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: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.

If personhood begins at conception though, women could be smuggling people over state borders all the time.

Do you honestly believe this is the direction red states are going?

Ohio legislators already introduced a fetal personhood bill that would eliminate IVF. Why do you people keep asking questions like this?
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/07/13/ohio-republicans-introduce-bill-that-could-ban-ivf-by-recognizing-personhood-from-conception/

Ok, Im really surprised you dont understand the nuances that separate the practice of creating babies and then selectively terminating some of them, and the practice of women having jobs and freedom of travel.

I'm sure lawmakers in Ohio don't want to prevent women in Ohio from traveling for work or pleasure.
But if lawmakers pass a law saying that an embryo has personhood status from the moment of conception, then that will affect every single thing every woman in Ohio does from the moment she conceives.

Children are entitled by law to certain protection. You cannot just hide children. The state needs to know that you are caring for them and has a right to protect their welfare.

Embryos and fetuses are hidden, however. The state cannot know they exist and can npt therefore oversee their welfare unless the state knows they are there.

The transportation of a child across state lines for the purpose of ending that child's life would be a gross violation of its rights. Obviously.

If Ohio decides that a fertilized egg is a person just as much as a child is, and entitled to the same rights, how could the state NOT start testing women to see if they are carrying a person, hidden, in their womb? How could they not keep track of all these helpless, dependent people?

How could they allow women who could be smuggling people across state lines, in order to kill them, to simply cross, with no checks on the vehicle of conveyance (the uterus)?

The obvious flaw in your logic is that the state doesnt exercise this level of oversight on children outside the womb. You could be transporting your kid across state lines to traffick them, evade a custody issue, or murder them. The state doesnt "keep track" with checkpoints where you prove you arent going to murder your kids. Why would that suddenly become necessary for the pre born?

They do it for DWI why would they not do it to stop abortions? You set up check points, pull people over, make the women take a pregnancy test, etc. iIts not like DWI checks are 24/7 but they still catch people. It just depends on how much of a priority the state wants to make it. Ohio and other states seem to feel it is a priority. So you pull the police off of other things to make the politicians and people of Ohio happy.

It's one thing to say, "I find this scenario conceivable" (I dont find it at all plausible but you do). It's a different thing to say that the bills have been drafted in specific states and that all pregnant women will, per the bills, be forced to wear ankle bracelets and prevented from interstate travel. There seems to be no delineation between your fears and reality, as you present it.

[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: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.

If personhood begins at conception though, women could be smuggling people over state borders all the time.

Do you honestly believe this is the direction red states are going?

Ohio legislators already introduced a fetal personhood bill that would eliminate IVF. Why do you people keep asking questions like this?
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/07/13/ohio-republicans-introduce-bill-that-could-ban-ivf-by-recognizing-personhood-from-conception/

Ok, Im really surprised you dont understand the nuances that separate the practice of creating babies and then selectively terminating some of them, and the practice of women having jobs and freedom of travel.

I'm sure lawmakers in Ohio don't want to prevent women in Ohio from traveling for work or pleasure.
But if lawmakers pass a law saying that an embryo has personhood status from the moment of conception, then that will affect every single thing every woman in Ohio does from the moment she conceives.

Children are entitled by law to certain protection. You cannot just hide children. The state needs to know that you are caring for them and has a right to protect their welfare.

Embryos and fetuses are hidden, however. The state cannot know they exist and can npt therefore oversee their welfare unless the state knows they are there.

The transportation of a child across state lines for the purpose of ending that child's life would be a gross violation of its rights. Obviously.

If Ohio decides that a fertilized egg is a person just as much as a child is, and entitled to the same rights, how could the state NOT start testing women to see if they are carrying a person, hidden, in their womb? How could they not keep track of all these helpless, dependent people?

How could they allow women who could be smuggling people across state lines, in order to kill them, to simply cross, with no checks on the vehicle of conveyance (the uterus)?

The obvious flaw in your logic is that the state doesnt exercise this level of oversight on children outside the womb. You could be transporting your kid across state lines to traffick them, evade a custody issue, or murder them. The state doesnt "keep track" with checkpoints where you prove you arent going to murder your kids. Why would that suddenly become necessary for the pre born?

They do it for DWI why would they not do it to stop abortions? You set up check points, pull people over, make the women take a pregnancy test, etc. iIts not like DWI checks are 24/7 but they still catch people. It just depends on how much of a priority the state wants to make it. Ohio and other states seem to feel it is a priority. So you pull the police off of other things to make the politicians and people of Ohio happy.

