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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

You’re deflecting instead of answering the questions.

Let’s try again:

1) Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

2) Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

Okay, I'll answer. 1) No, and 2) yes.

I am also extremely skeptical about Democrats actually being able to do anything about either 1 or 2. And I am also not buying that Democrats would prioritize the needs of red state "pregnant people" given all the other goals they are chasing.

This issue is just as selfishly about our daughters in the blue states is you want to look at this way. You are not stripping away a right from millions of american women and turningthem into murderous criminals with out a long sustained fight where women will be victorious again. We will fight for a very long time to get some respect from what is supposed to be our supreme court.

I dont understand much of what you wrote. I will give you a tip, however. Dont fight for "respect" from the supreme court. Come up with a clear legislative goal and work on that.

See, this is why I have no faith in the Ds to fix this in red states.

It is easy to understand. Put justices on the court that will uphold the right to an abortion and women will legally hold this right as they did for 50 years. (they in fact do hold this right regardless of the what any law says)

Put justices on the court that will not protect this right for women and poof......The red states deny women their rights to an abortion.


Are you even paying attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

You’re deflecting instead of answering the questions.

Let’s try again:

1) Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

2) Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

Okay, I'll answer. 1) No, and 2) yes.

I am also extremely skeptical about Democrats actually being able to do anything about either 1 or 2. And I am also not buying that Democrats would prioritize the needs of red state "pregnant people" given all the other goals they are chasing.

This issue is just as selfishly about our daughters in the blue states is you want to look at this way. You are not stripping away a right from millions of american women and turningthem into murderous criminals with out a long sustained fight where women will be victorious again. We will fight for a very long time to get some respect from what is supposed to be our supreme court.

I dont understand much of what you wrote. I will give you a tip, however. Dont fight for "respect" from the supreme court. Come up with a clear legislative goal and work on that.

See, this is why I have no faith in the Ds to fix this in red states.

It is easy to understand. Put justices on the court that will uphold the right to an abortion and women will legally hold this right as they did for 50 years. (they in fact do hold this right regardless of the what any law says)

Put justices on the court that will not protect this right for women and poof......The red states deny women their rights to an abortion.


Are you even paying attention?

Surely you understand there are some difficult logistical hurdles to acheive this plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

You’re deflecting instead of answering the questions.

Let’s try again:

1) Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

2) Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

Okay, I'll answer. 1) No, and 2) yes.

I am also extremely skeptical about Democrats actually being able to do anything about either 1 or 2. And I am also not buying that Democrats would prioritize the needs of red state "pregnant people" given all the other goals they are chasing.

This issue is just as selfishly about our daughters in the blue states is you want to look at this way. You are not stripping away a right from millions of american women and turningthem into murderous criminals with out a long sustained fight where women will be victorious again. We will fight for a very long time to get some respect from what is supposed to be our supreme court.

I dont understand much of what you wrote. I will give you a tip, however. Dont fight for "respect" from the supreme court. Come up with a clear legislative goal and work on that.

See, this is why I have no faith in the Ds to fix this in red states.

It is easy to understand. Put justices on the court that will uphold the right to an abortion and women will legally hold this right as they did for 50 years. (they in fact do hold this right regardless of the what any law says)

Put justices on the court that will not protect this right for women and poof......The red states deny women their rights to an abortion.


Are you even paying attention?

Are you? Justices get nominated by Presidents. A lot of people, including women, put Trump in the Presidency; and as a result Roe got overturned. You - not some nebulous they - you, need to convince red staters to vote the way you want in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

You’re deflecting instead of answering the questions.

Let’s try again:

1) Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

2) Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

Okay, I'll answer. 1) No, and 2) yes.

I am also extremely skeptical about Democrats actually being able to do anything about either 1 or 2. And I am also not buying that Democrats would prioritize the needs of red state "pregnant people" given all the other goals they are chasing.

This issue is just as selfishly about our daughters in the blue states is you want to look at this way. You are not stripping away a right from millions of american women and turningthem into murderous criminals with out a long sustained fight where women will be victorious again. We will fight for a very long time to get some respect from what is supposed to be our supreme court.

