Does the "Reproductive Freedom" amendment give rights to men?

[dchildress]

This has nothing to do with “reproductive freedom.”

People are already free to reproduce as much as they want.

China does not have reproductive freedom. They have the opposite.

[dchildress]

This has nothing to do with “reproductive freedom.”

People are already free to reproduce as much as they want.

China does not have reproductive freedom. They have the opposite.

This is a perfect example of the lefts uncanny ability to twist meanings and rebrand words to attempt to push a narrative and put perfume on a pig.

It's like "animal rights activists."

When did animals get rights?

[dchildress]

"Does the 'reproductive freedom' amendment give rights to men?"

Sure! As long as the woman identifies as a man.

[dchildress]

"Does the 'reproductive freedom' amendment give rights to men?"

Sure! As long as the woman identifies as a man.

You identify as every gender

That's interesting. I've never brought it up.

[dchildress]

When state law conflicts with the Constitution, either state or federal, which overrides which? Is it ALWAYS the Constitution that trumps the conflicting state law, or have there been exceptions?

That should answer the question regarding "parental rights" in the Proposal 3 discussion.

Assuming the Constitution overrides state law, here's another thought...

Does this amendment, if approved, also enable underage boys to have sex with their teachers, including having babies? If they are both "willing participants" then they are BOTH exercising their "rights to reproductive freedom" and cannot be prosecuted without infringing on those newly-granted Constitutional Rights! Isn't that the way this works?

Yet another "unintended consequence" of a poorly-worded proposal?

I’ve been seeing a lot of the “vote yes on proposal three“ video ads that start with “so we were looking to grow our family…“ Do they not understand this does the opposite of growing one’s family?