It's one thing to say, "I find this scenario conceivable" (I dont find it at all plausible but you do). It's a different thing to say that the bills have been drafted in specific states and that all pregnant women will, per the bills, be forced to wear ankle bracelets and prevented from interstate travel. There seems to be no delineation between your fears and reality, as you present it.

+1. Yep. I just Googled “Bill to use ankle bracelet monitoring to catch pregnant women”……weird, no hits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The obvious flaw in your logic is that the state doesnt exercise this level of oversight on children outside the womb. You could be transporting your kid across state lines to traffick them, evade a custody issue, or murder them. The state doesnt "keep track" with checkpoints where you prove you arent going to murder your kids. Why would that suddenly become necessary for the pre born?

It is against the law in every state to murder a child. There is no reason to leave one state to do so..

It is not against the law in every state to end a pregnancy. So there is reason to leave the state to do so, especially if you need a doctor's help.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The obvious flaw in your logic is that the state doesnt exercise this level of oversight on children outside the womb. You could be transporting your kid across state lines to traffick them, evade a custody issue, or murder them. The state doesnt "keep track" with checkpoints where you prove you arent going to murder your kids. Why would that suddenly become necessary for the pre born?

It is against the law in every state to murder a child. There is no reason to leave one state to do so..

It is not against the law in every state to end a pregnancy. So there is reason to leave the state to do so, especially if you need a doctor's help.

Look, you said this is all actually happening and is not hysterical fiction. You've been asked to produce any credible source that shows that is is happening and you have not provided any. Your grasp on reality seems tenuous at best, because you cannot distinguish between your anxious daydreaming and actual reality. I dont think its healthy to continue this back and forth. Wishing you health and peace.

[Anonymous]

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.

If personhood begins at conception though, women could be smuggling people over state borders all the time.

Do you honestly believe this is the direction red states are going?

Texas is challenging the federal law allowing abortion to save the mother’s life. The way some of the anti abortion laws are written, they would get rid of some birth control and IVF-whether that’s because people want to eliminate these options or because they’re too stupid to understand consequences, I can’t say. States are trying to make it hard for women to go out of state for abortion, and want to punish someone if not the women seeking abortion. Women are being arrested for miscarriages. A federal agency was tracking women’s cycles while they were detained and withholding medical care in order to force them to carry out their pregnancies. A 10yo had to travel out of state for an abortion after being raped, and someone who helps craft anti abortion laws lied to Congress saying that wasn’t an abortion. The Supreme Court says a lot of rights might not be rights. The man who authored the TX abortion law is now involved in a lawsuit against PrEP because it promotes homosexuality. They’re literally burning books at school board meetings.

Where do you think the line is, PP? I used to think things like, they can’t take away abortion rights, or of course no one’s going to storm the capitol to try to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, or the sky won’t turn orange instead of blue. But now I’ve lived through all those things. These states are showing us what they want to do. I don’t know where the line is, but some states are trying to make it illegal for women to cross state lines to get healthcare. I don’t know how far they’ll go to achieve that goal, but they’ve already fooled me once and I’m not eager to go for twice.

[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: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.

If personhood begins at conception though, women could be smuggling people over state borders all the time.

Do you honestly believe this is the direction red states are going?

Ohio legislators already introduced a fetal personhood bill that would eliminate IVF. Why do you people keep asking questions like this?
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/07/13/ohio-republicans-introduce-bill-that-could-ban-ivf-by-recognizing-personhood-from-conception/

Ok, Im really surprised you dont understand the nuances that separate the practice of creating babies and then selectively terminating some of them, and the practice of women having jobs and freedom of travel.

I'm sure lawmakers in Ohio don't want to prevent women in Ohio from traveling for work or pleasure.
But if lawmakers pass a law saying that an embryo has personhood status from the moment of conception, then that will affect every single thing every woman in Ohio does from the moment she conceives.

Children are entitled by law to certain protection. You cannot just hide children. The state needs to know that you are caring for them and has a right to protect their welfare.

Embryos and fetuses are hidden, however. The state cannot know they exist and can npt therefore oversee their welfare unless the state knows they are there.

The transportation of a child across state lines for the purpose of ending that child's life would be a gross violation of its rights. Obviously.

If Ohio decides that a fertilized egg is a person just as much as a child is, and entitled to the same rights, how could the state NOT start testing women to see if they are carrying a person, hidden, in their womb? How could they not keep track of all these helpless, dependent people?

How could they allow women who could be smuggling people across state lines, in order to kill them, to simply cross, with no checks on the vehicle of conveyance (the uterus)?

