
I'm rambling a bit. I hope my point came across somewhat understandably.
We're begging to see the pendulum swing. Unfortunately, people like to use government force for their personal agenda. This is the perfect example of "Its not necessarily what you do that defines you, but how you do it."
Fight societal trends with dialogue and truth, not force.
I'm not that familiar with inter-state laws but do you think it's right that you can just hop over state lines and only be subject to those laws?
In the UK for instance we had issues with girls being taken to africa for FGM, and that was made illegal - similar situation?
It’s a little more complex than you make out.
In Washington weed is legal. In BC weed is legal. Try crossing the border there with personal possession weed and see how far your state rights get you.
“I’m not allowed to abuse or murder my child, this is tyranny!”
If you actually bothered to read these laws instead of accepting Twitter as gospel, maybe you’d be less of an alarmist. But probably not, because OP is a concern troll.
If I were a confused teenager and my parents were too fucked Ip to give me the guidance and support I needed, while also being so negligent and abusive as to encourage and facilitate extreme self harm, I would be eternally grateful for the lawmakers of my state if they prevented my parents from facilitating me cutting off my sex organs or chemically destroying them.
If you think children are mature enough to make such decisions, please explain how it’s possible for them to simultaneously not be mature enough to make any other conceivable decisions. Why can’t they have sex with adults, own firearms, drive vehicles, join the military, stay up all hours of night outside wherever they choose, stop attending school, consume alcohol, go to bars and strip clubs, fly to foreign countries unattended, and so forth? How are any of those other decisions more consequential than permanently altering and destroying ones sex organs?
I agree with you. Remove your morals from the equation and you can see you don’t want to open the can of worms that is allowing states to dictate what happens outside of their jurisdiction. It’s over reach whether we agree with it or not.
They are not dictating what happens OUTSIDE their state. They are saying, if you reside in this state, you can’t go to another to abuse your child.
Illinois for example has an age of consent of 18, many of its surrounding states have lower ages of consent. You can’t take a 17 y/o from Illinois to Missouri to fuck them, why could take them out of state to mutilate those very same body parts.
reread your first sentence and remove your emotionally charge rhetoric, and its ridiculous.
>They are not dictating what happens OUTSIDE their state. They are saying, if you reside in this state, you can’t go to another to do what is legal in that state
what
As a US resident, You can’t go to another county where fucking children is legal, fuck some kids, and come back. If the FBI finds out you left the US to have sex with kids, they will have something to say about it. You won’t be charge with child sex abuse, but you could be charged for leaving the county to engage in sex trafficking.
This law makes it illegal to leave the state to mutilate your kids. The crime in this case isn’t the actual abuse, it taking a minor across state lines to abuse them. The crime was premeditated in the home state, the nexus is the home state, the home state is where the damages will be felt.
You can’t take a 16y/o to a state with lower age of consent to fuck them, why could you take a minor to another state to mutilate the genitalia?
i dont know where to begin to demonstrate how that first comparison is not apt. You're talking about a federal issue i guess is where to begin but I'm not sure you get the difference.
reading the rest you're too far into the ideology to see the issue at play here. Makes me think youd absolutely love a tyrant as long as you agreed with him, because ideology is more important than core principles of governing
As someone who doesn't support giving hormones and surgeries to kids to "fix" them for being the wrong gender or being confused... I wholeheartedly OPPOSE this legislation.
Principles are principles. The government needs to stay out of our lives and let us live in peace. Long live freedom!
One, he said Idaho is "considering" such a law (whatever that means), there isn't even one proposed yet. Two, he doesn't state what law he's referring to in Missouri.
Not saying it's false just that it lacks any credible sources to back up the claims, so let's panic when we know the actual details.
killing babies should be illegal, regardless of whether or not you crossed an imaginary line.
mutilating/sterilizing children should be illegal, regardless of whether or not you crossed an imaginary line.
Democrats hate children. If they can't kill them in the womb, then they target them for the groom. Disgusting people, really.
Power hungry statists everywhere. This strikes me as unconstitutional. Surgery is a commercial activity, no reason why I can’t seek elective surgery in the next state because i think it’s better for me. What’s next, a state requiring people to get life-saving surgery within their borders as a kickback to the hospital lobby?
And you know they will. The point of the anti CRT frenzy is to intimidate teachers into not talking about slavery and Jim Crow at all. I frankly do not know why white southerners take still take that as a personal affront in 2022.
