dogslayeggs

Only in very specific cases:

For parents of a child, it is only a crime for these cases:

Noncustodial parents; 
Fathers whose paternity the government hasn't recognized; 
Parents in active custody cases; 
Parents with a court order requiring them to do so; 

In general, though, you don't need explicit permission to take your child out of state.

For non-parents, it is only illegal if done for the following purposes:

Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity;
Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct; 
Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places; 
Illicit Sexual Conduct in Connection With Certain Organizations; 
Ancillary Offenses (to sexual misconduct);

Attempt and Conspiracy (to those acts above);

It's weird that noncustodial parents are more restricted on taking kids out of state than random non-parental people.

Who is going to tell them that this is one of the most obviously unconstitutional things ever. I mean, it's hard to imagine how much more unconstitutional it could be.

I prefer vote by mail, too. However, real-life implementation of it only leads to a roughly 10% increase in voter turnout. That only brings us from 55% turnout to 65% turnout, which is pathetic.

Bidirectional is a "hell no." One-directional I can get on board with, though I don't like the idea of my thoughts being available to anyone else. Minimal interface where I can control typing of a keyboard or drive a car or whatever, sure. I don't want anything that can read ALL of my thoughts, because once that thing is connected to the internet then you know it'll be monetized and weaponized.

Literally every single election the talking point is how many people didn't bother to vote. And it's always the same percentage. The only time it changed much at all was after Trump killed a few million Americans with his COVID policies. The only way to make any change more is to have a national voting holiday plus compulsory voting.

Yes, we all know that. This entire story is the church stating publicly they don't consider compelled by law to be sufficient justification.

I'm talking about the punishment for breaking the church law is basically "take a time out for a bit" while the punishment for following church law is "child gets a lifetime of pain and trauma." Priests are choosing their own personal connection to their friends rather than helping to prevent child abuse.

This story right here is the fundamental argument against anything pro-business conservatives and libertarians espouse about the free market. Why would any company lower their profit once they have everyone used to that level of cost? This is the most obvious outcome from the situation.

You know what, you're right. We should definitely not protect children from a lifetime of trauma because of tradition. What was I thinking?

And this is clearly not something the first amendment is intended to protect. The first amendment is about government punishment for private speech and allowing religion to be practiced. This doesn't stop the religion from being practiced, it just says priests have a choice between a temporary time out from the church and a temporary time out from society if they choose to protect child abusers. And even if it were about this, we ALREADY have laws compelling people to report crimes. You think because it is a priest they get a special pass that lawyers, therapists, and doctors don't get?

If the lawyer believes you might commit a new crime based on the way you talk about past crimes, they are required to report it. Therapists might have to report past crimes, depending on the age of the victim and the type of crime. They have to report current and future crimes if there might be danger to others.

What an unbelievably stupid take.

A) Do you actually know what excommunication means? It's not a permanent sentence to Hell. It's a temporary separation from the Church that can be reversed after penance. Do you think a "time-out" is so unbelievably painful that it warrants protecting child abusers? If so, you are fucking disgusting.

B) You analogy ALREADY HAS agreed upon laws about violating confidentiality, including when the lawyer believes an extreme crime might be committed in the future. So no, we would not be reacting with outrage because we are not psychopaths.

It's hard to state how stupid your post is.

I'd say there are roughly 8 great teams and maybe 20 more good teams. I'm fully supportive of this expansion, though, for the reasons you said.

I love this. Regardless of how good some teams will be compared to the big 7 or 8, this will encourage more countries to develop the women's game within their country. Yeah, there will be some huge losses, but that doesn't matter as much as the growth in opportunities.