EFF Says California Cops Are Illegally Sharing License Plate Data with Anti-Abortion States (yahoo.com) 240
Slashdot reader j3x0n shared this report from California newspaper the Sacramento Bee:
In 2015, Democratic Elk Grove Assemblyman Jim Cooper voted for Senate Bill 34, which restricted law enforcement from sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state authorities. In 2023, now-Sacramento County Sheriff Cooper appears to be doing just that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a digital rights group, has sent Cooper a letter requesting that the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office cease sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies that could use it to prosecute someone for seeking an abortion.
According to documents that the Sheriff's Office provided EFF through a public records request, it has shared license plate reader data with law enforcement agencies in states that have passed laws banning abortion, including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas. Adam Schwartz, EFF senior staff attorney, called automated license plate readers "a growing threat to everyone's privacy ... that are out there by the thousands in California..." Schwartz said that a sheriff in Texas, Idaho or any other state with an abortion ban on the books could use that data to track people's movements around California, knowing where they live, where they work and where they seek reproductive medical care, including abortions.
The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office isn't the only one sharing that data; in May, EFF released a report showing that 71 law enforcement agencies in 22 California counties — including Sacramento County — were sharing such data... [Schwartz] said that he was not aware of any cases where ALPR data was used to prosecute someone for getting an abortion, but added, "We think we shouldn't have to wait until the inevitable happens."
In May the EFF noted that the state of Idaho "has enacted a law that makes helping a pregnant minor get an abortion in another state punishable by two to five years in prison."
According to documents that the Sheriff's Office provided EFF through a public records request, it has shared license plate reader data with law enforcement agencies in states that have passed laws banning abortion, including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas. Adam Schwartz, EFF senior staff attorney, called automated license plate readers "a growing threat to everyone's privacy ... that are out there by the thousands in California..." Schwartz said that a sheriff in Texas, Idaho or any other state with an abortion ban on the books could use that data to track people's movements around California, knowing where they live, where they work and where they seek reproductive medical care, including abortions.
The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office isn't the only one sharing that data; in May, EFF released a report showing that 71 law enforcement agencies in 22 California counties — including Sacramento County — were sharing such data... [Schwartz] said that he was not aware of any cases where ALPR data was used to prosecute someone for getting an abortion, but added, "We think we shouldn't have to wait until the inevitable happens."
In May the EFF noted that the state of Idaho "has enacted a law that makes helping a pregnant minor get an abortion in another state punishable by two to five years in prison."
Sooner or later (Score:2, Insightful)
And women miscarry all the time. So that means every time it happens there's a murder investigation.
Ever have to defend yourself or a family member from a Murder charge? It ain't fun or cheap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And women miscarry all the time. So that means every time it happens there's a murder investigation.
About 80% of the time in fact. Which makes the whole "life starts at conception" idea completely insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, these people want to label every single woman a serial killer.
Which is weirdly in accordance with their holey book. In there, women are not people, they are property.
Re: Sooner or later (Score:2)
The irony here is the US went to fight the Taliban, but decades to emulate their treatment of women, when it comes to abortions. Hopefully thatâ(TM)s as far as it goes, but that is still too far.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
If my sister needed a bone marrow donation and I was the only match, they could not force me to give it. Even if it would be relatively simple for me and fatal for her not to get it, I still have that level of autonomy over my body. If I died without being listed as an organ donor, it is absolutely illegal to use my organs to save the lives of others. Even if I'm not using them any more, they still cannot force me to do things with my body without my consent, even if it would save a life.
Why in the flying fuck is it okay to force a woman to carry a child to term? Childbearing is a hell of a lot more impactful to the woman than a corpse donating organs is to the dead person or a bone marrow transplant is to the donor, and those things cannot be compelled.
I'm pro choice because I'm also pro consistency. What a woman does with her body is her business, and while I might find some things people do reprehensible, there's a difference between reprehensible and illegal.
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
but because the mother chose to put another human being in a condition where it will die if the mother withdraws her support.
I have to note that a lot of the recent laws do not make exceptions for rape.
So it's quite possible that the mother didn't make that choice. It's also possible that she took practical steps to prevent it, such as using birth control.
Most people who oppose abortion are willing to carve out that exception.
But not the current crop of legislators.
