question 1 on MD ballot - negatives?

[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.

You have to ask yourself if this is harmless virtue signaling or if this is an attempt to get the camel's nose in the tent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have to ask yourself if this is harmless virtue signaling or if this is an attempt to get the camel's nose in the tent.

No, I do not have to ask myself that. But if that's what you think, then you should vote no and be done with it. As the PP said, you're not fooling anybody here.

[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?

you can say a thing but that doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever. Gender reassignment has nothing to do with reproduction.

[Anonymous]

So sick of people who can’t win on the merits making up crappy fictional arguments to mislead people

[Anonymous]

I voted no because of the broad language. I am glad Maryland allows safe abortions but I did not like the broad language. I am sure it will pass. If it doesn’t then all they need to do is tighten up the bill and it’s a yes for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted no because of the broad language. I am glad Maryland allows safe abortions but I did not like the broad language. I am sure it will pass. If it doesn’t then all they need to do is tighten up the bill and it’s a yes for me.

Glad you got that off your chest. No one cares though. It will pass and I'm glad it will. Nothing broad about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted no because of the broad language. I am glad Maryland allows safe abortions but I did not like the broad language. I am sure it will pass. If it doesn’t then all they need to do is tighten up the bill and it’s a yes for me.

The broad language is good. The broad language is the point. There should be broad language about human rights. Yes, it will pass.

[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?

you can say a thing but that doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever. Gender reassignment has nothing to do with reproduction.

California and Newsom already grouped abortion rights and gender ID rights under the umbrella of repeoductive rights. This is the way progressives and Democrats think. That's why they made the language so broad. If 'reproductive rights' ONLY had to do with issues like birth control and contraception, then there would have been no need to explicitly add this part to Q1: "...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." There's no need to add the last part about 'including but not limited to...." If it were obvious that reproductive rights only meant abortions etc. the fact that they had to add the second about about what is included means "reproductive rights" mean far more than absortions and contraception. The language is entirely vague on purpose.

Why didn't they just make Q1: should we ammend the state constitution to state, "Access to abortions and contraception is fundamental right protected for all persons in Maryland"? That is way more clear and direct.

[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?

you can say a thing but that doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever. Gender reassignment has nothing to do with reproduction.

California and Newsom already grouped abortion rights and gender ID rights under the umbrella of repeoductive rights. This is the way progressives and Democrats think. That's why they made the language so broad. If 'reproductive rights' ONLY had to do with issues like birth control and contraception, then there would have been no need to explicitly add this part to Q1: "...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." There's no need to add the last part about 'including but not limited to...." If it were obvious that reproductive rights only meant abortions etc. the fact that they had to add the second about about what is included means "reproductive rights" mean far more than absortions and contraception. The language is entirely vague on purpose.

Why didn't they just make Q1: should we ammend the state constitution to state, "Access to abortions and contraception is fundamental right protected for all persons in Maryland"? That is way more clear and direct.

Because the actual language is better.

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]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted no because of the broad language. I am glad Maryland allows safe abortions but I did not like the broad language. I am sure it will pass. If it doesn’t then all they need to do is tighten up the bill and it’s a yes for me.

Glad you got that off your chest. No one cares though. It will pass and I'm glad it will. Nothing broad about it.

Ummm ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So sick of people who can’t win on the merits making up crappy fictional arguments to mislead people

Lots of times something is sold as "just A" but once its law it becomes "A + B." The classic example being that social security numbers are only for social security.

[Anonymous]

Agree with the OP— what about sex selective or disability selective abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you understand that some people can hold two ideas on their heads at the same time? Try to see if you can

"The first of the bills, AB 1356, makes it a crime to post personal information or images of a reproductive health care patient online"


"The second bill, AB 1184, heightens privacy laws for people receiving "sensitive" health care services, including abortions, gender-affirming care, mental health treatment and services related to substance use and intimate partner violence. "

[Anonymous]

Why aren't the Catholics talking about transgender people here? I wonder if it's because that was BS?

https://www.cathstan.org/local/maryland-catholic-conferences-statement-regarding-the-passage-of-question-1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted no because of the broad language. I am glad Maryland allows safe abortions but I did not like the broad language. I am sure it will pass. If it doesn’t then all they need to do is tighten up the bill and it’s a yes for me.

Glad you got that off your chest. No one cares though. It will pass and I'm glad it will. Nothing broad about it.

Also voted against. Language felt like a broader agenda and taking advantage of a population that obviously will vote for abortion rights. Was sorry to see such lawyered language compromising the amendment to constitutionalize this right.