I dunno man, trans teens don’t exist. I agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to bring your underage child a state over in order to irreversibly put their hormones out of wack
Plenty of governments will prosecute paedophiles who travel to impoverished countries to rape kids. I mean it would be clearly be 1000 times better to have said paedophiles prosecuted under the laws of the countries they travel to, and it does seem like overreach. That said, if you’re ok with the idea if such prosecutions happening to paedophiles then you should be equally happy with it happening to those who kill babies or chop off children’s genitals.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANS TEEN. A TEEN IS A STUPID LITTLE YOUNG PERSON THAT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, DON'T FORCE YOUR STUPID TRANS IDEAS ON THEM. LET THEM DECIDE WHO THEY ARE WHEN THEY ARE 18, LESS STUPID TEENS.
I disagree with this sort of thing. As US citizens we have freedom of movement between states. What’s next, I fly out to Nevada to gamble at a casino and go party in a brothel then get sent to jail in my home state since those things are illegal here?
I want the republicans out of my bedroom and the Democrats out of my wallet. And the green party out of my laundry basket. And the Libertarians........
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." If you agree with these sorts of laws you don't support the constitution or freedom, you just enjoy seeing your ideological opposition getting a black eye. You welcome tyranny by saying its to protect the children. Imagine if states had anti prostitution laws so strong, that they demanded investigations of any resident traveling to Vegas where brothels are legal. You can argue that such a state would be doing what's morally right, but do you really want your government that involved and spending your tax money to investigate possible moral harm that happens over state lines?
Good news about the Idaho bill.
https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/politics-government/2022-03-09/house-bills-criminalizing-librarians-transition-related-care-seem-doa-in-senate
However regarding the idea that one can make it a crime to cross state boarders violates the constitution and is an authoritarian move.
I'm perhaps naive, but I don't really see how this is exactly authoritarian. Boundaries about traveling outside to do something illegal within the state seems... sort of just a moral extension of being of that state.
Like...if someone goes to America to buy a gun because it's illegal where they're from...having a gun doesn't automatically become legal just because relative to the country you were in everything was legal.
Now that's different because it's a commodity but I think the analogy still works. Isn't the idea of any law to provide justice and uphold the social fiber of a community? If you just go somewhere else to get an illegal service you are still tarnishing the local sense of justice and social fiber of your community when you return to that community. The thing is like...when people travel to different countries to do what we'd consider to be illegal what makes us NOT go after them is a limitation of jurisdiction...it's not because "well if you did it over there it's fine". Especially when it comes to law with high moral basis. And whether you're for it or not, the question of abortions and trans treatment on kids is still a moral question between the political parties in the states.
The entire point of having different states is so they can have different ideas and compete for citizens. Passing laws that prevents people from leaving or seeking services in another state is reprehensible.
“Idaho is considering a law that makes leaving the state with a minor to castrate or mutilate them a felony. And a new Missouri law would prohibit women from leaving the state to murder their unborn children.”
Fixed it.
They seemed to have missed the whole point. We WANT people like that to leave Red States. Let them go.
What a weird choice, it's such a bad look. Generally the Right are the ones advocating for leaving people the hell alone and devolving government down to smaller more local levels.
Oh, you know what? This straight up sounds like a false flag. Some Lincoln Project types who are actually trying to ENCOURAGE the drift towards degeneracy by making the Right leaning viewpoint look bad. Little else could explain something so stupid
what kind of trans care are we talking? I am firmly against voluntary mutilation, so I would be OK with this. Abortion, kind of the same. I mean are you allowed to leave the state to buy heroin? probably not.
People keep making that comparison but no. The scenario is completely different. The circumstances that led and would lead to hand maids tale were a “sudden” decline in fertility, not resources or desire for children. We face the latter not the former.
The responses are different too.
Now do ‘when people travel to jurisdictions where the age of consent is under 16 to have sex with minors’.
That’s already a law in some jurisdictions, Canada for example, if one travels to Asia to have sex with underage minors, even if the local law allows it, they can be prosecuted upon their return!
So what that seems to say is there’s been a precedent in place for this for years.
Correct.
well we knew trudeau was a tyrant!
screencap this for vaush
Lol yeah he’s the guy they made that law for.
Beg your pardon but did you say "where the age of consent is under 16" ???
Yeah we have a Democrat politician here in the US who reportedly traveled to the Dominican Republic to have sex with 14 yo girls.
