• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alabama can’t prosecute groups who help women travel to get an abortion, federal judge says

I've just explained to you why states are "taking action against them." The purpose is to get the Democratic base all worked up. What they're not doing it for is to protect their citizens or visitors against legal risk, because there isn't any.

As for holding those red state legislators accountable, that's up to their voters, and not you. Worry about holding your own state's legislators, and if they're spending time on shield laws in your state, they're wasting your money.
 
It's nice you feel that way.
 
NatMorton said:
I've just explained to you why states are "taking action against them." The purpose is to get the Democratic base all worked up.
Click to expand...

Why would it bother the left? It is a victory for us. It would more likely be infuriating the red states, blocking their small-minded misogyny and efforts to punish women and providers.

NatMorton said:
What they're not doing it for is to protect their citizens or visitors against legal risk, because there isn't any.
Click to expand...

Then how is it illegal? Arent there charges for illegal acts?

NatMorton said:
As for holding those red state legislators accountable, that's up to their voters, and not you.
Click to expand...

Hey, you made the claim. Wouldnt you be pro-active is someone acted illegally against you? See the law upheld with whatever criminal penalties were appropriate? Should states be able to attempt to intimidate people in other states for legal services and behavior?

NatMorton said:
Worry about holding your own state's legislators, and if they're spending time on shield laws in your state, they're wasting your money.
Click to expand...

The bold: how so? I just gave specifics in how they're not, so please directly refute what I wrote and explain the bold.
 
It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?

If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.
 
NatMorton said:
It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?
Click to expand...

Why would it "energize" the left? It's already in place, has been, and is succeeding. It is a victory for us. It would more likely be infuriating the red states, blocking their small-minded misogyny and efforts to punish women and providers.

So yes...you need to explain your statement re: Democrats.

NatMorton said:
If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Show why. Your "na huh" is meaningless...I gave specifics. Let's see you dispute those? Show the lies? "It's really not more complicated than that."
 
People in Alabama should be disgusted with this... or if they actually agree with this they should be ashamed.

I bet we could pass laws that would deny these people the right to vote... since they are keen about denying people rights.
 
This is not a do-nothing law.

Some anti-abortion state is suing because New York won't enforce their anti-abortion law as regards a NY doctor's mailing abortion medications prescribed over the web to a woman in the anti-abortion state.

But NY has a shield law that protects both NYers and their out of state people in such a case. Even if the woman in the other state has broken laws in that state, NY claims that no one broke the law in NY and they won't help the other state at all because of the law.
 
NatMorton said:
Anyone with even a superficial understanding of state and federal law would know that such a case would have been thrown out.
Click to expand...


Right.

Roe v Wade isn't in any danger either, anyone with a modicum of knowledge knows that.
 
NatMorton said:
It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?

If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
I really don't agree with this. The Democratic base is pretty much always energized. What it isn't always is optimistic. NY wants that base not to be hopelessly depressed, and in the face of all the anti-abortion legislation all over the country, the governor and other top Democrats want to reassure that base that they're on top of it and will make sure that those horrible people in other states can't enforce their stupid laws across state lines.

We may be willing to help LA law enforcement get back escaped people charged with murder in LA, but if LA wants to impose capital punishment on someone charged with LA murder, and NY evaluates the person as mentally ill, NY doesn't always cooperate.

Similarly, in this case, if someone comes to NY and gets an abortion, no one did anything wrong in NY, so NY is clarifying that providers don't have to provide any information, and no one has to help the out of state cops find the out of state woman if she's still here.

Many of us are horrified by the states that are trying to enforce their anti-choice laws beyond their borders, because it appears to be very much like the old state slavery laws, which free states never wanted to help, back in the 1800s.
 
NatMorton said:
It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?
Click to expand...

Why would it "energize" the left? It's already in place, has been, and is succeeding. It is a victory for us. It would more likely be infuriating the red states, blocking their small-minded misogyny and efforts to punish women and providers.

So yes...you need to explain your statement re: Democrats.

NatMorton said:
If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Show why. Your "na huh" is meaningless...I gave specifics. Let's see you dispute those? Show the lies? "It's really not more complicated than that."
 
NatMorton said:
You too need to think it through. If your can come up with a reason why the Republicans are trying to stir up their base there's a good reason you've also answered the same questions for Democrats.
Click to expand...
Or it’s just a watered down Handmaid’s Tale situation.

Demographic problem. Same as Israel.

Force white women to have every child they become pregnant with.

To help offset all those kids brown people have.
 
NatMorton said:
How about last November?
Click to expand...
I won't say the Democratic base didn't vote in numbers.

These elections all depend on getting three other kinds of votes - the people who belong to the Democratic Party who aren't part of the base, the independents who lean Democrat but don't belong to the party and sometimes vote Republican, and independs who lean Republican and members of the Republican Party who aren't part of its base.

The Republicans have the same problem. For example, Liz Cheney is a Republican and usually even part of that party's base, but she stumped for Democrats to prevent Trump from having the presidential power he now has. There are several members of this forum who are Republicans who, however, haven't voted for Trump because they can't stomach him. There are Independents who have gone both ways. Etc.

The base of each party is the totally loyal minority of the party and usually comes close to the furthest left and furthest right just within the party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…