#Constitutional Amendment

[reasonsforhope]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a bill Wednesday repealing the state's nearly century-old abortion ban.

Last month, the state's House and Senate passed HB 4006, a single-sentence bill, which revokes the 1931 law that criminalized abortion.

Specifically, the bill repealed Section 750.14, which makes it a felony -- punishable by up to four years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000 -- to administer drugs that induce a miscarriage unless the mother's life is in danger.

It also repealed Section 750.15, which makes it a misdemeanor to advertise, publish or sell "any pills, powder, drugs or combination of drugs" that can cause an abortion.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, questions remained about whether or not the 1931 law would be put back in place...

A Michigan state judge ruled in September that the ban is unconstitutional, barring any state prosecutors from enforcing it.

Two months later, in the November mid-term elections, Michiganders voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would add protections for reproductive rights...

The amendment defines reproductive freedom as "the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management and infertility care." ...

Whitmer has openly expressed her support for abortion access in and out of Michigan and signed an executive order in July refusing to extradite women who come to Michigan from other states seeking abortion and refusing to extradite providers for offering the procedure.

"In November, Michiganders sent a clear message: we deserve to make our own decisions about own bodies," Whitmer said in a statement provided to ABC News. "Today, we are coming together to repeal our extreme 1931 law banning abortion without exceptions for rape or incest and criminalizing nurses and doctors for doing their jobs."

-via ABC News, 4/5/23

[newyorkthegoldenage]

Former NY Governor Alfred E. Smith welcomes Carrie Chapman Catt, women's suffrage leader, on her triumphal return from Tennessee, August 27, 1920. Tennessee was the last state to ratify the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote. Miss Catt carries a bouquet of blue and yellow flowers, colors of the National American Woman's Suffrage Association.

Photo: Associated Press

[todaysdocument]

Letter from the President of Roosevelt Worsted Mills to Representative George S. Graham against the Child Labor Amendment

Record Group 233: Records of the U.S. House of RepresentativesSeries: Bill Files of the Committee on the JudiciaryFile Unit: Papers Accompanying Specific Bills and Resolutions of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 68th Congress

[[Letterhead]]

ROOSEVELT WORSTED MILLS

WORSTED YARN SPINNERS

WEAVING YARNS     2016 NAUDAIN STREET     KNITTING YARNS

PHILADELPHIA, [[end of letterhead]] April 8, 1924

[[handwritten in blue]] H Res 184

Hon. George S. Graham,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

We wish to express to you our heartiest congratulation and deep appreciation of your courage and statesmanship as revealed in your report in opposition to the proposed Child Labor Amendment to the Constitution.

We hope that this report will be accorded wide publicity and that it will help to stop the vicious tendency, lately developed, in trying to cure every evil by a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Yours very truly,

ROOSEVELT WORSTED MILLS.

[[signed]] Fritz Quittner.

President

FQ/L

[sherdnerd]

Alright so this week's referendum in Ireland is kind of Devious. We're being told we're voting for feminism when we're actually absolving the state of a duty of care. This is the care referendum, not the family one. My stance is Yes for families, No for care. Right now our constitution states that "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

The proposed amendment states "The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.” So under the new amendment, the state is under no obligation to ensure a caregiver has the economic freedom and security to choose whether or not to work, and in fact shifts the burden of care entirely onto families. The State is under no obligation to provide "care" to infants, or, as advocacy groups have pointed out, disabled people, instead shifting that burden entirely to families, whom the state is no longer under any obligation to ensure have the economic freedom and security to become fulltime caregivers. Honestly, its kind of Devious pairing this with the amendment extending the definition of families, the care amendment has sort of been buried by the uncontroversial extension of protections to unconventional family units not centered on marriage. Everything is pointing to "vote yes for families" and what little I've seen of the care amendment is couching it as the simple removal of sexist language. On March 8th no less!

So, any Irish people voting on Friday, Vote no on the care amendment!