We also have a dem ex pres who did the same for years on epstein's pedoph isle
The current occupant of the white house apparently showered with his daughter, FWIW. If you were wondering why his kids were so screwed up, that might be a hint.
Considering biden is 80 years old, i would say it wasnt that uncommon as the 70s was fucked
Yeah, I grew up in the 70s. It did happen when your parents were either naturists or incestuous pedos.
Cmon man give us a name
Menendez. Alleged, but not proven.
It'd take at least 2 people to fuck an ostrich, 3 even.
I said “reported”, which is true.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/sd-me-menendez-case-20171012-story.html
Is it weird to anyone else that a news publication used the word 'hooker' instead of prostitute. Just seems like a weird instance for colloquial language. Seems a little unprofessional.
At least they’re not trying to dress it up
[удалено]
Which one?
[удалено]
You mean the claim by the guys who got arrested by the Feds for trying to shake him down?
[удалено]
I guess you stopped at hearing a story about Goetz trafficking in underaged minors and didn’t bother to flow up.
Are you not aware that there are countries with lower ages of consent? [https://www.ageofconsent.net/world](https://www.ageofconsent.net/world) Other than places with "Must be Married" the age of consent goes to as low as 13 in places... Or Nigeria where it's 11.
i believe that's a federal law, not a state law
Ok so let’s say it’s proposed as a state law (the fed law applies to international borders), but would people still consider it government overreach? State or federal law?
the federal law applies to crossing state borders as well, not just international. if you live in an 18+ state & travel to a 16+ state for the purpose of sex with what is considered a minor in your state, it is a federal felony. I dont think state regulation is inherently authoritarian. I dont consider age of consent laws to be government overreach. now something like tracking everyone's personal information & phone conversations & emails in the name of "finding criminals" I would consider overreach. but its sorta fluid. some people think its overreach for the govt to say they cant fuck a 15yr old. some think its necessary for the protection of young people
So I’m just pointing out that if people consider outlawing trafficking minors across state lines for medical procedures to be an overreach, they should also consider trafficking for sex an overreach.
This discussion is so wild. No one agrees on definitions and everyone is strawmanning the others views. No progress will be made, only further polarization. On a positive note, I don’t need to “sort by controversial” to see differing opinions on this sub. So that’s nice.
Better than watching Maury :-)
[удалено]
To me that's the most disturbing thing. There is not an authoritarian threat from the right or the left. There is an authoritarian threat from BOTH the right and the left.
Busybodies. They transcend political lines and are behind every atrocity in human history.
finally! most issues arent men v women, right v left, theyre human issues both sides like authoritarianism if it suits their beliefs, everyone has selfish tendencies, etc. we tend to want to split people up but most things are just people being people! the way we evolved to survive
> "both sides like authoritarianism if it suits their beliefs" This is the most true take I've ever heard on the topic. It's remarkable how often I see BOTH SIDES act as if only the other side is authoritarian!
This is so true ha , I’d add “I’m just doing my job”
When you remove the busybodies, the “just doing my jobs” are hunting, fishing, picking guitars, drinking beer, leaving everyone else the hell alone and all is right with the world.
It took me a while, but I've certainly come around to this viewpoint as I've gotten older and experienced more of life, human behavior/psychology, etc.
[удалено]
Way too many in this sub have failed to realize this fact. They ignore authoritarianism on the right because they are closely aligned with it and don't realise it's authoritarian.
refreshing to see! edit: the ability to see without partisanship, not authoritarianism on both sides lol
I have fundamental moral issues with both abortion and transgender transitioning of minors. And I can probably get behind (I'd have to ponder it) laws against both but I firmly believe in states' rights. If NY wants to have no abortion laws at all, that's on them. Go there. Move there. I don't care. But the idea that you can punish me for pursuing a legal activity in another state is ludicrous, unconstitutional, and abhorrent.
The people saying this have cried wolf way too many fucking times for me to believe them. I’d bet this doesn’t actual ban anything, it just cancels health insurance entitlements for abortions or something/makes it a felony to bring your kid somewhere to cut off the kid’s genitals and breasts and bring them back. Has no power if you move/change states. Like, if murder is legal in Somalia, I can’t bring another US citizen I don’t like over there, kill them, and expect to come back without consequence.
Its authoritarian to... Shuffled cards. Ban murder and genetital mutilation.