That said, I'm fine with banning abortion. Just require two things:
1. Some private individual or organization MUST step up and pay for all pregnancy and childbirth expenses.
2. They must also adopt the baby. No matter the defect.
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I'm fine with banning abortion. Just require two things:
1. Some private individual or organization MUST step up and pay for all pregnancy and childbirth expenses.
2. They must also adopt the baby. No matter the defect.
That is not the "conservative" way. The "conservative" way is to force you into hardship and then to blame you for it and not help you with it at all. You, know, evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I love it when fuckups post references that do not show what they claim. Nicely done!
You're still killing women (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because you're still going to put them in scenarios where they have to risk their lives because you took their bodily autonomy away.
Actually, I think that 99% of the pro-lifers would become pro-choice if they were informed that they'd be charged $50k and handed a FAS baby that they have to take care of. IE women would still be able to get abortions. Basically, I was poison pilling it. Note how gweihir noticed and mentioned that they wouldn't take that offer, as it's more about punishing the women, and my offer wouldn't be punishing enough.
Again, the murder investigation would be on the private parties. Obviously they didn't pay for
Re: (Score:2)
The highest estimates that I've seen indicate that around 3-5% of abortions are because of rape.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the percentage really matter that much, given that they do exist?
My personal thoughts:
1. As a libertarian, the government shouldn't be telling people what to do and what not to do.
2. We shouldn't be forcing women to be brood mares
3. I dislike the money we'd end up paying for the resulting children, their care, education, healthcare, justice system, etc... Remember, anti-abortion laws aren't going to force rich women to have more kids on average, but lower class - middle class and up will be able to
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Gilead.
Re: (Score:2)
As the AC said, you take somebody who discussed where he'd be willing to ban abortions, and you manage to completely miss that.
Also, if you consider me, a card carrying libertarian, a "leftist", well, you're rather off the political charts. I mean, even I admit I'm an extremist nut in many ways.
All I said that if you want to take a woman's choice away, you have to pay for it. What, you don't want to adopt a few FAS babies? How about a Down's syndrome one that's addicted to crack?
Consequences for your act
Re: (Score:2)
Although I bet the politicians would just take the money out of education & social support instead.
Welcome to Gilead.
Re: (Score:2)
A fetus is a person as an egg is a chicken.
Question: if the mother's body decides it doesn't want the fetus and self-aborts, are you in favor of prosecuting the mother for "murder"? Clearly her body made the "choice" to kill the "person".
Re: (Score:2)
As to relevancy: About 80% of fertilized eggs are aborted by the female body routinely. Makes any "a fertilized egg is a life" argument insane.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is also not true.
If someone needs a constant supply of blood and you volunteer to be hooked up to them so you can be on continuous transfusion, and then decide after a day that this isn't something you're interested in, you can absolutely withdraw your consent to be hooked up to that apparatus, even if that causes the death of the other person. That's the way it should be, too. You don't OWE other people your body, it takes ongoing consent for actions like this.
This is, frankly, a medical decision
Re: (Score:2)
This is, frankly, a medical decision and doctors and women are perfectly capable of handling it on their own without us poking our noses where they don't belong.
Indeed. Anything else is frankly insane and deeply immoral.
You will save more lives by providing better sex ed and contraceptive care than banning abortion.
That is something the religiously deranged do not want. They want as many people to be born as possible, no matter the cost. If they could, they would probably make a law that they are allowed to rape any women that is not willing to get pregnant. It is all about more souls for their evil cause.
If birth control wasn't a thing (Score:3)
But no you still don't. Having sex does not mean the woman consented to have a child. Those are different things. You know this you're just relying on knee-jerk reactions.
I can't imagine what it must be like to be you. To know that practically everything you believe is wrong and still believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
What a retarded argument. Jumping off of a cliff doesn't mean that you've consented to falling to the bottom, but nature doesn't give a fuck about your consent - it just does what it does. Just as jumping off a cliff means that you might fall and get hurt, having sex means that you might create a new life. There are things you can do to tweak the odds, but you'll never have complete control.
Yeah, b
Re: (Score:2)
So you've named yourself after institutionalised promiscuity & casual sex but are against birth control. How do you reconcile those two positions?
Re: (Score:2)
The Orgasmatron is from the movie "Barbarella".
Re: (Score:2)
Because people don't become pregnant randomly
Condom broke.
Re: (Score:2)
Rape. How hard is that to understand?
Fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
Firmly against it.
