Clearly this court doesn’t have a respect for the right to privacy. Just look at this ruling as well as their comments on decisions like Lawrence.
Hell, like I said before, Alito supported the strip search of a 10-year-old girl by the police even though the girl wasn’t name in the search warrant.
Further, when was the last time that the appearance of a dead body wasn’t probable cause for an investigation?
Why? Most people in the USA who die do so from natural reasons. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that the discovery of a dead body doesn’t give police probable cause to do an investigation. Obviously they don’t waste their time investigating each and every dead person, but they certainly have the ability to investigate far more deaths than they currently choose to.
Why?
Currently the PROTECT Act prevents you from leaving a state with a minor to go to a state with a lower age of consent law.
Yeah, I still think this is a bonkers position that is unsupported.
I don’t agree. Did Loving v Virginia short circuit our ability to come to the consensus that interracial marriage should obviously be legal?
Disagree. Other countries are functioning much better than we are. The US is not the epitome of protecting the right’s of it’s citizens.
So you don’t actually want to reduce abortion as much as possible. Got it.
I don’t know why I’m jumping in here, but I think I see the disconnect. You said you’d never thought about sex with a minor. They pointed to the fact that when you were a minor you likely thought about having sex with other minors. So you’re original statement is wrong.
However, what you clearly meant in my mind is that as an adult you never thought about having sex with a minor.
The cost-benefit of free contraception and other STI and family planning care/counseling was shown to save $7.02 for every $1 spent from public funds ($2.2B spent, $13.6B saved).
This inherently saves money just by providing it from general taxpayer money, let alone knock-on effects of lower college attendance, less income mobility, etc.
In fairness RDO said “Most people should have to pay”, which I agreed with. The counterpoints then focus on the benefits of providing free contraception to low income people, I don’t think these views are necessarily opposed?
Something like this would generally fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Each state could also prosecute for the crime(s) committed in their respective state, but not the crime(s) committed in another state.
Say for example, a 17-year old from Missouri takes a 13-year old from Missouri over to Illinois where they have sex. Missouri could charge for solicitation of a minor [or whatever the applicable charge would be], and Illinois could prosecute for criminal sexual assault of a minor; the federal goverment could also charge for both, since the act crossed state lines.[And given the age of the minor, the federal goverment would probably be the one to step in.] Missouri couldn’t prosecute for criminal sexual assault [it didn’t happen in Missouri], and Illinois couldn’t charge for solicitation [it didn’t happen in Illinois].
To the topic at hand: could a state charge for solictation of an abortion that occurs in another state? I prefer to think of it in more broad terms: can a state charge for solicitation and/or occurrence of any act illegal in its state that is not illegal in the state where the act actually takes place? That’s where the courts really have to be careful, because opening that door means it delegates a federal power (regulating transactions across state lines) back to the states and allows states to pick and choose what people can do in other states. That’s … very, very non-originalist. Or maybe that’s in some obscure document written by a 15th-century Gaelic lord used to oppress his subjects and somehow also applies to a purportedly free and open society in 2022.
If we’re talking about reducing the prison population, I’d rather the government fairy come and leave condoms under everybody’s pillow, just in case they’re in the mood but too lazy to drive to cvs.
If there’s any possibility that money motivates your utilization of more or better contraception, then it’s in the government’s interest to subsidize you, imo.
If it it’s not affecting the prison population, then I think the ROI is far less clear, and depends on assumptions.
The weird thing about abortion laws is that it’s not illegal for the woman to get an abortion in TX. It’s illegal for someone else to perform the abortion, or prescribe drugs which she can take at home. But, the laws explicitly exempt the pregnant women from any penalty.
So, it’s even odder than you think. TX would be punishing the pregnant woman for leaving the state to do something that she can do in TX without being punished.
The weird pretzel law is why I said they would be more likely to go after the auntie in your story than the woman who simply drives herself.
I figured the counterpoint carried across but I never fully connected the dots.
Not providing these services for free results in less usage, results in worse social and economic outcomes for all.
Think of free condoms at colleges. Some of those people are poor of course, some very much are not, but most people would take one if offered and be more likely to use them than otherwise.
It also helps younger people whose parents refuse to get them birth control. A minor might have rich parents but can’t afford to buy out of pocket.
Exactly. The fact that some free riders who can afford it get away with free birth control is irrelevant. The cost savings to society are simply massive. It’s a case of conservatives being penny wise and pound foolish.
Diane : But, I could feel him getting anxious, and then I knew that there would be a confrontation over getting physical. And he started to get that look at the end of the night. Do you know that look?
And then, you know it’s going to be an issue. So I went through all the different feelings and all the different arguments you’re supposed to go through.
Jim : Did he ever get rough with you?
Diane : Dad, no. But I didn’t want any problems, so I decided not to sleep with him.
Wrong. When I was a teenager I did not think about having sex with a minor because I was 100% certain I was going to wait until I was a married adult.
I mean, maybe it entered my mind as some sort of fantasy. I was a hormonal teenager, after all. But never in my life did I ever seriously consider the possibility of having sex with a minor, including when I was one.
Well it definitely works differently for men. I know most men would love to have sex in middle/high school. I know most of my (gay) friends now had their first sexual experience under 15, and mostly with adult men.
But then I knew of several girls who had sex in middle school, and one girl who had an abortion and was made pretty public in my grade.
Seriously. I don’t think it was humanly possible for me to not think about these things back when I was 15. It’s something that I think many women really don’t understand that boys/men have to grapple with.
I’ve heard some anecdotal comments from trans men about how they were surprised at the changes in their drive and thoughts towards sex once they want on hormones.
Yeah I remember being around 12-13 or so, masturbating everyday and fantasizing about the day I will be able to have sex.
I legit was so depressed knowing that I’d have to wait till I leave the house and go to college to have sex because my parents were pretty much helicopter parents, and also I was a closeted gay kid so it’s not like I could have sex with anyone at school. Waiting 6 years when you’re only 12…is like waiting 20 years when you’re 40, not fun, depressing, and near traumatic.
I ended up not having to wait that long and hopped on the first opportunity that presented itself to me and eventually hooked up with some 25-30 year old online when I was 15.
I’ll chime in here. I thought about having sex often as a minor but never with another minor. HS aged boys seemed like children to me even when I was the same age as them.
I believe you’re looking for the Mann Act here. There are other possibilities when talking about minors; from custodial interference to kidnapping. Once you cross a state line it becomes a Federal issue though.