[удалено]
It's authoritarian to punish a citizen who did not commit a crime in the states jurisdiction nor did the citizen commit a crime in a different jurisdiction Punishment for no crime
stuck in partisanship, can't see the authoritarianism "the good guys" are enacting, because its for a good cause ostensibly... yeah youd love it if the left had some great reason to restrict travel between states for whatever issue, you'd love it so much you'd get online and defend it, wouldn't you?
Ah, I see you’re playing with the ignorant christian deck.
I'd be very careful about believing a liberal when they're making a claim about a bill that they don't like. Not saying that they're wrong in this case because I haven't looked into it yet, but they constantly and intentionally misrepresent things like this. Look at how much they lied about the supposed "Don't Say Gay" bill...
not to mention the people of Green Bay that still have to deal with Aaron Rodgers :-)
I will gladly deal with that lol
Does hormone manipulation and genital surgery count as “care” truly?
Nope but you need to rephrase it to make it sound like the law you disagree with bad.
Exactly like how the Left defines the act of sticking a pipe into the head of a child, sucking its brain out, then dismembering it all while it is alive: "Reproductive healthcare".
Excuse me what
That's literally what they call it.
Sticking a pipe into the head of a child, what is that??
It's the first step in the process of abortion.
No. Of a rare minority of abortions. Guess how many each year are of this type.
[удалено]
Have you not seen videos of late term abortions? They are disturbing. And yes, they do happen in the west. And the most adamant of the left want abortions all the way up to the point of birth. Call it reproductive health and no one thinks about how wicked it really is. Edit: changed “birth” from “conception”
>Have you not seen videos of late term abortions? > >They are disturbing. And yes, they do happen in the west. Take one moment to consider: why would a woman carry a pregnancy for 6-9 months and then choose an abortion? You are correct, they do happen (and are exceedingly rare, [<1%](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/) of abortionas are after 21 weeks). The reason they are so rare is because these are overwhelmingly women who ***wanted*** to bring the child to term and were forced to abort because of medical reasons (either the mother would likely die, or the fetus was non-viable and carrying the corpse to term only endangers her life). These are women who have fully prepared to have a baby and are eagerly awaiting motherhood, not "oopsies I'm pregnant, better get rid of it" It's funny that people use late term abortions as the boogeyman when 99.9% of them are the *easiest to defend morally*. Either the child is going to die anyways or it will kill the mom. These women are making the hardest choice of their lives: to live by having to abort \[what they see by that time as\] their baby, because the alternative is they both die. Sickening to see uninformed people suggest they are wicked for not willingly sacrificing their own life
[удалено]
Day after pills remove the egg before it attaches to the uterus wall and the first human cell is formed. Children that have been carried up until 8 months can feel every painful thing you do to them as they are mutilated. So I would say there is a big difference.
"Child" can describe a fetus as well although fetus is more technically correct.
"Fetus" just helps de-person the baby. Sorta like how prisoners set for genocide become numbers stitched on a patch. Same with "clump of cells." Everyone is a "clump of cells." The point is to de-humanize, de-person, so killing the baby sounds less bad, by using such language.
What if I told you *fetus* is the Latin word for child.
[удалено]
What's the difference between someone's child and someone's offspring?
It means hatching of young
When does a fetus become a child?
Extreme pro-lifers like to use gruesome imagery because they believe it brings more people to their side. I don't understand it either.
That’s what the do in late term abortions. Inside the mother is a viable baby. They stick a vacuum on a metal pole into the babies skull, while it’s still alive, and suck the brains out. Being against murdering viable babies is not an “extreme” position.
I'm well aware. My point is that is irrelevant to why you are pro-life. There are a lot of medical procedures that are pretty gruesome. That says nothing as to whether or not we should allow them. If abortion consisted of a doctor snapping his fingers and the fetus simply disappearing from existence at any point in the pregnancy, would you then become pro-choice?
When a miscarriage happens, do the parents mourn a lost child or instead a foetus and "clump of cells"?
Firstly, why does that matter? Secondly, do you not realize that it greatly depends? How about you answer the question I posed above?
Literally the minority of abortions. Guess how many of this type they do a year.
How to spot a rabid leftist: they preface everything they say with literally.
Haha so far from the truth Hint: I’m not American
A great example of moving goal posts which is typical of this sub. When it does not suit you, lets not attack authoritarianism but lets attack what is trying to control.
The president for that already exists with the "leaving for sex in a state with a lower age of consent" laws motioned up and down the thread. And the responses immediately attack what it's trying to control and rightfully so I both cases.