I dont understand much of what you wrote. I will give you a tip, however. Dont fight for "respect" from the supreme court. Come up with a clear legislative goal and work on that.

See, this is why I have no faith in the Ds to fix this in red states.

It is easy to understand. Put justices on the court that will uphold the right to an abortion and women will legally hold this right as they did for 50 years. (they in fact do hold this right regardless of the what any law says)

Put justices on the court that will not protect this right for women and poof......The red states deny women their rights to an abortion.


Are you even paying attention?

Are you? Justices get nominated by Presidents. A lot of people, including women, put Trump in the Presidency; and as a result Roe got overturned. You - not some nebulous they - you, need to convince red staters to vote the way you want in the future.

Obviously. And it is not just voters. Watch what the right does. Districting, the voting infrastructure and personnel, restricting voting right from the people that will vote against you, etc......we have all been shown how this game is played and now the left needs to pay attention and play it better to get justices on the court that will protect women under the law.

The actual basic human right is underlying and immutable. Thaw battle is for the law to reflect that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

The logistics are easy to solve. If a woman who can get pregnant wishes to travel out of the no-abortion state into a state where abortion is legal, she needs a special travel permit stating she is not pregnant.

The permit is updated once monthly at the appropriate time, by stopping into any Minute Clinic or Rite aid and getting a test.. That's where her travel permit is stamped. A positive pregnancy test means her travel permit is confiscated.

Highways and streets into abortion states are patrolled randomly (like HOV lanes) and women can be pulled over and asked for their out of state travel permit. The punishment for being caught without a "I'm not pregnant" travel permit into a non-abortion state is severe enough to be a disincentive.

Holy effing sht. So “Guardianship,” like women in Muslim countries? They need the permission of their husbands, brothers, or sons to travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

The logistics are easy to solve. If a woman who can get pregnant wishes to travel out of the no-abortion state into a state where abortion is legal, she needs a special travel permit stating she is not pregnant.

The permit is updated once monthly at the appropriate time, by stopping into any Minute Clinic or Rite aid and getting a test.. That's where her travel permit is stamped. A positive pregnancy test means her travel permit is confiscated.

Highways and streets into abortion states are patrolled randomly (like HOV lanes) and women can be pulled over and asked for their out of state travel permit. The punishment for being caught without a "I'm not pregnant" travel permit into a non-abortion state is severe enough to be a disincentive.

Holy effing sht. So “Guardianship,” like women in Muslim countries? They need the permission of their husbands, brothers, or sons to travel.

Just like that, but less realistic, since no one is actually proposing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

You’re deflecting instead of answering the questions.

Let’s try again:

1) Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

2) Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

Okay, I'll answer. 1) No, and 2) yes.

I am also extremely skeptical about Democrats actually being able to do anything about either 1 or 2. And I am also not buying that Democrats would prioritize the needs of red state "pregnant people" given all the other goals they are chasing.

This issue is just as selfishly about our daughters in the blue states is you want to look at this way. You are not stripping away a right from millions of american women and turningthem into murderous criminals with out a long sustained fight where women will be victorious again. We will fight for a very long time to get some respect from what is supposed to be our supreme court.

I dont understand much of what you wrote. I will give you a tip, however. Dont fight for "respect" from the supreme court. Come up with a clear legislative goal and work on that.

See, this is why I have no faith in the Ds to fix this in red states.

It is easy to understand. Put justices on the court that will uphold the right to an abortion and women will legally hold this right as they did for 50 years. (they in fact do hold this right regardless of the what any law says)

Put justices on the court that will not protect this right for women and poof......The red states deny women their rights to an abortion.


Are you even paying attention?

Are you? Justices get nominated by Presidents. A lot of people, including women, put Trump in the Presidency; and as a result Roe got overturned. You - not some nebulous they - you, need to convince red staters to vote the way you want in the future.

