3 ms·
States would have to prove intention, which would be very difficult. States cannot restrict interstate travel as mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. h
by 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 agoThere 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> States would have to prove intention, which would be very difficult. Its not all that difficult, there are plenty of specific intent crimes and states prove intention all the time. > States cannot restrict interstate travel as mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. Your link supports the existence of the right to travel, but that’s not in dispute; the right to travel is not an absolute; like other fundamental rights, the test applied in the strict scrutiny test, such that state actions impinging on it must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.