Can states actually outlaw traveling out of state for an abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am reading about bills being introduced to make it illegal for a woman to leave the state in order to get an abortion.

So if one of these actually passes, how could it realistically be enforced?

Would pregnant women from the state outlawing travel be refused permission to travel to a state which allows abortions?'

Or, would pregnant women need to certify their pregnancy status with a doctor before leaving, and again upon return?

What about international travel?

The bills floating around that I’m aware of would not actually “prevent” anyone from traveling to get an abortion. They are more targeted at the providers of out of state abortion. So if it’s illegal in, say Kentucky, but legal in Illinois, Kentucky would purport to have jurisdiction over Illinois providers for performing abortion on a Kentucky resident. It’s not like they are going to have checkpoints at every state crossing giving pea stick tests.

They could do a pee test at the state line. It would be similar to DWI checks.

Please! Millions commute "over state lines" just to get to work every day. This is a non-starter.

I want to agree with you that this is all hyperbole and has no chance of ever happening. Five years ago, I would have. And yet, so much of the past several years has been a slow creep of what would have been unimaginable a decade ago. At this point it’s hard to rule out anything a decade or two from now and to dismiss posts like the one you replied to as impossible is how it happens. I don’t mean to single you out specifically, just that I’ve been thinking a lot in light of recent events about what I imagined as impossible and how hard it is to rule anything out now.

Unfortunately I feel the same way. So many things that I previously believed impossible have come to pass. On the abortion front, these past few weeks have been truly shocking. The pregnant 10 year old; doctors being told they can’t use their judgment to care for pregnant women; states criminalizing a woman crossing state lines to get an abortion. I will no longer be told that I’m being hysterical. I’m being realistic and we all need to start paying attention and fighting for our rights.

Then provide reliable sources for all of these claims you are making. You lose any credibility by making these wild assertions.

Which assertions are “wild”? The Texas bounty law? The 10 year old rape victim? The Texas AG suing to prevent doctors from performing abortions to save a woman’s life?

And if the Republicans take congress they will most certainly make abortion illegal throughout the country.

Pp here. Still waiting to hear which of these assertions is “wild”

There are no wild assertions. These are all being openly talked about by conservatives and you know it.

I certainly do. This is why I want the poster who said that it was “wild” to explain what is not accurate. Don’t think s/he can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right-wing states always try to imprison their residents in the 19th Century but they can’t stop people from traveling to other states. States made it hard to get married and harder to get divorced so Nevada created a whole economy as an elopement and quick divorce destination. Other states couldn't prevent their residents from going to Nevada and had to accept Nevada marriages and divorces.

Sure, but those were individual people making individual decisions for themselves. The state will say that the fetus is not able to make a decision for itself to leave the state and become aborted.

If an embryo gets personhood status, a woman could leave the state but she would have to leave the embryo behind. Which she can’t do, so she’s stuck in the state until the embryo is out of her body. And they won’t allow her to abort the pregnancy in that state because the embryo has personhood status. And they won’t allow her to move her body containing the embryo into another state because that embryo has personhood status and is protected. So effectively the woman is stuck in the state.

In response to the dissent, Alito added this little gem to the final opinion (wasn't in the draft):

“According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the states to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.’”

So, yes, it's definitely possible that Court would uphold fetal personhood laws, and then guess what? It would be like the Fugitive Slave Laws, where states exerted jurisdiction over people in other states (except this time it would fetuses in pregnant women's bodies).

Good discussion here in the WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/07/14/what-pre-civil-war-history-tells-us-about-coming-abortion-battle/

Yes, but even assuming we are back to Fugitive Slave Law days (shudder) that article does not support the horror story version of cross-state authority PPs suppose. Basically the northern states ignored the southern states (as would happen again, on the same geographic lines no less) until federal laws were passed allowing for federal enforcement (and even then such enforcement was patchy).

Problem is we had to fight a Civil War to sort it out, and we all know there are people on the right who've just been looking for an excuse to fight another one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

You need to read up on Texas’ bounty law. Which is being copied by other states.

I’m not understanding why people are refusing to believe what is already happening. The objective is to turn back the clock.

