Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings

[CountValentine]

You are right. If it is unconstitutional then it is irrelevant and asking opinions about that is a red herring

You are not following the conversation. Others are ok with it. That is what I am pointing out.
I am trying to get the ill-informed to understand what this bill does.
All you are doing is mudding the water.
So let me ask the question again:

So let me understand you correctly. You are ok with states prosecuting individuals for legal acts in other states?

[aygart]

You are not following the conversation. Others are ok with it. That is what I am pointing out.
I am trying to get the ill-informed to understand what this bill does.
All you are doing is mudding the water.
So let me ask the question again:

My understanding is that this would be unconstitutional.

So let's stop popping in with red herrings and address the issue.

[imayid2]

You are not following the conversation.

Change of goal posts? This is how the conversation started:

What happen to the right believing in parents deciding what they feel is best for their children? They are so FOS it is ridicules!!!

[zh cohen]

How about when a state believes you are causing harm to your child by not doing x, y, or z. Should they be able to force you to do x, y, or z to your child?

Depends what "x, y and z" is. There certainly are situations when the state may do so.

To use an extreme example, do you believe that a state should be able to force parents to feed their children?

[CountValentine]

We go all day long with your distractions. The question was directed to those who believe it is ok for states to impose their laws on what we do in other states legally.

I am glad you agree with me but that does nothing to get those who the question was direct at to get an answer.

[imayid2]

How about when a state believes you are causing harm to your child by not doing x, y, or z. Should they be able to force you to do x, y, or z to your child?

There is a difference between forcing parents to do something to their child and preventing them from actively harming the child.

[CountValentine]

Depends what "x, y and z" is. There certainly are situations when the state may do so.

This is the problem with "you" people. You claim it is states' rights when you agree with what they are doing but it isn't states' rights when you disagree with what they are doing.

No way to have an honest conversation with "you" people.

[CountValentine]

There is a difference between forcing parents to do something to their child and preventing them from actively harming the child.

That is based on "your" view.
If the state believes it will cause harm to a child, do they have the right to intervene?

[CountValentine]

Change of goal posts? This is how the conversation started:

No change as it is all the same bill. Call it states or parents' rights it is all the same.

[imayid2]

That is based on "your" view.
If the state believes it will cause harm to a child, do they have the right to intervene?

There certainly are situations when the state may do so.

To use an extreme example, do you believe that a state should be able to force parents to feed their children?

If a parent is refusing medical care for their child for a bacterial infection and there is an acute risk to the child’s life,  should we force the child to receive antibiotics?

[CountValentine]

You just don't get it

This is the problem with "you" people. You claim it is states' rights when you agree with what they are doing but it isn't states' rights when you disagree with what they are doing.

[imayid2]

You just don't get it

So you propose allowing parents to do anything they want because any lines are inappropriate. Cool.

[aygart]

We go all day long with your distractions. The question was directed to those who believe it is ok for states to impose their laws on what we do in other states legally.

I am glad you agree with me but that does nothing to get those who the question was direct at to get an answer.

The question is moot because states cannot do it.

[aygart]

"you" people.

You've used this terminology a number of times over the few days I different contexts. Whats up with that? Which people are you referring to?

[zh cohen]

This is the problem with "you" people. You claim it is states' rights when you agree with what they are doing but it isn't states' rights when you disagree with what they are doing.

Again with your strawman arguments.

Everyone agrees that there are limits to state rights, just as everyone agrees that there are limits to parental rights.

What this discussion could have been about is what those limits should be. Instead it has turned into a "you people" conversation.

[CountValentine]

So you propose allowing parents to do anything they want because any lines are inappropriate. Cool.

This dishonesty is overwhelming. This bill goes way beyond that as I have already pointed out.
Are you ok with states prosecuting individuals for legal acts in other states?
Thats one issue. Then we have:
Are you ok with prosecuting parents for what they feel is right for their child by having a medically approved procedure?

[CountValentine]

Again with your strawman arguments..

Asking if you are ok with states prosecuting parents for legal acts in another state is a strawman argument?
You can't answer that because it will blow your non-sense out of the water!!!

[imayid2]

Are you ok with prosecuting parents for what they feel is right for their child by having a medically approved procedure?

What’s your definition of medically approved?

[CountValentine]

The question is moot because states cannot do it.

Wrong!!! As of now they can.

[CountValentine]

What’s your definition of medically approved?

Approved by the medical profession. What do you take it to mean?