If a majority of white women in red states don't want reproductive rights, I guess we should just respect that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

You’re deflecting instead of answering the questions.

Let’s try again:

1) Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

2) Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

Okay, I'll answer. 1) No, and 2) yes.

I am also extremely skeptical about Democrats actually being able to do anything about either 1 or 2. And I am also not buying that Democrats would prioritize the needs of red state "pregnant people" given all the other goals they are chasing.

This issue is just as selfishly about our daughters in the blue states is you want to look at this way. You are not stripping away a right from millions of american women and turningthem into murderous criminals with out a long sustained fight where women will be victorious again. We will fight for a very long time to get some respect from what is supposed to be our supreme court.

I dont understand much of what you wrote. I will give you a tip, however. Dont fight for "respect" from the supreme court. Come up with a clear legislative goal and work on that.

See, this is why I have no faith in the Ds to fix this in red states.

It is easy to understand. Put justices on the court that will uphold the right to an abortion and women will legally hold this right as they did for 50 years. (they in fact do hold this right regardless of the what any law says)

Put justices on the court that will not protect this right for women and poof......The red states deny women their rights to an abortion.


Are you even paying attention?

Are you? Justices get nominated by Presidents. A lot of people, including women, put Trump in the Presidency; and as a result Roe got overturned. You - not some nebulous they - you, need to convince red staters to vote the way you want in the future.

If a majority of white women in red states don't want reproductive rights, I guess we should just respect that.

They have this right as women period. The law not reflecting that does not mean the right does not exist or that they would ever choose to exercise it.

Just because you enslave someone does not mean they do not have the right to be free

[Anonymous]

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.

There is absolutely no way in hell that Kentucky should be able to have jurisdiction over Illinois.

One, I think that these laws are patently unconstitutional, even under this SCOTUS.

But even if this statute survives judicial review for a few weeks, what exactly is Kentucky's recourse here? They are going to have their state troopers march into Illinois to try to arrest and drag away an out-of-state OB-GYN? Illinois is going to love having its sovereignty mocked so much that it extradites? The enforcement difficulties further underscore how ludicrous this whole thing is (though I suppose the nightmare scenario is that the Illinois OB unwittingly decides to vacation in KY and... ...)

A Kentucky judge will issue an arrest warrant based on a funding of probable cause (a grand jury indictment will also work). It will then fall upon the Illinois resident to fight extradition and prosecution. This is designed by the Republican Attorneys General to create a constitutional crisis. Koch, Lowes, Comcast (NBC), Walmart, GM and Johnson & Johnson sponsor these extremists.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/07/14/republican-ag-group-holds-private-retreat-for-corporate-donors-at-swanky-palm-beach-resort-.html

What good is an arrest warrant floating around KY? Absent cooperation from IL law enforcement and/or courts, it is not self-executing. Thus my question re: enforcement (and this isn’t even getting to question of the many blue states who have passed or otherwise indicated non-extradition policies here)…

I think this misses the point. There are conservative judges who will happily issue an arrest warrant for a women's healthcare provider if given the pretext. Let's not pretend that there aren't people on the right monitoring and posting the personal information and/or locations of abortion providers and their family members (and many more who are willing to do so), and law enforcement who believe providers should be in jail or dead. So then providers -- often women -- cannot travel to any red state that has issued a warrant for their arrest, for their own safety.

Give it a couple of years, and I don't think we're all that far from a scenario where through a concerted effort of anti-abortionist activists, law enforcement and the courts, a women's health clinic doctor from say, NY or Illinois takes a family vacation to Mexico and during her two-hour layover in Houston, gets arrested, with the whole thing videotaped by Fox (who would have been alerted beforehand to be on-site), to massive applause on the right. So essentially treating fellow U.S. citizens like international criminals who are surveilled and arrested as soon as they step into a location where they can be.

I'm playing devil's advocate a little on this thread, just for my own sanity.