I don’t think people disagree that various states haven’t passed horrifically restrictive laws. But just because some rights have been abridged does not mean there are grounds to abridge others. Or that people post-Dobbs should stop fighting for obvious rights/ against state authority (eg inter-state travel) that clearly still provide protections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

They have no legal basis to ask why a woman is leaving, but if she is taking a "person" with her (in her womb) with the intent to "murder" it (their words not mine), don't you think Texas has the authority to prevent her from doing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

Yup, even if you did pee on a stick at the border, and you were pregnant, and the embryo was deemed a “person,” the state still has no authority to prevent either of these “persons” from interstate travel.

What if a friend of the woman testified that she believed the woman intended to kill the fetus, which is considered a person in Texas, and the Texan government thinks that person is unable to consent to the procedure and therefore should not be, effectively, kidnapped by crossing state lines to a state where the procedure is available legally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

You need to read up on Texas’ bounty law. Which is being copied by other states.

I’m not understanding why people are refusing to believe what is already happening. The objective is to turn back the clock.

I don’t think people disagree that various states haven’t passed horrifically restrictive laws. But just because some rights have been abridged does not mean there are grounds to abridge others. Or that people post-Dobbs should stop fighting for obvious rights/ against state authority (eg inter-state travel) that clearly still provide protections.

The problem is you're using logic and fair play to discuss a legal issue with a group who is more into guns, book burning, cherry picking bible quotes to justify racism and misogyny, yelling, and punishing. You know that expression about bringing a knife to a gun fight? This is more extreme. You're showing up to their biblical, wrath of god/smite the whores and anyone else who got too uppity kind of war with an etiquette book.

One of the people responsible for creating the language of these laws against women literally testified to congress that the case of the 10 year old child who was raped and denied an abortion in her state wasn't actually an abortion. That's a problem on so many levels. She lied to congress. She tried to redefine what she's legislating against off the books. She's gaslighting. She's a leader for their movement, doing the opposite of logic. She's educated, so she knows damn good and well what she's doing. It's not like she was someone new to the discussion who got tripped up on her words but if you let her explain she can tell you what she meant and then it all makes sense.

No, it's not allowed for states to restrict travel to another state for healthcare, shopping, vacationing, whatever. But how are you going to stop them when they decide that's what they're going to do? When the police set up a barricade at the state line, are you going to drive through it? Have a shootout? Sneak through the woods and have someone pick you up when you get across the border? No, states can't make laws about what happens in other states. But what are you going to do when they issue a warrant for you for performing a service or paying for your daughter's abortion when she comes home from college in a red state where she has an apartment and votes and legally resides? Ignore it, hope the blue state you're in doesn't extradite you? Pay for legal fees to fight it in courts? Keep your daughter in your state and have her drop out of school and lose her apartment and all her belongings? Let her go back and never visit her, because if you cross state lines, they'll arrest you when they run your driver's license info in a "routine" traffic stop and realize there's a warrant out for you for some sort of murder conspiracy or aiding and abetting someone receiving healthcare?

It doesn't matter if you're technically correct. What matters is what's happening in real life, and how they're actively trying to ruin people's lives. They're willing to let women die. They're happy to ruin people financially to prove their point. And there's little you can do to stop them.

[Anonymous]

These states have decided that a woman doesn't have the autonomy to decide what to do with her own blood, her own organs.

They are not going to allow her the autonomy to decide where to travel with a fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

They have no legal basis to ask why a woman is leaving, but if she is taking a "person" with her (in her womb) with the intent to "murder" it (their words not mine), don't you think Texas has the authority to prevent her from doing that?

No, they don’t. They don’t even have authority to ask whether she is pregnant or why she is leaving the state. Also, the law does not define or treat abortion as murder., not in Texas or any other state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

They have no legal basis to ask why a woman is leaving, but if she is taking a "person" with her (in her womb) with the intent to "murder" it (their words not mine), don't you think Texas has the authority to prevent her from doing that?

If your employer is barred by law from asking about your pregnancy then so should the states be barred from asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

Yup, even if you did pee on a stick at the border, and you were pregnant, and the embryo was deemed a “person,” the state still has no authority to prevent either of these “persons” from interstate travel.

What if a friend of the woman testified that she believed the woman intended to kill the fetus, which is considered a person in Texas, and the Texan government thinks that person is unable to consent to the procedure and therefore should not be, effectively, kidnapped by crossing state lines to a state where the procedure is available legally?

That would be stupid. Traveling while pregnant isn’t kidnapping. Are they going to make a law that no embryo or fetus can be transported out of state? That no woman can leave the state while pregnant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

Yup, even if you did pee on a stick at the border, and you were pregnant, and the embryo was deemed a “person,” the state still has no authority to prevent either of these “persons” from interstate travel.

