19 Republi'can' AG's try to assert States OWN women's bodies!

Bigdog said:
No, thank you.

" has passed a law that, according to reports, could criminalize a person who helps “facilitate” an abortion"

Pure speculation and fearmongering (not a fact). The fact is ...

"The AGs said in their comments the issue of punishing women who receive abortions is “fearmongering” since states are not holding the women who receive abortion liable."
Click to expand...

Again the point you missing is a simple one but you are dumb so i will break it down.

It is ok for a Derp State to :

- criminalize gambling (or many things)
- they can also criminalize the actions of a person who helps “facilitate” an gambling, such as the 'dealer' or the 'location' that allows it.

What the derp State CANNOT DO is :

- say any citizen from their State who goes to Vegas cannot gamble
- anyone in Vegas (uber driver, dealers, casinos) who 'who helps “facilitate” gambling" is subject to DerpState laws.

That is not how US laws works, even if derps really, really want it to.
Even if the DerpState has no intention of charging the citizen who is doing the gambling (getting the abortion) they CANNOT charge the uber driver or casino, who enabled it, in their State, where it legal.
 
QP! said:
Again the point you missing is a simple one but you are dumb so i will break it down.

It is ok for a Derp State to :

- criminalize gambling (or many things)
- they can also criminalize the actions of a person who helps “facilitate” an gambling, such as the 'dealer' or the 'location' that allows it.

What the derp State CANNOT DO is :

- say any citizen from their State who goes to Vegas cannot gamble
- anyone in Vegas (uber driver, dealers, casinos) who 'who helps “facilitate” gambling" is subject to DerpState laws.

That is not how US laws works, even if derps really, really want it to.
Even if the DerpState has no intention of charging the citizen who is doing the gambling (getting the abortion) they CANNOT charge the uber driver or casino, who enabled it, in their State, where it legal.
Click to expand...

The medical information is not going to include or verify the identity of the driver. Or whether the driver knows the passenger is going for an abortion.

Next.
 
Bigdog said:
The medical information is not going to include or verify the identity of the driver. Or whether the driver knows the passenger is going for an abortion.

Next.
Click to expand...

...The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountancy Act ensures that patient information remains private. But in the AGs’ comments in opposition to the rules change, they said there always has been an exception for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to investigate possible violations of state law or when such an investigation was to protect the public health.

“The proposed rule defies the governing statute, would unlawfully interfere with states’ authority to enforce their laws, and does not serve any legitimate need,” Fitch and the other AGs wrote....
Click to expand...

States CANNOT enforce their State law based on actions taken in another State where such actions are LEGAL.

This demand by the DerpState AG's is what does not serve any legitimate need as they cannot point to a single POTENTIAL law violated in States that allow abortions, that would then necessitate them getting access to those records.

YOU cannot point to a single law that would be at risk of being broken by an action taken in a State that allows abortion that would still be illegal to do via DerpState law.



Next...
 
Last edited:
QP! said:
States CANNOT enforce their State law based on actions taken in another State where such actions are LEGAL.

This demand by the DerpState AG's is what does not serve any legitimate need as they cannot point to a single POTENTIAL law violated in States that allow abortions, that would then necessitate them getting access to those records.

YOU cannot point to a single law that would be at risk of being broken by an action taken in a State that allows abortion that would still be illegal to do via DerpState law.



Next...
Click to expand...

I already said that. :palm: You just didn't want to hear it.

"Fitch’s office referred to her written response when asked why she opposes the rule change, since under Mississippi law a woman would not be punished for having an abortion. Mississippi law punishes health care providersfor performing abortions. But Mississippi law could not punish a doctor for providing an abortion in a state where the procedure is legal.

The AGs said in their comments the issue of punishing women who receive abortions is “fearmongering” since states are not holding the women who receive abortion liable. Idaho, whose attorney general joined Fitch in opposing the proposed rules change, has passed a law that, according to reports, could criminalize a person who helps “facilitate” an abortion."

https://mississippitoday.org/2023/07/13/lynn-fitch-abortion-rules-change-track-info/
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.. Are you sure you are a lawyer?
Florida allows under 18 to get tattoo with parent's consent
https://www.studio54tattoo.com/policy-for-minors

It looks like most states allow tattoos with parental consent and the parent present.

Based on your argument, all states prohibit cutting off the breasts of minors since all states require parental consent for medical procedures.
Click to expand...
lib'ruls are pushing for removing parental rights for parents who will not cooperate......and yes, I'm a lawyer....are you a parent who gives a fuck about his children?......
 