I really enjoyed the time of 20/21 with my home office. It was the best time of my life, and if fewer people got the shots, those lockdowns would have lasted way longer. Possibly until now. And more idiots would have croaked.
I was very firmly against forcefully saving these idiots. I think everyone should have the unalienable right to die for my comfort.
Re: (Score:2)
The court ruled, rightly, that if you *choose* to kill someone, you go to jail.
The court actually ruled that it's up to the individual states. If you choose to kill someone in Texas because you caught them breaking into your house, that's fine with Texas.
Now, just make aborting an unwanted fetus a property crime of trespassing. Now it should be OK in Texas. You don't want people killed or harassed for trespassing? Better welcome those hobos camping on your front lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not only saying "it's my choice", they're also saying "this blostosphere is not a baby", "at 6 weeks it's not a human being, it has no brain yet", and "a limit on time to have an abortion is acceptable". There are some angry people who want 0 days to be the limit on abortion or morning after pills, but there is nobody other than some clinically insane that think there should be no time limit at all.
Re: (Score:2)
*Although, for a large fee &/or donations to the church, your priest can organise a group of religious scholars to pray/chant it into heaven... a bit like a more powerful & expensive religious equivalent to sports cheerleaders.
BTW AFAIK, the bible isn't par
Re: Sooner or later (Score:2)
Abortion went from a federal issue to a state issue, some states legalized it, some didn't.
I have serious doubts this has anything to do with abortion - for one, which state has made it illegal to travel across state lines for an abortion. (I think some have made it illegal to transport a minor across state lines, with differing laws regarding who the adult is transporting the child - a family member (parent) or a third-party activist.
It really seems like a simple tool to identify vehicles without valid reg
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and the USA happily murders humans, through death-sentences and war. In fact, most of the 'save the fetus' activists pull double duty as 'kill the criminal' activists and even triple duty as 'fight (assassinate) the terrorist' activists. These activists are only declaring themselves as judge, jury and executioner on the correct time to murder someone.
In addition, that fetus with 'rights' becomes a human life that, in the USA, doesn't have a right to health-care, education and love. 'Save the fetus' is feel-good posturing, not a moral assertion on the value of human life.
It's strange how there's never a name, press-release, or court-case involving these nut-cases. Forget Zionist conspiracies, you should worry about these "crazy", and obviously invisible, people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
You might notice that there is a nontrivial overlap between the must-carry-that-fetus crowd to kill-people-for-minor-crimes crowd.
A Venn-diagram would be pretty close to a circle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what's the stance of PETA towards omelets.
Re: Sooner or later (Score:4, Funny)
I'm in favor of both.
As long as someone dies, I'm a happy guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sooner or later (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, shitbag, my wife hand an ectopic pregnancy. She would have died if you assholes had your way. Assuming she didn't die from an earlier miscarriage that required a d&c.
Couldn't you even bother to spend a moment researching your ridiculous claims before sharing them with the world?
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, at some point, that's why, in every country where abortion is legal, you can't abort past a certain number of weeks.
And no the until birth thing is complete BS, there are of course reasonable exceptions like when the foetus is non viable and the mother's life is in danger, but you'd have to be a complete hypocrite to call that supporting abortion "until birth", obviously the republicans are full of hypocrites liars, which one are you ? A liar or too far up your own ass to question what these low-lives told you?
A bunch of cells does not have feelings, a beating heart is just a simple thing that heart cells can do on their own in vitro.
You know what's crazy ? It's forcing kids to have babies from their rapist, it's forcing doctors to lie to patients, it's spending public money (that is supposed to go to poor people) to create fake abortion clinics just to lure women in and force-feed them bullshit. It's pretending that rich people cannot easily get an abortion anyway. It's pretending that women won't risk their life to have a bad abortion. It's being against the morning after pill. It's pretending to be pro-life while not caring about what happen after the birth.
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
The beating heart isn't really a heart and it's not even heart cells but cells that may someday become a heart. And defining life by a heartbeat is kinda nuts; so we don't kill mice anymore because they've got a beating heart? The heart beat as a definition of life is archaic. But even so, make sure it's a true heart beat and not some trick by "crisis centers" to dupe women into think it's too late for an abortion.
There really aren't many good Christian theological basis for being anti-abortion either, and those that do rely upon tradition. Much of the anti-abortion movement in the US arrived only after birth control was legalized. Because this pissed off the "sex only during marriage and only for the purpose of procreation" types, so they focused their energy towards abortion instead.