What if this dr. were white, and attractive, and married, and is traveling with her 3 cute kids on said family vacation? And Savannah Guthrie does a heart-wrenching interview with the family on the Today Show, and one of the kids is sad and confused that mommy, who helps women for her job, is in jail?

Or I'll do you one better, what if the dr. is an attractive white man with 3 cute kids a pretty wife?

I'm not saying these things can't happen, but it does create a PR challenge for the republicans. Not an insurmountable one. But we are getting a long way from when Kellyanne Conway could coach the republican men to talk about their feelings when they saw their pregnant wives getting an ultrasound. That for years, was the winning anti-abortion talking point that got us past a lot of the missteps on anti-abortion rhetoric, like the politician who said some women "rape easy" or the other politician who said rape "shuts that whole thing down" and can't result in pregnancy. Kellyanne swept in and solved a lot of those problems. But arresting nice white parents....that could be tougher?

I don't like it either, but I'm super pessimistic even in the scenarios outlined above. And I don't think we're "getting a long way" from the GOP talking points or phrases that you mention, I think things that are even worse are being said out loud and seen as acceptable and even applauded. All the fact-checking or calls for decency in the world don't seem to matter because in that world (I grew up in a very red and Christian area and 100% bought into it for most of my childhood & teen years), an unborn fetus is seen as the purest of pure and the best of humanity's potential (the underlying default assumption by ALWAYS that the fetus is healthy, white and just unwanted by some careless whore).

I will give you that in the case of providers who are white, attractive and UMC, it could be a bit of a PR challenge for the GOP, but I think that Fox and conservative radio and talk show will happily jump to the othering and how sinful and the epitome of evil that such a person is, wolf in sheep's clothing, how their children are brainwashed, etc. The conservative media machine to denigrate, vilify and threaten opponents, and to question health providers who disagree with them, is well-established and eager for targets.

I think it will take multiple, high-profile deaths of conventionally attractive, young white women with established families, who wanted their babies, dying in horrible, drawn-out ways due to care paralysis because of anti-abortion laws, in order to get movement on this. Possibly not even then, because the impulse on the right is to NEVER say, "we were wrong, we need to make some allowances/compromises", it's "this is not happening/should not happen/that's not what I meant" and then make no changes. Like the anti-abortion organization leader who tried to tell legislators that the 10-year-old's abortion was not actually an abortion, combined with the right's well-established bent toward conspiracy theories divorced from reality (this woman didn't die, her "family" is all crisis actors, look at this grainy photograph taken six months later, it's totally the "dead" person -- i.e., the same thing that has happened to Sandy Hook families).

I mean, how many hundreds of adults and children have died in mass shootings without any meaningful bipartisan action to prevent more shootings? If that level of death is acceptable ("acceptable" meaning that one side is unwilling to do anything to change it), how many pregnant women have to die in order to get anti-abortion laws loosened?

This is probably not helping your sanity, it's not helping mine either, but I think it's where we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

I don't mock them. But, if I'm being honest, I honestly don't have sympathy for them, either. They are getting what they voted for. It's just sad that they are dragging down everyone else with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

I don't mock them. But, if I'm being honest, I honestly don't have sympathy for them, either. They are getting what they voted for. It's just sad that they are dragging down everyone else with them.

They aren't changing anything in blue states. In fact, this has had the effect of expanding abortion in blue states. So both sides are going to get what they want, and if both sides can respect the differences and not interfere, this will not become a major issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

The logistics are easy to solve. If a woman who can get pregnant wishes to travel out of the no-abortion state into a state where abortion is legal, she needs a special travel permit stating she is not pregnant.

The permit is updated once monthly at the appropriate time, by stopping into any Minute Clinic or Rite aid and getting a test.. That's where her travel permit is stamped. A positive pregnancy test means her travel permit is confiscated.

Highways and streets into abortion states are patrolled randomly (like HOV lanes) and women can be pulled over and asked for their out of state travel permit. The punishment for being caught without a "I'm not pregnant" travel permit into a non-abortion state is severe enough to be a disincentive.

