119 points

Weird, per his beloved Constitution the federal government’s duty here is to ensure unmolested travel between and amongst the states.

permalink
report
reply
61 points

Don’t worry, the supreme court will soon reinterpret it to mean something completely different.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Thomas: “The founding fathers clearly indicated that they wanted some light molestation between the states, as women were property back then. This is no different from inspecting wheat when it enters the country.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Gotta love the Supreme Court nowadays… if you want to change the rules just cozy up to them and ask them to do it for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Wish i could be rich enough to be a branch of govt.

We need some guys in there thatll take a bag of weed and some buttons or I’ll never get to participate in democracy

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yes. The text says one thing, but what did the founders intend? Surely not the literal words. Only Clarence and pals will know after a seance. The first part of the ritual is, of course, receiving millions of dollars from billionaires.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, the “originalist” council of clerics on the “supreme” court have special insights into such things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Yeah but not like that, that’s against the rules! \s

permalink
report
parent
reply
88 points

Let’s be clear on what that implies: it means all women travelling Interstate would have to prove at a state border that they’re not pregnant. Which means proving with what?

Some form of proof you have an IUD or contraceptive? They’re planning on banning that too.

Some kind of medical document, emitted less than x days ago by a doctor?

And since that would be insanely difficult to obtain, it essentially means women would be banned from interstate travel.

Welcome to Gilead, blessed be the fucking fruit.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

If only the people who supported regressive, dumbass positions like JD Vance’s could be swayed by thinking about things for even a few fucking seconds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It would be considered a feature, not a bug, if women could not travel without the permission of men.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, that’s true.

It’s just that based on prior arguments I’ve had, they’re just so agitated by thinking things through. even if you put aside the overt heinousness, they just wave away the collateral damage, dismissing them as trivial details as though the whole fucking point of policy is the effect those policies will have. It’s partly that they’re advocating for awful things, but also frustrating that they are too willfully ignorant to realize how bad their own arguments are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

Oh, but I thought they were going to leave it up to the states. This is such a surprise.

permalink
report
reply
38 points

When a conservative says “states rights” they actually mean “localized tyranny” within any locality they control. That’s why they instantly apply the tyranny at a federal level whenever they are in control.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

When a regressive says, “states’ rights,” they actually mean, “we tried and failed to legislate this at a federal level.” You are absolutely right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

Female Trump supporters are gonna be in for a shock when they realize ‘bringing back the 50s’ doesn’t mean wearing cute aprons and letting pies cool on window sills but instead means they’re sitting in a police station for driving while female while cops are sorting out why they had a couple hundred bucks cash on hand

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Just wait until they find out that women could not have bank accounts, and would not have their own credit cards, under 50s-style thinking.

And for people that would say, “oh, the Republicans would never do that”…LOL. I remember hearing crusty old parents of boomers bitching about “no fault divorce” and I didn’t think too many of the youngs GAF about that - until fairly recently - you see these incels talking about rolling it back, some of them born after 9/11 FFS. Also, the right is targeting birth control (again), just like the olden times. They are trying to force “the” bible back into our public schools.

These people are seriously brain-damaged dumbasses who are such Karens that they just cannot let anyone else live their goddamn lives in peace. They have distorted meanings of terms - they view their special privileges and the ability to rule over others as “freedom” and “liberty”. Don’t put anything past them - some of them will try to roll back 60+ years of progress…

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

My God USA is going to a a civil war over not returning women to Southern states isint it. History really likes to rhyme.

permalink
report
reply
37 points

The Bible Belt constantly yearns for slaves

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

At some point someone needs to realize When human pops become a product you gone off the deep end. Especially with automation ramping up harder and harder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

A new underground railroad?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Great idea. At this point US may need it again but it’s just sad that it’s come to that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Agreed.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 110K

    Comments