If these people truly believed what they claim about abortion, then they should also be in the forefront of providing greater access to birth control and sex education in school. They should be the biggest cheerleaders for the morning-after pills. They should be sending money to help third world countries have more access to birth control instead of blocking it. They should be standing in line to adopt.
Re: (Score:3)
The bible is quite explicit about marriage though. Not so much about abortion. So can we call the anti-abortion position sectarian? That the campaigners & protesters are members of a religious sect? Wasn't that the kind of thing th
Re: (Score:3)
Also, divorce is quite well spelled out as not a good thing, in the New Testament, akin to adultery. And yet, how many have refused to bake wedding cakes for a second marriage? It's all about prioritizing sins.
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Informative)
What crazy idea? That a fetus is a human life? At some point during the pregnancy, this is becomes objectively true.
Maybe the "crazy" ones are you pro-abortion nut cases who support it up until birth.
Actually, the Bible is pretty clear that a fetus is not a human life until birth. Money can never be accepted as the punishment for killing a person, but the penalty for injuring a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is a monetary fine.
[Y]ou shall provide yourselves with places to serve you as cities of refuge to which [a man] who has killed someone —who has slain a person unintentionally—may flee. The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the killer may not die unless he has stood trial before the assembly... You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; [a murderer] must be put to death. Nor may you accept ransom in lieu of flight to a city of refuge, enabling a man to return to live on his land before the death of the priest. You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and the land can have no expiation for blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.
- Numbers 35:11-12,31:33
When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning.
- Exodus 21:22
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you think the religious fuckups read the whole bible? Obviously they select only the parts they like and ignore the rest, "Word of God" or not.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The Bible is a lot like Mein Kampf. It's in pretty much every household, much like that book was back in the days, nobody ever read it and if more people read it while thinking straight and saw just WHAT kind of bullshit it contains, we could have avoided a lot of atrocities.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Probably. To be fair, I actually tried reading the Bible when I was around 16. I failed. This books is about as unreadable and badly written as "Mein Kampf" is according to the experts. About on the same moral level as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You just didn't have the right attitude. I really liked the story about Lot and his daughters.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I was more into the Ezechiel furry porn of the chick who was into donkey dicks.
Re: (Score:2)
The family history part has some fairly interesting dramatic narrative. The other parts, maybe not so much, unless you have a particular interest in construction or civil law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's actually a way to force a woman into an abortion in the bible [biblegateway.com]. Sure, it's codified as a test for the faith of a wife, but hey, let's be real here. The bible was written by men. It was a tool to get rid of an unwanted fetus. And quite possibly the no longer wanted wife, too. Basically the Rabbi made her drink something and if she was unfaithful (winkwinknudgenudge... in other words, if the husband wanted it), she had a miscarriage.
Of course, now that women want to decide what happens with their body,
Re: (Score:2)
And as a side nitpick, it would be a priest that would administer the ritual. Rabbis didn't exist until after the close of the biblical period.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely on what the Rabbi puts into the drink. You think that we only invented stuff that caused abortions in the past couple years? There's plenty of brews that have been known throughout the ages to have a pretty good chance to harm or even kill the unborn. Most of them were pretty dangerous to the woman, too, and had a nontrivial chance to leave her infertile or worse.
And if you read the passage again, you'll find that this is exactly what these "tests" may have as a side effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Gilead.
Re: Sooner or later (Score:2)
Cute, using the Bible to defend abortion.
Can we base all legal decision on the Bible? What about the Koran? The Torah? Are you proposing that we enshrine biblical teaching in our laws? That might just ruffle a few feathers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an uninformed, vocal, hypocritical, "pro life" asshole. Odds are close to 100% that you're also an uninformed, extremist, evangelical "christian" who pretends that the Bible is an inerrant source of moral authority.
Pointing out that the Bible disagrees with your bullshit is perfectly reasonable when dealing with shitstains like you.
Re: (Score:2)
That point in time is called "birth".
Re: (Score:2)
Because people are generally emotional beings? They lament and cry when their cat or dog dies, does that make these creatures human?
Re: (Score:2)
No. It NEVER become objectively true. Its a matter of definition. Different cultures have had very different definitions.