The obvious flaw in your logic is that the state doesnt exercise this level of oversight on children outside the womb. You could be transporting your kid across state lines to traffick them, evade a custody issue, or murder them. The state doesnt "keep track" with checkpoints where you prove you arent going to murder your kids. Why would that suddenly become necessary for the pre born?

They do it for DWI why would they not do it to stop abortions? You set up check points, pull people over, make the women take a pregnancy test, etc. iIts not like DWI checks are 24/7 but they still catch people. It just depends on how much of a priority the state wants to make it. Ohio and other states seem to feel it is a priority. So you pull the police off of other things to make the politicians and people of Ohio happy.

It's one thing to say, "I find this scenario conceivable" (I dont find it at all plausible but you do). It's a different thing to say that the bills have been drafted in specific states and that all pregnant women will, per the bills, be forced to wear ankle bracelets and prevented from interstate travel. There seems to be no delineation between your fears and reality, as you present it.

+1. Yep. I just Googled “Bill to use ankle bracelet monitoring to catch pregnant women”……weird, no hits.

NP. I just googled “pregnant women ankle monitors” and this was the first hit. https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2019/10/22/terrifying-virginia-gop-candidate-proposes-ankle-bracelets-to-curb-abortion/

It doesn’t seem like a current or serious threat to pregnant women’s freedom, but it’s also unfair to say this is something that’s never been proposed or discussed.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday Republicans blocked a Senate bill — without a vote — that would reaffirm Americans’ rights to travel between U.S. states.
https://msmagazine.com/2022/07/14/senate-republican-travel-abortion-law-healthcare-women/

[Anonymous]

“At one point a US border official asked Gourley, who was wearing a loose-fitting dress, whether she was pregnant. The same question was repeated as she was moved between rooms. When she again told the US officials she was not pregnant, Gourley was asked whether she had had an abortion.”
Have you recently had an abortion?’ Australian transiting through US questioned then deported
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/13/have-you-recently-had-an-abortion-australian-transiting-through-us-questioned-then-deported?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday Republicans blocked a Senate bill — without a vote — that would reaffirm Americans’ rights to travel between U.S. states.
https://msmagazine.com/2022/07/14/senate-republican-travel-abortion-law-healthcare-women/

[Anonymous]

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2019/10/22/terrifying-virginia-gop-candidate-proposes-ankle-bracelets-to-curb-abortion/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The obvious flaw in your logic is that the state doesnt exercise this level of oversight on children outside the womb. You could be transporting your kid across state lines to traffick them, evade a custody issue, or murder them. The state doesnt "keep track" with checkpoints where you prove you arent going to murder your kids. Why would that suddenly become necessary for the pre born?

It is against the law in every state to murder a child. There is no reason to leave one state to do so..

It is not against the law in every state to end a pregnancy. So there is reason to leave the state to do so, especially if you need a doctor's help.

Look, you said this is all actually happening and is not hysterical fiction. You've been asked to produce any credible source that shows that is is happening and you have not provided any. Your grasp on reality seems tenuous at best, because you cannot distinguish between your anxious daydreaming and actual reality. I dont think its healthy to continue this back and forth. Wishing you health and peace.

I’m the PP you are responding too, and the OP of this thread. I am not the same as the person who said this is all happening. (That pregnant women are being issued ankle bracelets etc.)

But In my opinion the only thing standing in the way of these horrible laws being passed is political backlash.

[Anonymous]

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jun/29/can-states-punish-women-traveling-get-abortion

[Anonymous]

I’m not following all of these state attempts to “discourage” their citizens from traveling out of state for an abortion, but some seem Constitutionally suspect. Outright bans would seem to violate the Commerce Clause, even in the absence of a federal right to abortion. Criminalizing out of state providers might be feasible in theory, but jurisdictional practicalities would make it difficult to enforce. The state where it’s illegal would have to rely on the state where it is legal extraditing or otherwise cooperating, which seems unlikely. The most sinister are the civil claims modeled on TX 6 week ban. It deputizes its citizens by creating a bounty in a civil case. They could do the same against our if state providers, which would drastically chill those providers from providing abortion services to neighboring states out of fear of being sued out of business. These kinds of laws might actually avoid judicial review because of absence of state action in enforcing. Jurisdictional questions still arise though. Could a Texas plaintiff get jurisdiction over an Illinois provider in Texas court? Depends on what the long arm statute says. SCOTUS would have to weigh in there. But that’s a flimsy hook on which to hang an important right.

[Anonymous]

I also think a way that red states will attack free travel is using bounty law that Texas put in place. So there would be vigilantes at out of state abortion clinics looking for evidence. So Missouri license plates at an Illinois clinic, etc. A private citizen would then sue the owner/ driver of the car and the abortion clinic.