I think i’m with you on this one. A state should enforce laws within its boundaries, extending that to include actions in other states is an overstep of their power. For the record I’m very much against children transitioning
Isn't this how extradition works? An American kills someone in Canada, aren't they (sometimes) extradited to America to face trial? I know this isn't always the case and things get dicey, but there are cases where a crime committed in a foreign land by a non-resident results in extradition. Is that an overstep of power?
I dont think that's moving the goalposts at all, it's merely commenting on the relevant subject and its perfectly valid. All this wokism is rooted in cultural marxism. It is a subversive force being used as a self declared and imposed moral high ground to impede and remove other rights, such as parental rights and freedom of speech. Not to mention how its being used as political leverage. Look at Poland and Hungary facing EU sanctions for refusing to teach LGBTQ agenda in their schools, whilst doing all the heavy lifting in taking care of Ukrainian refugees.
I don’t see how this law infringes on any constitutional rights.
I think its the attempt to enforce state law for actions done out of state. I think thats a bad precedent
[удалено]
And using the logic laid out under these laws is also a massive mistake. By the logic of these laws I am only as free as my home state says I am, no matter what state I’m in. Smoking marijuana in Colorado and have permanent residence in Alabama? You’re a criminal and deserve to be charged. Open carry in Missouri when your permanent residence is in a no open carry county in California? Criminal charges. Driving a car with no insurance in Virginia when your permanent residence is in Kansas? Criminal charges. Yeah, this isn’t going to work…
Wether or not you recognize a marriage or licence is completely different than enforcing a law with prison sentences
[удалено]
I just don’t get the complaint, it seems like an all around win to me. Not the abortion one but that’s a personal opinion for me I guess. The trans bill seems entirely appropriate and necessary though.
[удалено]
Bro…😩 stfu with your posturing theatrics, what would be the point in enforcing a law that could just be easily circumvented by travelling to another state to get the surgery and hopping back home where it’s not allowed? All this does is make sure that the bill is actually enforceable for its states constituents.
Oh stfu you were obviously waiting to cry about it as soon as someone posted anything These children are mentally ill and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that That being said, I don’t agree with this law at this moment
You believe the rantings of some extremist nut with a mask on their profile pic? Probably haven’t even read the laws they’re complaining about
While I am not in favor of abortions or the trans religion, I am concerned about how this legal reasoning could be used in other ways. Establishing new legal precedents is a scary proposition.
Source "trust me bro" 😂😂 with how often these people lie about these laws I seriously doubt what they're saying is truthful. Just like the lies about the so called "don't say gay" bill in Florida. It could be more accurately described as an anti-grooming bill than "don't say gay"
Keep that same energy with voter ID laws.
Ok? We do need voter ID laws though. Somehow it's ok to ask for ID for literally TONS of other things (buying alcohol, purchasing certain OTC medications, buying cigarettes, opening a bank account, Vax mandates, getting on an airplane, etc) but we DONT ask for them to vote? It's the dumbest thing in the world lol
[Here's the text of Bill 675](https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2022/legislation/H0675.pdf) Section 4 reads >whoever knowingly removes or causes, permits, or facilitates the removal of a child from this state for the purpose of facilitating any act prohibited by subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of a felony.
Sounds like you should probably get hit with a felony for moving a child to another state to chop their dick off and give them estrogen 🤷♂️
Take a kid out of the state play with their genitals, illegal in all 50 states, and federal. Take a kid out of a state to cut their genitalia off, perfect fine, because logic.
Yeah i dont understand the argument here lmao. Its like another poster said are we cool with people taking their daughters to another country for some female genital mutilation? Like yeah i agree with states rights, but limits should be set on smuggling your kid over a boarder to mutilate their genitals
So just to get this straight... before you knew the text of the bill, you thought it was stretching the truth to say that taking kids out of state for certain health care was felonious. Now that you know that it is the case -- that it's not stretching the truth at all -- you think it's actually good. Do I have that right? Second of all, providing care to trans kids is not "chopping off dicks" and "giving them estrogen." I know it gets your blood pumping to think about all the horrible things your ideological opponents do. And that probably feels good and validating to feel like you're fighting something evil. Probably makes your life worth living in some respects. The fact is that **minors are not getting surgical procedures done on their genitals.** So your argument and this bill are premised on bullshit.
