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.

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?

No you have it backwards. States have no authority to bar interstate travel. Why you travel is irrelevant, that is the whole point. Sure, you could commit a crime over which the home state retains jurisdiction* in the process, but that does not go to the travel itself.

* I really can't think of any analogue where a state can prosecute a resident (or anyone else involved) for engaging in out-of-state activity that is lawful where the activity takes place (buying/smoking pot, physician-assisted suicide, heck, lighting firecrackers) simply by virtue of the fact that the defendant is a "resident" in the home state where the activity is illegal. This would seem to unravel all of federalism --not even getting to the Commerce Clause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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"

Obviously a personal choice, but she doesn’t want to be on any type of birth control? I was on the pill that age even when I didn’t have a boyfriend for other medical reasons. There are so many other options available that seem easier than keeping a lawyer on retainer, unless I’m misunderstanding.

Cuz no one on the pill has ever gotten pregnant...

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.

Yeah. I think SCOTUS will be told how to vote on a national ban instead. That would be way easier for them to do.

Please start using a VPN.

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…

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.

then we should all start looking for abortion information every day- that way they will not be able to tell.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Is he paying childcare?

You mean fetal tissue care? It’s not a child, right??

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).

Would you like to be the HR director or president indicted for murder in Texas hoping that your clear attempt to evade the law is nuanced enough to keep you out of prison?

Anonymous wrote: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"

Just put her on birth control
The implant in the arm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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"

Obviously a personal choice, but she doesn’t want to be on any type of birth control? I was on the pill that age even when I didn’t have a boyfriend for other medical reasons. There are so many other options available that seem easier than keeping a lawyer on retainer, unless I’m misunderstanding.

Sure, she's a young college student who makes mistakes. The lawyer is more about explaining how to avoid a paper/digital evidence trail and getting out of state without imprisonment.

Anonymous wrote: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"

Obviously a personal choice, but she doesn’t want to be on any type of birth control? I was on the pill that age even when I didn’t have a boyfriend for other medical reasons. There are so many other options available that seem easier than keeping a lawyer on retainer, unless I’m misunderstanding.

Is he paying childcare?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hypothetical:

Boyfriend and Girlfriend live in Ohio. Girlfriend gets pregnant, is let's say, 8 weeks along and wants an abortion.
Not legal in Ohio after 6 weeks now.

Can boyfriend prevent girlfriend from traveling to Maryland where she could legally get an abortion? Saying it is a custody issue, essentially?

Or kidnapping?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hypothetical:

Boyfriend and Girlfriend live in Ohio. Girlfriend gets pregnant, is let's say, 8 weeks along and wants an abortion.
Not legal in Ohio after 6 weeks now.

Can boyfriend prevent girlfriend from traveling to Maryland where she could legally get an abortion? Saying it is a custody issue, essentially?

So what else will the Supreme Court legislate in terms of Americans right to free passage around the country?