5 ms·

Regardless, Texas cannot hold you liable for an abortion that you get performed in another state. So Texas can try all they want, but they have no jurisdiction

Regardless, Texas cannot hold you liable for an abortion that you get performed in another state. So Texas can try all they want, but they have no jurisdiction over what happens in California, so they will never be able to write legislation that makes it illegal to travel to another state for an abortion.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Regardless, Texas cannot hold you liable for an abortion that you get performed in another state. Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place? But even under established precedent, I don't think it's at all clear that they cannot punish you for anything you do while in Texas with the intent of getting an abortion, even if the actual abortion is performed outside of Texas. And even if they can't (based on what the courts will eventually decide) punish you, they can arrest you, charge you, try you, convict you, sentence you, and send you to prison, possibly awaiting execution, before your case is even ripe for appeal.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Your last paragraph is true, but the former are not. States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel, and they must uniformly apply the law. And they cannot punish you for a thought-crime, meaning they cannot arrest you under the supposition that your travel is arranged with intent to get an abortion outside their jurisdiction. > Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place? The Constitution is exactly what gives Texas the power to regulate abortion. It does so by not explicitly enumerating that power the the federal government.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel, States can restrict interstate travel for...well, lots of reasons, and preventing what state law defines as murder is certainly one of them, but there are limits on the burdens they can impose on travel. > And they cannot punish you for a thought-crime, meaning they cannot arrest you under the supposition that your travel is arranged with intent to get an abortion outside their jurisdiction. States absolutely can punish for the combination of intent and action. They can also punish under their laws a crime whose culmination happens outside of their borders when some part of it occurred within their borders. If a state can define a fetus as a person who can be murdered, they can absolutely make it illegal for someone to transport that person to any place (inside or outside the state) for the purpose of killing them.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      States would have to prove intention, which would be very difficult. States cannot restrict interstate travel as mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/interstate-travel https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/... > The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state. Furthermore, of the abortion is performed in the destination state, the citizen would be covered by the privileges and immunities of that state, and the former would have no recourse. Edit: it appears Kavanaugh already weighed in on this issue. While obviously not a legal decision, it at least provides one judge's perspective: https://reason.com/2022/06/24/states-cant-ban-out-of-state-travel-to-get-abortions-writes-kavanaugh/ https://reason.com/2022/06/24/states-cant-ban-out-of-state-t...
      - Spoom 4y ago
        There are plenty of laws where intention does not matter. Why would this be any different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
      - dragonwriter 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Regardless, Texas cannot hold you liable for an abortion that you get performed in another state. Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place? But even under established precedent, I don't think it's at all clear that they cannot punish you for anything you do while in Texas with the intent of getting an abortion, even if the actual abortion is performed outside of Texas. And even if they can't (based on what the courts will eventually decide) punish you, they can arrest you, charge you, try you, convict you, sentence you, and send you to prison, possibly awaiting execution, before your case is even ripe for appeal.

hellojesus 4y ago
Your last paragraph is true, but the former are not. States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel, and they must uniformly apply the law. And they cannot punish you for a thought-crime, meaning they cannot arrest you under the supposition that your travel is arranged with intent to get an abortion outside their jurisdiction. > Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place? The Constitution is exactly what gives Texas the power to regulate abortion. It does so by not explicitly enumerating that power the the federal government.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel, States can restrict interstate travel for...well, lots of reasons, and preventing what state law defines as murder is certainly one of them, but there are limits on the burdens they can impose on travel. > And they cannot punish you for a thought-crime, meaning they cannot arrest you under the supposition that your travel is arranged with intent to get an abortion outside their jurisdiction. States absolutely can punish for the combination of intent and action. They can also punish under their laws a crime whose culmination happens outside of their borders when some part of it occurred within their borders. If a state can define a fetus as a person who can be murdered, they can absolutely make it illegal for someone to transport that person to any place (inside or outside the state) for the purpose of killing them.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    States would have to prove intention, which would be very difficult. States cannot restrict interstate travel as mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/interstate-travel https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/... > The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state. Furthermore, of the abortion is performed in the destination state, the citizen would be covered by the privileges and immunities of that state, and the former would have no recourse. Edit: it appears Kavanaugh already weighed in on this issue. While obviously not a legal decision, it at least provides one judge's perspective: https://reason.com/2022/06/24/states-cant-ban-out-of-state-travel-to-get-abortions-writes-kavanaugh/ https://reason.com/2022/06/24/states-cant-ban-out-of-state-t...
    - Spoom 4y ago
      There are plenty of laws where intention does not matter. Why would this be any different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
    - dragonwriter 4y ago