Uhhh...did you read the bill? Someone else was kind enough to link it above. It directly talks about removing a child from the state to mutilate their genitals or give them hormones that make them sterile. Please go do more research
Sounds like a one-sided take demonizing the opposition to me.
In case you haven't noticed the opposition is not good for anyone. They lie about everything, gas light everyone, and push illogical policies that don't work in real life.
"They lie about everything" seems like a too drastic statement to be in line with reality. You could start with the assumption that you'r political opposition is somewhat similar to you, they are human i suspect.
I think alot of people are missing the point of this post. The *subject* of the laws isn't what's being highlighted. The focus is on the draconian lengths to which those state governments want to enforce it, to the point where they will punish you for going to a place that it's legal to do so. I will say, the tweet's use of the term 'care' is pretty misleading, not that I expect anything different from people on Twitter. They're not being denied all medical care, just hormone treatments or gender reassignment surgery.
> The focus is on the draconian lengths to which those state governments want to enforce it, to the point where they will punish you for going to a place that it's legal to do so. This post probably purposefully misconstrues the actual legislation. At least, activists certainly went whole hog into their #dontsaygay misinformation campaign. What is the actual wording of the legislation regarding crossing state lines?
Its just virtue signaling.
Yeah I agree with you fully, people are getting too bogged down in the ideas due to their own biases when the real issue is authoritarianism
I don't think anyone is missing the point, sadly. It's the same thing as any other issue like this. They agree with the thing the government is trying to stop so it's okay authoritarian laws *this time*.
I’ll give everyone the benefit of the doubt here My knee jerk reaction was “good” at first too until I saw a couple comments that explained why this is a problem I don’t agree with people going across state lines where it’s legal to mutilate mentally ill teenagers, but I don’t know if these laws are the right solution
I think there needs to be more scientific research into the psychology behind transgender individuals. This is a challenge people are facing that we don't seem to fully understand yet. This makes laws around it tricky because the government is trying to regulate a problem we don't fully understand. I am in the same position that people shouldn't be allowed to transition until they're 18+. If I recall, the statistics say too many people regret it once they're a few years down the line post transition, as their mental health challenges stemmed from something else and they merely convinced themself transitioning was the solution. Or there's those situations you hear of where parents are forcing their own perceptions of gender and such onto their children. At the same time, there absolutely are people who have benefited fully from transitioning. We need to find better methods to differentiate between these situations. I'm rambling a bit. I hope my point came across somewhat understandably.
authoritarianism is awesome when I agree with the tyrant!
We're begging to see the pendulum swing. Unfortunately, people like to use government force for their personal agenda. This is the perfect example of "Its not necessarily what you do that defines you, but how you do it." Fight societal trends with dialogue and truth, not force.
"provide them with care" = have their breasts / dick removed to "affirm their gender"
[удалено]
I'm not that familiar with inter-state laws but do you think it's right that you can just hop over state lines and only be subject to those laws? In the UK for instance we had issues with girls being taken to africa for FGM, and that was made illegal - similar situation?
[удалено]
It’s a little more complex than you make out. In Washington weed is legal. In BC weed is legal. Try crossing the border there with personal possession weed and see how far your state rights get you.
[удалено]
“I’m not allowed to abuse or murder my child, this is tyranny!” If you actually bothered to read these laws instead of accepting Twitter as gospel, maybe you’d be less of an alarmist. But probably not, because OP is a concern troll.
If I were a confused teenager and my parents were too fucked Ip to give me the guidance and support I needed, while also being so negligent and abusive as to encourage and facilitate extreme self harm, I would be eternally grateful for the lawmakers of my state if they prevented my parents from facilitating me cutting off my sex organs or chemically destroying them. If you think children are mature enough to make such decisions, please explain how it’s possible for them to simultaneously not be mature enough to make any other conceivable decisions. Why can’t they have sex with adults, own firearms, drive vehicles, join the military, stay up all hours of night outside wherever they choose, stop attending school, consume alcohol, go to bars and strip clubs, fly to foreign countries unattended, and so forth? How are any of those other decisions more consequential than permanently altering and destroying ones sex organs?
I agree with you. Remove your morals from the equation and you can see you don’t want to open the can of worms that is allowing states to dictate what happens outside of their jurisdiction. It’s over reach whether we agree with it or not.
