Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

And SC's religious tribunal would supersede it.

I think that it's possible that even this SCOTUS would enforce the Commerce clause wrt state law. But the bigger question is whether, if Republicans take House and Senate, they can pass a federal law. I think that this SCOTUS might be willing to allow that.

I think California is moving to add abortion protections in the state constitution. It would be interesting to see what happens if a federal ban is passed. This is all just so f'ing insane.

No it will be framed as aiding criminals not the commerce clause. SCOTUS will definitely rule against free travel between states. It will just be another nail in the coffin of the USA.

That type of law would only apply to persons in state “knowingly” aiding someone to get an abortion, which states may get away with regulating and may be a problem for minors. But very doubtful they could prohibit the travel/ traveler itself - and it’s not like most women are going to be telling eg an airline what their health plans are in any circumstances…

It means that all these companies promising travel expenses and continued coverage for abortions will change their minds

As someone who strongly supports this policy, I do think it would be more prudent for these companies just to offer a general employee benefit of $XX travel dollars for medical care not feasibly accessed in the state. Yeah, you'd probably get some random employees wanting to travel for questionable reasons, but there are probably other non-abortion medical reasons justifying travel, and I think it would get companies more than enough legal wiggle room (esp. given that many courts will be leery of these laws in the first place).

This was already in place and the companies simply affirmed it. There was no new policy in place specifically for abortions.

Anonymous wrote:It depends on what the Dobbs majority promised to their masters. There is no explicit "right to travel" in the Constitution so we have to look to the history of the issue.

Women in the American colonies were not permitted to travel between the colonies without the permission of their husband or father - so I think there's your answer. /s

Commerce clause begs to differ.

Anonymous wrote:They can't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

More on that page, of course.

You are reading carefully enough. It's not actually there in the language. And there are many "crossing state line" crimes -- people with joint custody can tell you a thing or two about that. Let that part sink in. We are very much into women as chattel territory.

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

The SC does what it wants. The conservative majority insists on a literal and historical meaning only when it works for them. See the recent EPA case and the “major questions doctrine”, where is that in the constitution again….hint it is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

And SC's religious tribunal would supersede it.

Except Kavanaugh explicitly indicated the opposite, i.e. interstate travel protected, and pretty sure Roberts would join. In fact, while I think SCOTUS is a hopeless travesty of a kangaroo court at this point, the interstate travel issue is just SO broadly relevant to many other rights/interests that I'm not sure I'd count out ACB & Gorsuch on this issue either.

But is interstate travel protected if your intent is to transport a person in order to murder them?

That's how pro-lifer states see abortion, right, as murder of a person?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

And SC's religious tribunal would supersede it.

I think that it's possible that even this SCOTUS would enforce the Commerce clause wrt state law. But the bigger question is whether, if Republicans take House and Senate, they can pass a federal law. I think that this SCOTUS might be willing to allow that.

I think California is moving to add abortion protections in the state constitution. It would be interesting to see what happens if a federal ban is passed. This is all just so f'ing insane.

No it will be framed as aiding criminals not the commerce clause. SCOTUS will definitely rule against free travel between states. It will just be another nail in the coffin of the USA.

That type of law would only apply to persons in state “knowingly” aiding someone to get an abortion, which states may get away with regulating and may be a problem for minors. But very doubtful they could prohibit the travel/ traveler itself - and it’s not like most women are going to be telling eg an airline what their health plans are in any circumstances…

They will go after the companies that provide services(airline, bus, cell phone, google, etc). Hell google can determine if you are pregnant with about 95% accuracy. If google knows you are pregnant and using its search engine to look for abortions in another state google is liable. Maybe the search engine blocks that search and notifies authorities?

The law is new and the court wants to stop abortions. Do not look for the old standard to hold. Also medical record will be turned over to the states because there is no right to privacy. So lots of ways to stop women from traveling by making it very difficult. Now if there is a jury trial there will be jury notification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

And SC's religious tribunal would supersede it.

I think that it's possible that even this SCOTUS would enforce the Commerce clause wrt state law. But the bigger question is whether, if Republicans take House and Senate, they can pass a federal law. I think that this SCOTUS might be willing to allow that.

I think California is moving to add abortion protections in the state constitution. It would be interesting to see what happens if a federal ban is passed. This is all just so f'ing insane.

No it will be framed as aiding criminals not the commerce clause. SCOTUS will definitely rule against free travel between states. It will just be another nail in the coffin of the USA.

