State's Rights!
?
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
316 points (98.8% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3766 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Not like that"
Yeah, that's it. State's rights.
IMHO, there are only personal rights and government rights. State's rights just means consolidation of power to a specific level of government and since those powers rarely come from a different level of government, where else could they come from*...?*
Funny how the population of pretty much every state is majority pro-choice even as the governments of many are staunchly anti-choice.
It's almost like a system devised in the 1700s that didn't take two corporations masquerading as political parties gaining absolute control into consideration is NOT an effective way to achieve a truly representative government!
What are you, some kind of terrorist? How dare you question the wisdom of the founding fathers?
More like FUMBLING fathers, amirite? Up top! holds up hand for high five
* fist bumps open palm*
Its main sponsor, Republican Rep. Jon Hansen—who sits on the board of directors for South Dakota Right to Life—claimed to South Dakota Searchlight that people had been “misled, or frankly, fraudulently induced,” into signing Dakotans for Health’s abortion rights petition. “People have approached me and they said, ‘Hey, I signed that abortion petition because I thought it was pro-life. That’s what they led me to believe,’” Hansen alleged
Yeah, I sorta doubt it.
To Summarize:
The article discusses the efforts of reproductive rights activists to get abortion-rights amendments on ballots in various states, particularly focusing on South Dakota. Despite recent trends favoring abortion rights supporters in ballot initiatives across states, South Dakota Republicans are attempting to thwart these efforts. Governor Kristi Noem signed a bill allowing people to revoke their signatures from ballot initiative petitions, which directly impacts an abortion-rights initiative being pursued by a group called Dakotans for Health. The article highlights the tactics employed by Republicans, including claims of misleading petition signatures and the passing of a law with an emergency clause to take immediate effect. Despite criticisms of the proposed abortion-rights amendment in South Dakota for its limitations, such as only allowing abortion in the first trimester and restrictions in the second trimester, the initiative continues to gain support. However, challenges persist as Republicans attempt to undermine the initiative, raising questions about the respect for voter will and the potential impact on the success of the campaign.
They're trying to hamper similar efforts in Missouri, like Ohio where they wouldn't let a simple majority make changes. I don't expect them to succeed.
When you put referendums in front of the Missouri electorate, they actually act surprisingly progressive. We legalized weed and expanded Medicaid, much to the chagrin of the Republican government.
Fascists
They tried like hell to keep it off of the ballot in Ohio because they were afraid of what did happen. I can’t say if all of the dirty politics influenced people who were unsure how to vote in the opposite direction the GOP intended. Statistically speaking the final vote wasn’t even close. That is what they fear.
They'll just vote on abortion in November then.
