question 1 on MD ballot - negatives?

[Anonymous]

I didn't think we needed an amendment on transgender rights, but the absurd comments in this thread have changed my mind of that. I'd hate to be your kid.

[Anonymous]

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

what about it? I don't agree with it, but it's none of my businesses, or yours.

[Anonymous]

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

Minors don't have full rights.

agreed

[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.

I don't think it extends specifically to gender affirming care. Gender isn't about reproduction. It's a social construct. People may go to great lengths to change their bodies to meet their personal concept of gender. but I don't see how that falls under reproductive rights.



Human Rights Watch defines reproductive rights as including: Reproductive rights include prenatal services, safe childbirth, and access to contraception. As well as abortion.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines reproductive rights as the right of all individuals and couples to make free and responsible decisions about their reproductive health and reproduction. These rights include:
The right to decide how many children to have, when to have them, and how to space them out
The right to access information and education about reproduction
The right to make reproductive decisions without coercion, violence, or discrimination
The right to access high-quality reproductive healthcare
The right to be free from coerced sterilization or contraception
The right to menstrual health and protection from practices like female genital mutilation (FGM)

WebMD defines it as: Reproductive rights are about the legal right to contraception, abortion, fertility treatment, reproductive health, and access to information about one's body as it relates to reproduction.