Holy effing sht. So “Guardianship,” like women in Muslim countries? They need the permission of their husbands, brothers, or sons to travel.

Yes the court has already said that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

I don't mock them. But, if I'm being honest, I honestly don't have sympathy for them, either. They are getting what they voted for. It's just sad that they are dragging down everyone else with them.

They aren't changing anything in blue states. In fact, this has had the effect of expanding abortion in blue states. So both sides are going to get what they want, and if both sides can respect the differences and not interfere, this will not become a major issue.

What makes you think both sides can respect differences and not interfere? The extremists on the right are going for a national ban. They may not achieve it if people wake up, but they're definitely not going to sit by and let blue states be blue states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think about all of the cars that cross over from Virginia to Maryland on the beltway during the morning and evening rush hour commutes. Probably hundreds of cars *per minute*. Would Virginia really force an epic logjam on the beltway so that every single female traveler could undergo a pregnancy test? The logistics of this is mind-boggling to me.

To repeat. You need to read up on the Texas bounty law. The enforcement will happen through people reporting women to the authorities. No need for a logjam. Just better hope no one is out to get you.

Loose lips sink ships. Kind of like that.

Why the hell would anyone choose to live in a red state under these conditions?

What’s great about our country is that you can choose to live in a Blue state and others can choose to live in a Red state. If you don’t like where you live, you can move.

The vast majority of poor people can't afford to move. Which is why rich republicans in red states are super happy right now.

Interesting. I’m what you’d call a “Rich Republican” in a red state and I’m not “super happy right now” because majority of poor people can’t afford to move. Can you provide a source for your claim that “rich republicans in red states are super happy right now” because “vast majority of poor people can’t afford to move?”

Are you happy that women in red states won’t be able to obtain abortions?

Do you understand that having unplanned children, having more children than you can afford, or having children at a younger age than you planned will lower earning potential for women, and make the poverty cycle continue?

If you answered yes to both question, then you get what the other PP was talking about. If you answered no to question 2, educate yourself.

Where is this sudden surge in sympathy for the poor in red states coming from? They are regularly mocked on this forum, and now y'all suddenly care about their lives and outcomes? Midterms, I guess.

I don't mock them. But, if I'm being honest, I honestly don't have sympathy for them, either. They are getting what they voted for. It's just sad that they are dragging down everyone else with them.

When I refer to the poor in red states, I am specifically thinking of the black poor in the south. My fellow poor white southerners have done this to themselves, so I have little sympathy for them.

[Anonymous]

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.

There is absolutely no way in hell that Kentucky should be able to have jurisdiction over Illinois.

One, I think that these laws are patently unconstitutional, even under this SCOTUS.

But even if this statute survives judicial review for a few weeks, what exactly is Kentucky's recourse here? They are going to have their state troopers march into Illinois to try to arrest and drag away an out-of-state OB-GYN? Illinois is going to love having its sovereignty mocked so much that it extradites? The enforcement difficulties further underscore how ludicrous this whole thing is (though I suppose the nightmare scenario is that the Illinois OB unwittingly decides to vacation in KY and... ...)

A Kentucky judge will issue an arrest warrant based on a funding of probable cause (a grand jury indictment will also work). It will then fall upon the Illinois resident to fight extradition and prosecution. This is designed by the Republican Attorneys General to create a constitutional crisis. Koch, Lowes, Comcast (NBC), Walmart, GM and Johnson & Johnson sponsor these extremists.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/07/14/republican-ag-group-holds-private-retreat-for-corporate-donors-at-swanky-palm-beach-resort-.html

What good is an arrest warrant floating around KY? Absent cooperation from IL law enforcement and/or courts, it is not self-executing. Thus my question re: enforcement (and this isn’t even getting to question of the many blue states who have passed or otherwise indicated non-extradition policies here)…

I think this misses the point. There are conservative judges who will happily issue an arrest warrant for a women's healthcare provider if given the pretext. Let's not pretend that there aren't people on the right monitoring and posting the personal information and/or locations of abortion providers and their family members (and many more who are willing to do so), and law enforcement who believe providers should be in jail or dead. So then providers -- often women -- cannot travel to any red state that has issued a warrant for their arrest, for their own safety.