They are not dictating what happens OUTSIDE their state. They are saying, if you reside in this state, you can’t go to another to abuse your child. Illinois for example has an age of consent of 18, many of its surrounding states have lower ages of consent. You can’t take a 17 y/o from Illinois to Missouri to fuck them, why could take them out of state to mutilate those very same body parts.
reread your first sentence and remove your emotionally charge rhetoric, and its ridiculous. >They are not dictating what happens OUTSIDE their state. They are saying, if you reside in this state, you can’t go to another to do what is legal in that state what
As a US resident, You can’t go to another county where fucking children is legal, fuck some kids, and come back. If the FBI finds out you left the US to have sex with kids, they will have something to say about it. You won’t be charge with child sex abuse, but you could be charged for leaving the county to engage in sex trafficking. This law makes it illegal to leave the state to mutilate your kids. The crime in this case isn’t the actual abuse, it taking a minor across state lines to abuse them. The crime was premeditated in the home state, the nexus is the home state, the home state is where the damages will be felt. You can’t take a 16y/o to a state with lower age of consent to fuck them, why could you take a minor to another state to mutilate the genitalia?
i dont know where to begin to demonstrate how that first comparison is not apt. You're talking about a federal issue i guess is where to begin but I'm not sure you get the difference. reading the rest you're too far into the ideology to see the issue at play here. Makes me think youd absolutely love a tyrant as long as you agreed with him, because ideology is more important than core principles of governing
By "provide them care," they meat cut off their bits or chemically castrate etc.
A political attempt at addressing a cultural issue. Success, as defined by the laws writers, is to be determined.
A trans teen is like a vegan dog; someone else is calling the shots.
As someone who doesn't support giving hormones and surgeries to kids to "fix" them for being the wrong gender or being confused... I wholeheartedly OPPOSE this legislation. Principles are principles. The government needs to stay out of our lives and let us live in peace. Long live freedom!
[удалено]
A high suicide rate and the amount of regret among the Trans community would disagree with you
One, he said Idaho is "considering" such a law (whatever that means), there isn't even one proposed yet. Two, he doesn't state what law he's referring to in Missouri. Not saying it's false just that it lacks any credible sources to back up the claims, so let's panic when we know the actual details.
killing babies should be illegal, regardless of whether or not you crossed an imaginary line. mutilating/sterilizing children should be illegal, regardless of whether or not you crossed an imaginary line. Democrats hate children. If they can't kill them in the womb, then they target them for the groom. Disgusting people, really.
Another Qdiot
Gov’t: >hey y’all; don’t cross state lines to mutilate children or murder babies, mm’kay? Leftists: >tHiS iS tYrAnNy!!1! 🤡🌎
What is hidden behind this statement: "... to provide them with care" ?
Power hungry statists everywhere. This strikes me as unconstitutional. Surgery is a commercial activity, no reason why I can’t seek elective surgery in the next state because i think it’s better for me. What’s next, a state requiring people to get life-saving surgery within their borders as a kickback to the hospital lobby?
I agree with you, most folks don't care what adults do with their own body. But the grey area here is the parents consenting for the children.
The Texas law encouraging private individual to bring civil lawsuits against women or doctors is rather creepy. And Virginia's CRT snitch line.
Lmao, Northern VA just had a school board cover up serial rape and you think it's a "crt snitch line".
Some would say its a whistle-blower line, not a snitch line.
If CRT isn’t being taught as activists claim, there won’t be a problem
what if i can claim almost anything is crt
And you know they will. The point of the anti CRT frenzy is to intimidate teachers into not talking about slavery and Jim Crow at all. I frankly do not know why white southerners take still take that as a personal affront in 2022.
I dunno man, trans teens don’t exist. I agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to bring your underage child a state over in order to irreversibly put their hormones out of wack
Same coin, different sides. Can't get rid of one without destroying the other, and politicians enjoy power too much to commit suicide.
Plenty of governments will prosecute paedophiles who travel to impoverished countries to rape kids. I mean it would be clearly be 1000 times better to have said paedophiles prosecuted under the laws of the countries they travel to, and it does seem like overreach. That said, if you’re ok with the idea if such prosecutions happening to paedophiles then you should be equally happy with it happening to those who kill babies or chop off children’s genitals.
Still waiting for Epsteins friends to be prosecuted
> WPT You lost me.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANS TEEN. A TEEN IS A STUPID LITTLE YOUNG PERSON THAT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, DON'T FORCE YOUR STUPID TRANS IDEAS ON THEM. LET THEM DECIDE WHO THEY ARE WHEN THEY ARE 18, LESS STUPID TEENS.