[abwatt]

The American Bar Association's Resolution #601, which passed yesterday during their annual business meeting, says that their membership is of the opinion that the Equal Rights Amendment a) should now be certified as the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution, and b) that Congress and the states should now work to enforce this by appropriate legislation.

I wrote to my Congressman and my Senators today about this. I urged them to ask the National Archivist to certify the 28th Amendment (the ERA) and to make Congress and the states begin to enforce it by appropriate legislation.

[tomorrowusa]

Reproductive rights activists in Ohio have gathered way more than enough signatures to put a reproductive freedom amendment to the Ohio constitution on the ballot in November. The measure would need only a simple majority to go into effect.

However the heavily gerrymandered GOP legislature is conducting a special election in August to try to pass a measure to raise the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from 50%+1 to 60%. So if the August amendment passes, the November reproductive protection amendment would then require 60% to pass.

Why 60%? This Ohio poll from last autumn just may provide an answer.

If the August rightwing GOP amendment passes with a simple majority, that would make it harder to pass the reproductive freedom amendment in November.

Summer elections usually have poor turnouts. That's why the Republican legislature broke one of its own rules about August elections to place it there.

Ohio Abortion Protection Amendment Gets Signatures Necessary for Ballot Access With 710,141 signatures, the movement surpassed the 413,000 signature threshold to appear on the ballot in November

In practical terms, this is a two-stage ballot measure. So save these dates...

Support Reproductive Freedom in OHIO:

+ On August 8th – Vote No (on GOP blocker) + On November 7th – Vote Yes

If you are a legal resident of Ohio who will be 18 by August 8th, you have until 30 days before the election to register. July 10th is the registration deadline for the August election. It's usually best to register in person in case you need to sort out any issues. But if that's not possible, the Ohio Secretary of State lets you register online. Read the instructions carefully and assemble the necessary information before beginning the process.

Online Voter Registration – Ohio Secretary of State

A perennial reminder: If you have moved since the last election (even next door), you need to register at your new address. Voting is geographic.

If you're not in Ohio but have friends there, feel free to forward this information to them.

If the reproductive freedom measure passes in November then that may pave the way for other reforms such as a badly needed one on gerrymandering. It will certainly scare Republicans. 😁

[cynicalclassicist]

That was at least some good news from New York!

NY just passed Prop 1, a constitutional amendment which will enshrine protections against sex/gender-based discrimination in the state. This includes the right to abortion and protections for trans, gay, and gender non-conforming people. Whatever else happens in this election, this is a big win!

[global-newz]

Florida Voters Reject Pro-Choice Constitutional Amendment, Upholding Six-Week Abortion Ban

In a pivotal setback for abortion rights advocates, Florida voters have rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have protected abortion rights in the state. The amendment fell short of the required 60% support needed to amend Florida’s constitution. This decision leaves in place the state’s controversial six-week abortion ban, which took effect earlier this year.

The rejection of the pro-choice amendment marks a significant political win for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has actively campaigned against the measure. DeSantis and other anti-abortion advocates, including the national group SBA Pro-Life America, hailed the result as a victory for "life" in Florida and across the nation.

The proposed amendment, known as Amendment 4, sought to secure abortion access in Florida, reversing the current ban on most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Despite significant support for the measure, it failed to meet the 60% threshold, with the final vote confirming that a majority of Floridians voted against the constitutional change.

This loss is seen as a major blow to abortion rights in Florida, especially as the state has become a critical battleground in the post-Roe v. Wade landscape. With the six-week ban still in effect, many women in Florida, as well as from neighboring states with more restrictive laws, now face limited access to abortion services.

While Florida saw a defeat, other states like Missouri, Colorado, and Maryland witnessed victories for abortion rights. Missouri’s voters took a historic step toward repealing a total abortion ban, while Colorado passed a measure that safeguards abortion access and removes previous restrictions. Similarly, Maryland enshrined abortion rights into its constitution, a change that further cements abortion access in the state.

The abortion debate continues to dominate U.S. politics, with voters showing heightened engagement on reproductive rights issues, particularly in states like Florida where abortion laws are fiercely contested. As the nation grapples with the fallout of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, these state-level decisions will continue to shape the future of reproductive rights across the country.

