question 1 on MD ballot - negatives?

[Anonymous]

Normally I would give zero craps about what the Catholic chuch says about question 1. It is being pushed as an abortion rights issue, but are there hidden and unexpected consequences? I don't agree that parental decisions over whether their minor child can have gender affirming care should be removed, for example. Does yes for Q1 remove parental rights too when it comes to sex change operations and sex hormone therapies demanded by a minor ?

[Anonymous]

A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

[Anonymous]

^^^If you agree with this, vote yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

How?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

How?

Minor argues: 1) a person, 2)that gender affirming care is their reproductive freedom, and 3) that giving parents control over their decision violates, "The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means".


Look, I'll vote for abortion rights, but I am against very bad bills with all sorts of insane unintended consequences possible. Why was the language for Q1 tightened up so as not to be overly broad and vague?

[Anonymous]

Gender affirming care has nothing to do with reproductive freedom.

Minors don't have full rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

No, it couldn't. And it won't. But go off on your "I'm all for reproductive freedom, but..." nonsense. I'll be over here supporting parents who make decisions about their teenagers with their teenagers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

How?

Minor argues: 1) a person, 2)that gender affirming care is their reproductive freedom, and 3) that giving parents control over their decision violates, "The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means".


Look, I'll vote for abortion rights, but I am against very bad bills with all sorts of insane unintended consequences possible. Why was the language for Q1 tightened up so as not to be overly broad and vague?

Yeah, you'd rather leave the chance that all of the women in MD would be impacted if this doesn't pass. Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Not quite.

Minors don't have the capacity to make these choices, so this language doesn't really affect those laws.

This is about abortion as a thing in and of itself, not what constitutes age of consent or legal capacity.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

How?

Minor argues: 1) a person, 2)that gender affirming care is their reproductive freedom, and 3) that giving parents control over their decision violates, "The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means".


Look, I'll vote for abortion rights, but I am against very bad bills with all sorts of insane unintended consequences possible. Why was the language for Q1 tightened up so as not to be overly broad and vague?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

How?

Minor argues: 1) a person, 2)that gender affirming care is their reproductive freedom, and 3) that giving parents control over their decision violates, "The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means".


Look, I'll vote for abortion rights, but I am against very bad bills with all sorts of insane unintended consequences possible. Why was the language for Q1 tightened up so as not to be overly broad and vague?

Yeah, you'd rather leave the chance that all of the women in MD would be impacted if this doesn't pass. Give me a break.

Give me a break. MD is solidly blue. Abortion in MD will never go away. This question has ridiculously broad language that opens up all sorts of other cans of worms for unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A yes on Q1 would add this text to the Maryland constitution.

That every person, as a central component of an individual's rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means

Which is just a bunch of fluff and doesn't answer my question. It starts off with 'every person' and 'reproductive rights'....

The entire thing is extraordinarily vague and you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that language. Is a minor a person? Is a sex change operation a reproductive rights issue? If yes to both of those, then I can't see how voting yes to Q1 wouldn't remove parental rights to have final say over their minor child's health decisions when it comes to something like gender affirming care. They're selling it as rights for abortion acess, but it seems to be far more reaching than that and they're trying to hide it with vague language.

Are you the OP? It sounds like you should vote no to reconfirm your belief in controlling other people's bodies.

No person under the age of 18 is having gender affirmation surgery over the objections of their custodial parent. This doesn't happen. I expect you know that.

This could upend that.

How?

Minor argues: 1) a person, 2)that gender affirming care is their reproductive freedom, and 3) that giving parents control over their decision violates, "The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means".


Look, I'll vote for abortion rights, but I am against very bad bills with all sorts of insane unintended consequences possible. Why was the language for Q1 tightened up so as not to be overly broad and vague?

Yeah, you'd rather leave the chance that all of the women in MD would be impacted if this doesn't pass. Give me a break.

Give me a break. MD is solidly blue. Abortion in MD will never go away. This question has ridiculously broad language that opens up all sorts of other cans of worms for unintended consequences.

So vote no and move on. You're not convincing anyone with your "unintended consequences" BS here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gender affirming care has nothing to do with reproductive freedom.

Minors don't have full rights.

Answer the question.

Is or isn't a minor a 'person'?

Why isn't gender affirming care reproductive freedom? In fact, California and Newsom bin gender affirming care under the umbrella of 'reproductive freedom':

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gavin-newsom-california-reproductive-freedom-state-legislation/

If a minor is a person and gender affirming care is broadly included as a 'reproductive freedom', then this bill could open the door to removing parental rights.