lemm.ee

0 points

1 year ago

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.

report

[ - ]

TJD@sh.itjust.works

1 point

1 year ago

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.

report

[ - ]

0 points

11 months ago

Look at other ballot measures, like weed legalization. Those simple principles sprung an encyclopedia of laws too. ANY significant change to government policy will do that. Complexity is certainly not a reason to ignore the will of the voters.

report

[ - ]

TJD@sh.itjust.works

1 point

11 months ago

Jesus you’re fucking dense. Yes, there’s an encyclopedia of laws to be passed. No, it doesn’t justify forcing them all into one big yes/no

report

[ - ]

0 points

11 months ago

You can keep insisting that it’s an “encyclopedia of laws” but that doesn’t make it true. Ballot initiatives are to determine the public stance on the issues. The public wants reproductive rights. It doesn’t matter if you describe it in those 2 words or a thousand words. It means the same thing.

report

[ - ]

TJD@sh.itjust.works

0 points

11 months ago

So then vote on each specific law individually and stop throwing a fit if its all stuff you’re confident in. Simple as.

report

[ - ]

1 point

11 months ago

Or Republicans could stop treating the public like idiots who can’t decide on more than one thing at once. Funny how y’all have no problem with compendium bills when it comes to disenfranchisement of minority voters or cutting taxes on the wealthy.

report