[wausaupilot]

Limits on non-citizen voting: What to know about Wisconsin’s Nov. 5 referendum

The measure would amend language in the Wisconsin Constitution that limits voting to US citizens. Here's what to know:

By Sarah Lehr | Wisconsin Public Radio Here’s what voters need to know: What would the amendment change? Wisconsin’s Constitution already requires voters to be U.S. citizens through language that specifies, “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” But, if the proposed amendment is approved by…

[mythigal1966]

Let's talk about NY, Trump, and a constitutional amendment....

[originalleftist]

THIS is rising the occasion, and showing the leadership the times demand!

This is why we need Joe Biden, and part of why, whatever other faults he may have, he is an INFINITELY better person, and more fit to be President, than the Convicted Felon. Because Trump will never change, or listen to anyone unless they tell him what he wants to hear. But Biden can and will listen, and learn, and grow, and change, even at the age of 81. And that is a GOOD quality in a leader. It means he's someone you can work with, even if you don't always see eye to eye.

LET’S FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[lawtoppers]

Kerala Legislative Assembly Passes Resolution to Rename State to 'Keralam' 'केरळ' राज्याचे नाव 'केरळम' करण्याचा ऐतिहासिक ठराव विधा��सभेत मंजूर

The Kerala Legislative Assembly has passed a resolution to rename the state to 'Keralam,' seeking a constitutional amendment to reflect the change in official documents and signage.

Renaming Kerala to ‘Keralam’: Legislative Assembly Passes Historic Resolution Renaming Kerala to ‘Keralam’: Legislative Assembly Passes Historic Resolution In a historic move, the Kerala Legislative Assembly has passed a resolution to rename the state to ‘Keralam.’ The resolution, which garnered significant support across party lines, seeks a constitutional amendment to ensure that the name…

[dailynation]

Barotseland Agreement was terminated - Kabimba

By NATION REPORTER  ECONOMIC Front President, Wynter Kabimba has said the Barotseland Agreement was terminated in 1969 by a way of a constitutional amendment and its effect ceased to exist. Mr Kabimba who is former justice minister said the constitution amendment number 5 of 1969 in section 2 stated that the Barotseland agreement shall have no effect on the Zambian territory and CLICK TO READ…

[headlinehorizon]

North Korea's Constitutional Amendment: a Turning Point in Nuclear Policy

Get the latest news on North Korea's historic constitutional amendment prioritizing nuclear capabilities. Discover how this move is shaping the future of the Korean peninsula.

[mrfree2go]

[wilwheaton]

In this essay, I address the anti-Constitutional discourse that appears in the media: that the Constitution should be displaced by the fears of people who appear on television. This form of opposition to the Constitution poses as expertise. It takes the form of advice to the Court: find some way to allow Trump to be on the ballot, because otherwise people will be upset. Because we are used to hearing endless conversations about politics on television, where everyone seems to be a political advisor, it can seem normal to reduce sections of the Constitution to talking points. But we must pause and consider. In fact, rejecting the legal order in favor of what seems to be politically safe at a given moment is just about the most dangerous move that can be made. It amounts to advocating that we shift from constitutional government to an insurrectionary regime. Indeed, it amounts to participating in that shift, while not taking responsibility for doing so. Let me try to spell this out. In advising the Court to keep Trump on the ballot, political commentators elevate their own fears about others' resentment above the Constitution. But the very reason we have a Constitution is to handle fear and resentment. To become a public champion of your own own fears and others' resentments is to support an insurrectionary regime. The purpose of the insurrection clause of the Constitution (the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment) is not to encourage insurrections! If we publicly say that that Supreme Court should disregard it because we fear insurrections, we are making insurrections more likely. We are telling Americans that to undermine constitutional rule they must only intimate that they might be violent. To advocate pitchfork rulings is to endorse regime change; to issue pitchfork rulings is to announce regime change.

The Pitchfork Ruling - by Timothy Snyder

I’ve pushed fair use here, because I *really* want you to go read the rest of this essay.