A judge in Nevada rejected a proposed 2024 ballot initiative that sought to enshrine reproductive rights, including abortion, in the state’s constitution. Siding with a newly established PAC — the …
It’s all related to reproductive rights. Bills related to fundamental rights are often broad. For example the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This is no different.
So you agree it’s broad then? Cool. They should either pass individual ballot measures or fuck off. Just crying “rights” isn’t an excuse to sidestep good legislatige process
Ballot measures are part of the legislative process. It’s broad because it needs to be. Reproductive rights touch on a lot of areas. It’s not a severable principle. It needs to be broad. The idea that it is overbroad is wrong.
It could be, but it wouldn’t make sense as it wouldn’t serve the purpose of the ballot initiative. It’s all based on the same legal principle that the government does not have the right to infringe on an individual’s rights to reproductive control.
I could make an entire encyclopedia of law just under one incredibly generic principle like you’re doing. It doesn’t make it into a specific policy just because it shares a theme.
The fucking article told you that.
All I saw in the article is that it involved matters related to fertility and childbearing. You said I was wrong. Tell me how.
You seriously fail to understand how “everything related to those topics” is not a single issue bill?
It’s all related to reproductive rights. Bills related to fundamental rights are often broad. For example the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This is no different.
So you agree it’s broad then? Cool. They should either pass individual ballot measures or fuck off. Just crying “rights” isn’t an excuse to sidestep good legislatige process
Ballot measures are part of the legislative process. It’s broad because it needs to be. Reproductive rights touch on a lot of areas. It’s not a severable principle. It needs to be broad. The idea that it is overbroad is wrong.
It’s entirely severable. The article clearly listed multiple distinct topics. Measures could easily be made for each separate one.
It could be, but it wouldn’t make sense as it wouldn’t serve the purpose of the ballot initiative. It’s all based on the same legal principle that the government does not have the right to infringe on an individual’s rights to reproductive control.
I could make an entire encyclopedia of law just under one incredibly generic principle like you’re doing. It doesn’t make it into a specific policy just because it shares a theme.