QP! said:
A State CAN criminalize an activity in the State, whether the citizens agree with the law or not. You will break the law in that State, if you then do it.

A State CANNOT criminalize an activity you might do in another State, when it is LEGAL to do it there, Your State may not allow gambling but when in Vegas you are not breaking the law, as it is legal there.


That is a foundational premise of the law as the State does not OWN you, and you are not the State's possession, so they cannot tell you what you can and cannot do in OTHER jurisdictions where the activity is LEGAL. It is not enough for the State to say 'It is illegal to do here (the activity is prohibited in THIS jurisdiction) therefore you the CITIZEN cannot do it anywhere.

They assert control of their jurisdiction but not you specifically, so it is only when you break that law in THEIR jurisdiction you then break the law. That is core to law. It is jurisdiction dependent and NOT citizen dependant, no matter where they are. It is out of season to fish Salmon where you are and you will break the law to fish it, but in season in another State, you are free to go as the law does not apply to you, the citizen, it applies to the jurisdiction.


Now Republi'can' AG's across the country are trying to get control of the Citizen and not just have control of the State and the Law.

So if you gamble in Vegas (have an abortion out of State) they want to say that even though it was legal there, the law applies to your body no matter the jurisdiction as the State has jurisdiction over your body even as it travels. No matter where it travels.
Click to expand...

Murdering a child is not your own body, dumbass.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the foundation of federalism is that STATES make their own societies and laws......but they have ZERO authority over what you do in any other state. NONE.

that they AGs are considering this is laughable. I hope they try it though. They deserve to be smacked down for it.
Click to expand...

They do.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.. Are you sure you are a lawyer?
Florida allows under 18 to get tattoo with parent's consent
https://www.studio54tattoo.com/policy-for-minors

It looks like most states allow tattoos with parental consent and the parent present.

Based on your argument, all states prohibit cutting off the breasts of minors since all states require parental consent for medical procedures.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
lib'ruls are pushing for removing parental rights for parents who will not cooperate......and yes, I'm a lawyer....are you a parent who gives a fuck about his children?......
Click to expand...

Richard, he claims to be a lawyer but he and i have tussled on matters of law often and he has YET to show even a basic comprehension of most legal issues.

Time and again he says something wrong, I correct him with proof or citation, and after he runs off to google to check he then back pedals from his prior comments.

So if he is a lawyer, he is a terrible one. And since he has claimed he is a slumlord lawyer that might make sense. That part of real estate law is where the dumbest of the dumb lawyers end up. 90% filings for evictions and collections where the other party is a no show. Paralegals are better at it, then most of the lawyers who end up in this area.
 
QP! said:
More stupidity from you.
Click to expand...
You are describing yourself again, as this post demonstrates:
QP! said:
Republi'cans' want to ban any Sex Ed and also access to Birth Control.
Click to expand...
No, they don't. You don't get to speak for everyone.
QP! said:
MAGA means to take America to back when it was great,
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Look up the meaning of the acronym.
QP! said:
which was when women's place was in the home barefoot and pregnant and PoC and women had no rights and step by step they are trying to recreate and force that.
Click to expand...
....annnnd you ignore what a right is and what the Constitution says once again. Go read the 14th and 19th amendments.

Women have always had rights. Those rights are inherent, just as rights are inherent in men.
It is DEMOCRATS that want to turn women into slaves. You hate women.
 
QP! said:
Richard, he claims to be a lawyer but he and i have tussled on matters of law often and he has YET to show even a basic comprehension of most legal issues.

Time and again he says something wrong, I correct him with proof or citation, and after he runs off to google to check he then back pedals from his prior comments.

So if he is a lawyer, he is a terrible one. And since he has claimed he is a slumlord lawyer that might make sense. That part of real estate law is where the dumbest of the dumb lawyers end up. 90% filings for evictions and collections where the other party is a no show. Paralegals are better at it, then most of the lawyers who end up in this area.
Click to expand...

You are no lawyer.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Republicans are vile, both in concept and in practice.

States where they don't have majority power need to separate from red states as soon as possible
or there will be no civilized place to live on this continent.

We can't blame only conservatives for the corruption of our nation.

We must also blame luke-warm progressives
who believe that the republic in its current configuration is still viable.

We can't change the minds of the lower life forms who vote Republican
but we don't need to be unified with the vile cretins.
Click to expand...

War mongering.
 
QP! said:
A State CAN criminalize an activity in the State, whether the citizens agree with the law or not. You will break the law in that State, if you then do it.

