Taking States Rights on Abortion a Step Further.

[1blackman1]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...p3c?li=BBnb7Kz

South Carolina doesn’t want you to go to the internet to learn about abortion or even find out where you can get one.

States rights at its best.

[Yssup Rider]

Great day to be a woman in South Carolina.

Hope none of y'all be fuckin' down there.

[Salty Again]

... That's what the idea of letting each state decide
its-own rules means. ... Each state gets to decide.
Quite the novel concept these days, mates.

#### Salty

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... That's what the idea of letting each state decide
its-own rules means. ... Each state gets to decide.
Quite the novel concept these days, mates.

#### Salty

How novel would it be if we let each individual decide!

Let the free market work!

[Grace Preston]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... That's what the idea of letting each state decide
its-own rules means. ... Each state gets to decide.
Quite the novel concept these days, mates.

#### Salty

Pretty sure states rights won't trump the 1st Amendment....

[winn dixie]

Meanwhile, sales of coat hangers are through the roof.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...p3c?li=BBnb7Kz

South Carolina doesn’t want you to go to the internet to learn about abortion or even find out where you can get one.

States rights at its best.

That's just nuts. Blackman, Is there any way that will stand when it's tested in courts?

[SecretE]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Pretty sure states rights won't trump the 1st Amendment....

...or a good VPN, like everyone should be using in this "community".

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Pretty sure states rights won't trump the 1st Amendment....

Exactly and people like 1bm1 know that but it wouldn't be good for the narrative he is trying to advance.


Now, I would have said "look what South Carolina just did but it is highly unlikely, I would say impossible, that the SC won't strike this down along with most if not all the other issues on "the list", of things Democrats tell us "are coming".


But that's just me because I have no agenda other than seeing that the Constitution is followed no matter who it hurts or helps BECAUSE, there is a way to change anything we the people don't like and don't want but you just might have to go to another state to find your "sweet spot".

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

That's just nuts. Blackman, Is there any way that will stand when it's tested in courts?

I have no doubt what so ever how 1bm1 will answer that.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Meanwhile, sales of coat hangers are through the roof.

Do it yourself abortions -- I love it!

https://msmagazine.com/2020/04/01/se...-legally-safe/

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I have no doubt what so ever how 1bm1 will answer that.

You should PM me your prediction. With your permission I could reveal it to the world after Blackman replies.

[winn dixie]

slippery slopes mean we all get muddy

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

You should PM me your prediction. With your permission I could reveal it to the world after Blackman replies.

No need, I'll make it right here. Anybody that graduated from Law School and for sake of argument, let's say he did, knows that a Constitutional right supersedes any States right.


You know how us laymen know that? Because when abortion was a Constitutional right, even though decided incorrectly according to the Constitution, no state could pass a law outlawing abortion. Hence, a Constitutional right always supersedes a State right.


Am I right counselor?


And let me guess what he will say while avoiding the central question, I predict.


"Oh, you never know what these crazy ULTRA MAGA Justices might do"! No need to worry about that, they will follow the letter of the law in the Constitution.

[1blackman1]

This current court, who knows. But to kind of answer the question, I’m not sure this is a free speech issue and even were that the approach, Speech can be limited when it’s illegal. The implementation of the law will be what’s interesting. I’ve not seen the language so I’m not clear what they deem illegal.

Will they make searching illegal. That’s clearly not speech so they might be able to make that an illegal activity, though it’s be very big brother-ish. Or will they attempt to make a Michigan website illegal that’s accessible in Carolina? I don’t see practically how that works such that a Carolina DA could charge the Michigan site administration.

I’m Actually curious to see how the lower courts in Carolina handle it as well was what they actually deem as illegal.

What’s more interesting to me is that Carolina has passed this legislation. Every time HF and others say, no one is gonna take these things further, the right gives it their best shot to go full Taliban