I've got my opinion, you've got yours, and until we agree on the definitions of the terms there's no way to reconcile them. (Note that there have been cultures were even prepubescent children were not considered people. And LOTS of cultures where "those folks who live over there" weren't considered people in any meaningful sense.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the child is born we don't care pro life crowd
Re: (Score:2)
Use condoms and teach your kids how to use them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wow, you're a real piece of shit.
Not everyone who ends up pregnant had a choice, asshole.
How common is it? about 1 in 6 women will be rape victims at some point during their life.
No one is buying your bullshit anymore. We've seen the results: nothing but misery, suffering, and death.
Re: (Score:2)
Then hope that someone might consider me "cute" enough to adopt me? Preferably before I'm too old to be cute? And then wonder for the rest of my life why I was unwanted?
Thanks, but I still think not existing is the better option.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, a lot of people only want to adopt a baby, not an older kid, but all those kids in foster care were babies at some point.
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Informative)
who see nothing wrong with cutting up a full term baby and killing it in it's mother's womb
You're a nutcase. That doesn't happen
Re:Sooner or later (Score:5, Insightful)
Or rather it only happens if the fetus is already dead and it serves to save the mother.
What for? (Score:4, Interesting)
What does anyone think is going to happen with this?
Alabama can't make it illegal for their residents to do something in California.
Different states, differernt laws. (Score:2)
This independence alone should defend the principle you can legally do different things in different states.
Re:Different states, differernt laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
And states definitely should be able to have different laws! A law against, say, watering lawns makes perfect sense in Arizona but probably isn't necessary in Washington. The key part is that the restrictions should be on things that impact the people when they're in the state. Residents of a state are not the property of the state. I may not be able to set off home fireworks in bone-dry California, but it's pretty challenging to burn the rocks that make up most of Nevada, so California has no reason to be upset that I went to Nevada to play with fireworks.
Authorities? (Score:2)
In 2015, Democratic Elk Grove Assemblyman Jim Cooper voted for Senate Bill 34, which restricted law enforcement from sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state authorities^w agencies
Fixed that for them. Other state agencies have no authority in California.
but you don't want to give out of state free tolls (Score:2)
but you don't want to give out of state drivers
free tolls as you can't give that info to other states
being able to run photo red lights with no tickets
rack up parking fines and not have to pay them
speed cameras well out of state can't fine them
Americans and freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Large numbers of Americans don't actually give a flying fuck about freedom. Not really - not when it matters. They care about "their" freedom, but the only freedoms they want others to have are the ones they permit. You are free to do whatever they think you ought to do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
America is one of the most un-free nations I know. They have a number of constitutional freedoms... but only those. Everything else is tightly regulated or forbidden.
A friend of mine from the US was in shock when he noticed just what's "legal" here. Drink a beer in a restaurant, outside in the open? Legal. From 16 in most countries. Including just buying it or just opening a can right outside the store and drinking it in plain sight of a cop. Hell, where I'm from he might ask you if you have another one 'ca
Re: (Score:2)
I can't really agree that being an asshole is more important than just enjoying life, but hey, to each their own.
It is inevitable (Score:4, Informative)
Any technology that can be used to violate our privacy will eventually be used to violate our privacy by corporations or the government even if that violation is illegal.
Doctrine must reflect fiscal realities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hat is next EFF support for human trafficking.
No. Only if you twist your logic into something resembling a pretzel would your assertion be true. I prefer mine with mustard, thank you!
Re: (Score:3)
unrelated adults transporting minors "pregnant minor get an abortion in another state" across state lines?
There's no reason they should suffer because their parents are superstitious troglodytes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So the EFF supports (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the natural consequence of making behaviors that are going to turn up no matter what illegal: Youi get nasty workarounds. It's the same reason the war on drugs is stupid and the prohibition was stupid.
People are going to have sex. Some of the people who have sex are going to get pregnant and not want to be. People are going to have abortions. The ethical course of action is to make doing so legal and readily available, because the alternative isn't "people just decide to keep babies" but rather back-alley abortions, trips to mexico, or even infanticide.
If folks actually cared about minimizing abortions, they'd focus on contraception and sex education. Anti-abortion behavior isn't trying to reduce abortions; it's trying to control women. No other explanation really makes sense.
We don't talk about sex (Score:5, Insightful)
If folks actually cared about minimizing abortions, they'd focus on contraception and sex education.
But this would mean acknowledging that some people actually have sex for pleasure, which is something that certain segments of America consider a completely taboo subject that you never discuss openly.