What if a friend of the woman testified that she believed the woman intended to kill the fetus, which is considered a person in Texas, and the Texan government thinks that person is unable to consent to the procedure and therefore should not be, effectively, kidnapped by crossing state lines to a state where the procedure is available legally?

That would be stupid. Traveling while pregnant isn’t kidnapping. Are they going to make a law that no embryo or fetus can be transported out of state? That no woman can leave the state while pregnant?

Ikr. What in the heck? What state would have such ridiculous unenforceable restrictions? It is not possible for the current anti abortion laws to even be enforced much less some additional anti travel nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

Yup, even if you did pee on a stick at the border, and you were pregnant, and the embryo was deemed a “person,” the state still has no authority to prevent either of these “persons” from interstate travel.

What if a friend of the woman testified that she believed the woman intended to kill the fetus, which is considered a person in Texas, and the Texan government thinks that person is unable to consent to the procedure and therefore should not be, effectively, kidnapped by crossing state lines to a state where the procedure is available legally?

That would be stupid. Traveling while pregnant isn’t kidnapping. Are they going to make a law that no embryo or fetus can be transported out of state? That no woman can leave the state while pregnant?

Ikr. What in the heck? What state would have such ridiculous unenforceable restrictions? It is not possible for the current anti abortion laws to even be enforced much less some additional anti travel nonsense.

I don't think anyone believes the laws would be enforced equally. Is it okay if they can't enforce them against women of means and only catch up poor women in their traps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

Yup, even if you did pee on a stick at the border, and you were pregnant, and the embryo was deemed a “person,” the state still has no authority to prevent either of these “persons” from interstate travel.

What if a friend of the woman testified that she believed the woman intended to kill the fetus, which is considered a person in Texas, and the Texan government thinks that person is unable to consent to the procedure and therefore should not be, effectively, kidnapped by crossing state lines to a state where the procedure is available legally?

That would be stupid. Traveling while pregnant isn’t kidnapping. Are they going to make a law that no embryo or fetus can be transported out of state? That no woman can leave the state while pregnant?

Ikr. What in the heck? What state would have such ridiculous unenforceable restrictions? It is not possible for the current anti abortion laws to even be enforced much less some additional anti travel nonsense.

Do you doubt they are going to try? There is established law on jurisdiction for this kind of thing. They can certainly try to get a TRO preventing someone from traveling for an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas doesn’t “own” people who are in Texas. They aren’t citizens of Texas. They are citizens of the US or some other nation. Texas can require residents to pay state and local taxes, get a Texas drivers license, etc. but those things don’t give Texas control over those people. I can have a Texas ID, pay taxes, vote, etc. in Texas and none of that gives Texas any authority to prevent me from leaving the state. They have no legal basis to even ask why anyone is leaving.

Yup, even if you did pee on a stick at the border, and you were pregnant, and the embryo was deemed a “person,” the state still has no authority to prevent either of these “persons” from interstate travel.

What if a friend of the woman testified that she believed the woman intended to kill the fetus, which is considered a person in Texas, and the Texan government thinks that person is unable to consent to the procedure and therefore should not be, effectively, kidnapped by crossing state lines to a state where the procedure is available legally?

That would be stupid. Traveling while pregnant isn’t kidnapping. Are they going to make a law that no embryo or fetus can be transported out of state? That no woman can leave the state while pregnant?

Ikr. What in the heck? What state would have such ridiculous unenforceable restrictions? It is not possible for the current anti abortion laws to even be enforced much less some additional anti travel nonsense.

Do you doubt they are going to try? There is established law on jurisdiction for this kind of thing. They can certainly try to get a TRO preventing someone from traveling for an abortion.

Women are not going to be forced to give birth. They have always ended unwanted pregnancies and always will to the best of their ability.... regardless if it is legal or not.

[Anonymous]

Yes. The Supreme Court has demonstrated that the idea of rights being self-evident and unalienable was just a lot of happy talk by the Founders. The right to bodily integrity is subject to the whim of state legislators. Ultimately this has always been true of all rights. The rights you have depend on how much force can be brought to bear permitting them or denying them.

Law tends to shroud the role of force and, if enough people buy into the legitimacy of law, drastically reduce the amount of force needed.