- cross-posted to:
- lgbtq_plus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- transgender@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- lgbtq_plus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- transgender@lemmy.ml
Tennessee has recently passed a bill, effective July 1st 2024, declaring it a class-C felony to “recruit, harbor, or transport an unemancipated minor within this state” for transgender healthcare procedures, carrying a sentence of 3-15 years in prison. This applies over state lines and states that do not have anti-extradition laws relating to trans rights can extradite you to Tennessee.
Notably: the bill is vague. This means: telling stories of your own transition, describing your healthcare experiences to an open group chat, describing your trans experiences on a public website, creating trans health guides online, describing how you have gotten DIY HRT, describing anything to do with trans healthcare, even as a cis person, can result in a class-C felony conviction.
Given that being arrested in any capacity for transgender people can be an incredibly dangerous experience (CW: SV), I strongly suggest you begin caring about opsec, stop referring to where you live, use VPNs, stop using apps like Discord, and stop using social media sites that track your IP or user agent fingerprint while unprotected. Remember that for a bill like this to be challenged in court, you have to be arrested first.
Will discuss creating / linking to a transgender matrix chat so that we can help people to move off of things like discord.
It’s only a matter before a red state tries to extradite a trans person from safe state, which will comply in the spirit of bipartisanship. Or maybe they won’t, in which case it will go to the Supreme Court which will rule just the way you expect them to. Fuck this depraved country
Supreme Court might be idiotic assholes but I really doubt they will rule in favor of forced extradition to a different state. This is something pushover blue states might do on their own, but for the federal government to say that state laws apply nationwide would open a can of worms.
Edit: I was wrong. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-2/overview-of-the-extradition-interstate-rendition-clause
They allowed it when it was to kidnap Bill Haywood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haywood#Extradition
Supreme court never ruled that Idaho must extradite him to Colorado. That’s what I’m saying is unlikely.Arguably, they don’t even have the authority to rule in such a way.Edit: You know what I did some research and it looks like I’m wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-2/overview-of-the-extradition-interstate-rendition-clause
Yeah, not an exact parallel to what you were arguing given Colorado’s complicity, but I figured "Bad state forces extradition by any means necessary, Supreme Court pops up at the end to say ‘Actually, that was fine’ " was close enough to be ominous.
Thanks for the link. Perhaps also relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Felon_Act
They can simply say it applies in this case but not in the others. It doesn’t need to be consistent or make any internal sense. The hardest part is coming up with the bullshit about how this is implied by the constitution.