A State CANNOT criminalize an activity you might do in another State, when it is LEGAL to do it there, Your State may not allow gambling but when in Vegas you are not breaking the law, as it is legal there.


That is a foundational premise of the law as the State does not OWN you, and you are not the State's possession, so they cannot tell you what you can and cannot do in OTHER jurisdictions where the activity is LEGAL. It is not enough for the State to say 'It is illegal to do here (the activity is prohibited in THIS jurisdiction) therefore you the CITIZEN cannot do it anywhere.

They assert control of their jurisdiction but not you specifically, so it is only when you break that law in THEIR jurisdiction you then break the law. That is core to law. It is jurisdiction dependent and NOT citizen dependant, no matter where they are. It is out of season to fish Salmon where you are and you will break the law to fish it, but in season in another State, you are free to go as the law does not apply to you, the citizen, it applies to the jurisdiction.


Now Republi'can' AG's across the country are trying to get control of the Citizen and not just have control of the State and the Law.

So if you gamble in Vegas (have an abortion out of State) they want to say that even though it was legal there, the law applies to your body no matter the jurisdiction as the State has jurisdiction over your body even as it travels. No matter where it travels.
Click to expand...

Define a woman. Dumbfuck democrat
 
QP! said:
Fetus DO NOT have personhood nor rights.
Click to expand...
YES THEY DO. You are killing a human being! It will NEVER be a chicken, a goat, an insect, or anything else. It is a HUMAN BEING.
QP! said:
A state may be able to prevent the act of abortion happening in their State. They can 'govern' which 'acts' can be done in their State (no gambling, no smoking marijuana, no abortions, etc) but they CANNOT extend out to say the person cannot engage in those things in States or Countries where they are legal.
Click to expand...
This is correct. However, all State should ban abortions because it's murder.
QP! said:
It is only illegal to have an abortion in a State, where that State imposes that legislation.
Click to expand...
Correct.
QP! said:
To say that a State can extend out and prosecute those who do those actions in other States, is treating State law as if it is Federal Law and applicable across the entire country. Sates are not allowed to define what is legal or not in another State.
Click to expand...
WRONG. States can make amendments to the Constitution, which affects all States. States can also sue other States.
QP! said:
A fundamental precept of Law is that a person must be tried for their crime in the location where the crime took place. So if Alabama says it is illegal for someone to go NYS for an abortion that crime would be happening in NYS and must be tried there. Obviously Alabama officials cannot do that.
Click to expand...
Correct.
QP! said:
But then conserva'tards' hate the Law.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
You also hate kids.
You also hate women.
 
QP! said:
A State CAN criminalize an activity in the State, whether the citizens agree with the law or not. You will break the law in that State, if you then do it.

A State CANNOT criminalize an activity you might do in another State, when it is LEGAL to do it there, Your State may not allow gambling but when in Vegas you are not breaking the law, as it is legal there.


That is a foundational premise of the law as the State does not OWN you, and you are not the State's possession, so they cannot tell you what you can and cannot do in OTHER jurisdictions where the activity is LEGAL. It is not enough for the State to say 'It is illegal to do here (the activity is prohibited in THIS jurisdiction) therefore you the CITIZEN cannot do it anywhere.

They assert control of their jurisdiction but not you specifically, so it is only when you break that law in THEIR jurisdiction you then break the law. That is core to law. It is jurisdiction dependent and NOT citizen dependant, no matter where they are. It is out of season to fish Salmon where you are and you will break the law to fish it, but in season in another State, you are free to go as the law does not apply to you, the citizen, it applies to the jurisdiction.


Now Republi'can' AG's across the country are trying to get control of the Citizen and not just have control of the State and the Law.

So if you gamble in Vegas (have an abortion out of State) they want to say that even though it was legal there, the law applies to your body no matter the jurisdiction as the State has jurisdiction over your body even as it travels. No matter where it travels.
Click to expand...

So, Georgia just made it legal to overrule what AG's do - for example - if Faunae Willis indicts trump, they can the Republicans can quash it. Just wait until what is next - Republicans making it legal to overturn the will of the people - i.e. claiming "voter fraud" or some shit and sending in another result if they don't like it. Think they won't try it? Think again!
 
QP! said:
Richard, he claims to be a lawyer but he and i have tussled on matters of law often and he has YET to show even a basic comprehension of most legal issues.
Click to expand...

I bitch slap QuePie on a regular basis.....he thinks he understands the law because he nearly finished reading a book once.....it was about the Tooth Fairy and he thought it was contract law.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top