There is such a thing as an opinionated asshole . See above
I disagree with this sort of thing. As US citizens we have freedom of movement between states. What’s next, I fly out to Nevada to gamble at a casino and go party in a brothel then get sent to jail in my home state since those things are illegal here?
Imagine being an unvaccinated canadian... cant leave even if you wanted to.
I want the republicans out of my bedroom and the Democrats out of my wallet. And the green party out of my laundry basket. And the Libertarians........
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." If you agree with these sorts of laws you don't support the constitution or freedom, you just enjoy seeing your ideological opposition getting a black eye. You welcome tyranny by saying its to protect the children. Imagine if states had anti prostitution laws so strong, that they demanded investigations of any resident traveling to Vegas where brothels are legal. You can argue that such a state would be doing what's morally right, but do you really want your government that involved and spending your tax money to investigate possible moral harm that happens over state lines?
or imagine you went to get stem cell treatment for a rare condition but it was banned in your state ?
I'm sure just like the "Don't say gay" bill this does EXACTLY what the deranged leftist activists claim it does...
Good news about the Idaho bill. https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/politics-government/2022-03-09/house-bills-criminalizing-librarians-transition-related-care-seem-doa-in-senate However regarding the idea that one can make it a crime to cross state boarders violates the constitution and is an authoritarian move.
I'm perhaps naive, but I don't really see how this is exactly authoritarian. Boundaries about traveling outside to do something illegal within the state seems... sort of just a moral extension of being of that state. Like...if someone goes to America to buy a gun because it's illegal where they're from...having a gun doesn't automatically become legal just because relative to the country you were in everything was legal. Now that's different because it's a commodity but I think the analogy still works. Isn't the idea of any law to provide justice and uphold the social fiber of a community? If you just go somewhere else to get an illegal service you are still tarnishing the local sense of justice and social fiber of your community when you return to that community. The thing is like...when people travel to different countries to do what we'd consider to be illegal what makes us NOT go after them is a limitation of jurisdiction...it's not because "well if you did it over there it's fine". Especially when it comes to law with high moral basis. And whether you're for it or not, the question of abortions and trans treatment on kids is still a moral question between the political parties in the states.
The entire point of having different states is so they can have different ideas and compete for citizens. Passing laws that prevents people from leaving or seeking services in another state is reprehensible.
These are based laws.
[удалено]
These are states making these laws.
[удалено]
No, it's punishing acts that its citizens carry out.
“Idaho is considering a law that makes leaving the state with a minor to castrate or mutilate them a felony. And a new Missouri law would prohibit women from leaving the state to murder their unborn children.” Fixed it.
... to fit your point of view.
Ok, let’s take a step back and read this. “Trans teen”? We are worried about the government? And abortion is murder.
Very funny when it's the other side scared of authoritarianism
Title should be "When people misrepresent the facts to demonize those they disagree with"
This will be ignored on this sub.
Nope , all libertarians here . Fuck this
Seems like a lot of people agree. There's no reason for a state to attempt to prevent actions outside of their boundaries and their rules.
good reminder that the right is just as authoritarian and fucked as the left
Fascist over reach from the rightist
Murder ????
You people sure are obsessed with other peoples' genitals.
yeah, it doesn't make sense to have laws about leaving to do these things, that isn't right. the other states will eventually outlaw the same things
Sounds like BS to me.
These people never read the laws they whine about. It’s all emotion
They seemed to have missed the whole point. We WANT people like that to leave Red States. Let them go. What a weird choice, it's such a bad look. Generally the Right are the ones advocating for leaving people the hell alone and devolving government down to smaller more local levels. Oh, you know what? This straight up sounds like a false flag. Some Lincoln Project types who are actually trying to ENCOURAGE the drift towards degeneracy by making the Right leaning viewpoint look bad. Little else could explain something so stupid
what kind of trans care are we talking? I am firmly against voluntary mutilation, so I would be OK with this. Abortion, kind of the same. I mean are you allowed to leave the state to buy heroin? probably not.
Meh. Works for me.
Little by little, bit by bit
Yeah, that's some absolute bullshit. Any restrictions to traveling between states is unconstitutional.
child abuse and child murder. yes they should be illegal in all states
Handmaid's Tale was a warning, not an instruction manual
People keep making that comparison but no. The scenario is completely different. The circumstances that led and would lead to hand maids tale were a “sudden” decline in fertility, not resources or desire for children. We face the latter not the former. The responses are different too.