That type of law would only apply to persons in state “knowingly” aiding someone to get an abortion, which states may get away with regulating and may be a problem for minors. But very doubtful they could prohibit the travel/ traveler itself - and it’s not like most women are going to be telling eg an airline what their health plans are in any circumstances…

It means that all these companies promising travel expenses and continued coverage for abortions will change their minds

As someone who strongly supports this policy, I do think it would be more prudent for these companies just to offer a general employee benefit of $XX travel dollars for medical care not feasibly accessed in the state. Yeah, you'd probably get some random employees wanting to travel for questionable reasons, but there are probably other non-abortion medical reasons justifying travel, and I think it would get companies more than enough legal wiggle room (esp. given that many courts will be leery of these laws in the first place).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

And SC's religious tribunal would supersede it.

I think that it's possible that even this SCOTUS would enforce the Commerce clause wrt state law. But the bigger question is whether, if Republicans take House and Senate, they can pass a federal law. I think that this SCOTUS might be willing to allow that.

I think California is moving to add abortion protections in the state constitution. It would be interesting to see what happens if a federal ban is passed. This is all just so f'ing insane.

No it will be framed as aiding criminals not the commerce clause. SCOTUS will definitely rule against free travel between states. It will just be another nail in the coffin of the USA.

That type of law would only apply to persons in state “knowingly” aiding someone to get an abortion, which states may get away with regulating and may be a problem for minors. But very doubtful they could prohibit the travel/ traveler itself - and it’s not like most women are going to be telling eg an airline what their health plans are in any circumstances…

It means that all these companies promising travel expenses and continued coverage for abortions will change their minds

Yes it is a PR stunt. The first time someone sues a company all the other will drop the “travel coverage”. Remember Texas made the law a bounty system.

You can say what you want about this applying only to women who are traveling for an abortion, but most abortions occur before women are visibly pregnant.

Would women need to take a pregnancy test to cross the border between states? To fly? How do we know that the person in the car without ID is actually a man? Maybe we should pregnancy test all people before leaving their home state.

What if you live in VA, but work in MD or DC? What would your commute look like? You can mock me all you want, but if the law is passed, it can be applied to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

And SC's religious tribunal would supersede it.

I think that it's possible that even this SCOTUS would enforce the Commerce clause wrt state law. But the bigger question is whether, if Republicans take House and Senate, they can pass a federal law. I think that this SCOTUS might be willing to allow that.

I think California is moving to add abortion protections in the state constitution. It would be interesting to see what happens if a federal ban is passed. This is all just so f'ing insane.

No it will be framed as aiding criminals not the commerce clause. SCOTUS will definitely rule against free travel between states. It will just be another nail in the coffin of the USA.

That type of law would only apply to persons in state “knowingly” aiding someone to get an abortion, which states may get away with regulating and may be a problem for minors. But very doubtful they could prohibit the travel/ traveler itself - and it’s not like most women are going to be telling eg an airline what their health plans are in any circumstances…

It means that all these companies promising travel expenses and continued coverage for abortions will change their minds

maybe if the person says they're traveling to buy an AR, they'll let her pass.

My daughter is finishing undergrad in Texas but we live here in the DC area. We are going to pay a retainer for a criminal defense attorney in TX to get a plan in place in case DD needs to "visit the family"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they can’t. Commerce clause prohibits this kind of restriction. There will be lawsuits.

And SC's religious tribunal would supersede it.

I think that it's possible that even this SCOTUS would enforce the Commerce clause wrt state law. But the bigger question is whether, if Republicans take House and Senate, they can pass a federal law. I think that this SCOTUS might be willing to allow that.

I think California is moving to add abortion protections in the state constitution. It would be interesting to see what happens if a federal ban is passed. This is all just so f'ing insane.

No it will be framed as aiding criminals not the commerce clause. SCOTUS will definitely rule against free travel between states. It will just be another nail in the coffin of the USA.

That type of law would only apply to persons in state “knowingly” aiding someone to get an abortion, which states may get away with regulating and may be a problem for minors. But very doubtful they could prohibit the travel/ traveler itself - and it’s not like most women are going to be telling eg an airline what their health plans are in any circumstances…

It depends on what the Dobbs majority promised to their masters. There is no explicit "right to travel" in the Constitution so we have to look to the history of the issue.

Women in the American colonies were not permitted to travel between the colonies without the permission of their husband or father - so I think there's your answer. /s

I'm a middle leaning independent who is both disappointed in the Biden presidency, but also so appalled by what red states are doing and trying to do, it's just solidifying my stance to vote blue.