Give it a couple of years, and I don't think we're all that far from a scenario where through a concerted effort of anti-abortionist activists, law enforcement and the courts, a women's health clinic doctor from say, NY or Illinois takes a family vacation to Mexico and during her two-hour layover in Houston, gets arrested, with the whole thing videotaped by Fox (who would have been alerted beforehand to be on-site), to massive applause on the right. So essentially treating fellow U.S. citizens like international criminals who are surveilled and arrested as soon as they step into a location where they can be.

I'm playing devil's advocate a little on this thread, just for my own sanity.

What if this dr. were white, and attractive, and married, and is traveling with her 3 cute kids on said family vacation? And Savannah Guthrie does a heart-wrenching interview with the family on the Today Show, and one of the kids is sad and confused that mommy, who helps women for her job, is in jail?

Or I'll do you one better, what if the dr. is an attractive white man with 3 cute kids a pretty wife?

I'm not saying these things can't happen, but it does create a PR challenge for the republicans. Not an insurmountable one. But we are getting a long way from when Kellyanne Conway could coach the republican men to talk about their feelings when they saw their pregnant wives getting an ultrasound. That for years, was the winning anti-abortion talking point that got us past a lot of the missteps on anti-abortion rhetoric, like the politician who said some women "rape easy" or the other politician who said rape "shuts that whole thing down" and can't result in pregnancy. Kellyanne swept in and solved a lot of those problems. But arresting nice white parents....that could be tougher?

I don't like it either, but I'm super pessimistic even in the scenarios outlined above. And I don't think we're "getting a long way" from the GOP talking points or phrases that you mention, I think things that are even worse are being said out loud and seen as acceptable and even applauded. All the fact-checking or calls for decency in the world don't seem to matter because in that world (I grew up in a very red and Christian area and 100% bought into it for most of my childhood & teen years), an unborn fetus is seen as the purest of pure and the best of humanity's potential (the underlying default assumption by ALWAYS that the fetus is healthy, white and just unwanted by some careless whore).

I will give you that in the case of providers who are white, attractive and UMC, it could be a bit of a PR challenge for the GOP, but I think that Fox and conservative radio and talk show will happily jump to the othering and how sinful and the epitome of evil that such a person is, wolf in sheep's clothing, how their children are brainwashed, etc. The conservative media machine to denigrate, vilify and threaten opponents, and to question health providers who disagree with them, is well-established and eager for targets.

I think it will take multiple, high-profile deaths of conventionally attractive, young white women with established families, who wanted their babies, dying in horrible, drawn-out ways due to care paralysis because of anti-abortion laws, in order to get movement on this. Possibly not even then, because the impulse on the right is to NEVER say, "we were wrong, we need to make some allowances/compromises", it's "this is not happening/should not happen/that's not what I meant" and then make no changes. Like the anti-abortion organization leader who tried to tell legislators that the 10-year-old's abortion was not actually an abortion, combined with the right's well-established bent toward conspiracy theories divorced from reality (this woman didn't die, her "family" is all crisis actors, look at this grainy photograph taken six months later, it's totally the "dead" person -- i.e., the same thing that has happened to Sandy Hook families).

I mean, how many hundreds of adults and children have died in mass shootings without any meaningful bipartisan action to prevent more shootings? If that level of death is acceptable ("acceptable" meaning that one side is unwilling to do anything to change it), how many pregnant women have to die in order to get anti-abortion laws loosened?

This is probably not helping your sanity, it's not helping mine either, but I think it's where we are.

Oh I 100% agree with you that republicans don't care about women dying or being jailed and that won't move the needle. I was more talking about, moving enough white women away from the party - it's happened before because of the "war on women" but who knows if they've gerrymandered themselves out of that issue.

Getting a white family on the Today Show that could be yours, that could move some suburban moms. Maybe.