I grew up in that sort of culture, where sex education was a whole week of nothing but "complete abstinence before marriage" propaganda and otherwise you weren't allowed to talk about it. And as you can imagine, a culture where acknowledgement of all things sexual is completely forbidden leads to MANY issues not limited to teen pregnancies, child abuse and exploitation, pornography addictions, and no end of extramarital affairs. But of course any of that is swept under the rug and kept quiet unless you want to "make an example" of someone by publicly denouncing their sins.
Anti-abortion behavior isn't trying to reduce abortions; it's trying to control women. No other explanation really makes sense.
You hit the nail on the head here. This same segment of society is quick to use this as a cudgel to shame or judge a woman who obviously "got what she deserved for her behavior" and then use it as justification to refusing any form of help because "she needs to live with the consequences of her actions."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-abortion behavior isn't trying to reduce abortions; it's trying to control women. No other explanation really makes sense.
You hit the nail on the head here. This same segment of society is quick to use this as a cudgel to shame or judge a woman who obviously "got what she deserved for her behavior" and then use it as justification to refusing any form of help because "she needs to live with the consequences of her actions."
And you can guarantee that the people arguing against abortions aren't celebrate either. They'll be demanding unprotected sex whilst out the other side of their mouth trying to slut shame the poor woman. Then again, it's not unusual to read that one of those puritan politicians has been caught with a rent boy or that the priests have been convicted of kiddy fiddling.
Sex is a great way to control people (Score:2)
There's signs of it backfiring. It doesn't work if you're control isn't absolute, and the child rape scandals that happen daily across every denomination don't help either.
There's a reason Jesus said you didn't need a church to worship him, and why he threw tables.
Re: (Score:3)
But unrelated adults and other peoples children is creepy and dangerous with huge risks for bad outcomes for the children involved.
When it's the family members [imgur.com] doing the raping [imgur.com], unrelated adults and other people need to get involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Abortion is a medical procedure that should be up to individuals/families involved
The families' time to get involved was before the children got pregnant. They failed at their job already, their further involvement is neither beneficial nor required.
Re:So the EFF supports (Score:4, Insightful)
unrelated adults transporting minors "pregnant minor get an abortion in another state" across state lines? Seems like a really messy culture war place for them to be! What is next EFF support for human trafficking.
Wow, way to get the troll mod for being a troll. If you believe a person does not have bodily autonomy, then you are all for big government intruding in every aspect of a person's life. Why not just have the government decide everything for you since, according to you, a person doesn't have the right to privacy, let alone control over their own body.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite often, abortions benefit men who don't want their affairs coming to light and/or don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. In the case of moving teenage girls across state lines for abortions, it seems awfully convenient as a way for men to remove evidence that they've been molesting a legal child.
Re: (Score:2)
That "argument" is so fucked up, I can only conclude you are utterly evil. It has no reality to it. Medical procedures get documented.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the messenger.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
If no baby pops out, the man doesn't get caught (necessarily). Surely you understand this? Most sex with minors goes unreported. It becomes impossible to hide the crime when she gets a baby bump.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a law that every state should have, even the most pro-choice ones, because there are far fewer guarantees that an out of state clinic will report to the home state than an in-state clinic. This should be common sense. You might not like the rest of Idaho's abortion laws, but this one law in principle, is right. A high percentage of those minors will be victims of rape or incest.
There's the big government Republican. Make sure the government insinuates itself into every aspect of your daily life because you have no privacy. Here's a thought, every state should have a law which mandates men who take Viagra or other such "enhancements" be registered. Why? Doesn't matter. The state needs to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be for something as simple as a parking infraction. You didn't feed the meter. California town records your plate for the purpose of collecting the fine. But if it's an out-of state plate, only that state can resolve the registered owner based on plate number. California town submits a request to, say Texas for example. Now Texas knows you are in California. Or at least your car is.
No extradition is necessary to collect on a $40 parking ticket. But don't give Cali any ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they left the state to shop for clothing and thought, hey, while I'm here, why not get an abortion?
They didn't leave the state for the abortion that way.
Re: So much for that invented 'right to privacy' (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, where is there a law against reselling out of state for an abortion?"
Perhaps they are sharing the data with EVERY state, looking for drivers w/ expired tags, outstanding warrants, etc.
Are records only being shared with anti-abortion states or all?
This reads as an imagined issue the ACLU cooked up and claims it *could* happen, in in the future if several things happen.