3 ms·

I'm missing something. If a state outlaws abortion, why would these clinics still be open? And if we're talking about underground, black market clinics, how wou

I'm missing something. If a state outlaws abortion, why would these clinics still be open? And if we're talking about underground, black market clinics, how would google know?

mattzito 4y ago
I think they’re optimizing more for people who travel across state lines to obtain an abortion in a state where it’s legal. Those people may face a risk of prosecution in their home state, so avoiding evidence they were at a (legal) abortion clinic is helpful.
- kyrra 4y ago
  What right would one state have to go after a resident that travels to another state to have an abortion? Isn't it clearly outside the first state's jurisdiction?
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    I live in a state where failing a drug test is a crime, even if the drugs were consumed legally elsewhere. They can likely make a law similar to that for having an abortion, though I don't know the exact method you'd use.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      What state? Never heard of that and it's horrifying.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        No comment. It's a misdemeanor in Utah and a felony in South Dakota though. It's called possession by consumption.
  - londgine 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure that if the age of consent in another state is less than your state, it is forbidden to travel there to take advantage of that. I don't know how that law is legal, but I'm pretty sure the same logic can be applied to abortions.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      No.
      - nathanaldensr 4y ago
        You're wrong. > Interstate Travel While each state’s legislature sets its own age of consent, crossing state lines does not grant a free pass. Crossing state lines to have sexual relations invokes federal law. The federal age of consent is 18. That means, for example, if two people over 16 in North Carolina and South Carolina moved across state lines to have relations, they would still be subject to the federal age of consent, even though they meet the age of consent in both states. In the case of online relations, the law applies based on the younger person’s state. For example, if an adult in Nevada attempted to send lewd messages or pictures to a minor in California, the Nevada resident would violate the law. https://www.cwsdefense.com/blog/2020/january/state-lines-and-the-age-of-consent/ https://www.cwsdefense.com/blog/2020/january/state-lines-and...
        wutbrodo 4y ago
        The claim was that going from state A to state B to engage in sex would use the minimum of the two states' ages of consent. That is still false. What you are describing is the _federal_ aoc applying if interstate travel was involved. In the case of online activity, the act is considered to be happening in both states, without involving fedgov due to no state lines being crossed. None of this has anything to do with an act occurring entirely in state A and being subject to state B's laws. This is what's under discussion with abortion.
        dekhn 4y ago
        No
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pxmpxm 4y ago
    None? But that doesn't stop this being the midterm election narrative, pushed by left leaning mass media in wake of the Supreme court decision. Remember when Utah was mass-arresting residents returning from a gambling and booze weekend in Vegas? No? Probably because that's not a real thing, either.
    - mariojv 4y ago
      Regardless of what you think about the "left leaning mass media," abortion funds in Texas like the Frontera Fund are pausing abortion funding, even for out of state abortions, due to the fear that a recently passed Texas law criminalizing anyone who helps someone get an abortion will apply to them: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/29/texas-abortion-funds-legal/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/29/texas-abortion-funds... It is not clear that this is enforceable for funding an out of state abortion, but the uncertain legal framework is already harming abortion access. It will take a long time for criminalization of out of state travel to work its way up the courts. It is not just a fear to drive up midterm turnout: this is actually happening right now. Please do a modicum of research rather than dismissing peoples' concerns out of hand due to your perceptions around media bias. Even if there is such a bias, it seems to be clouding your view of what is factually observable.
      - pxmpxm 4y ago
        The very premise of this type of FUD was actually explicitly mentioned in the Supreme court decision (by Kavanaugh if I recall correctly) - the notion of states hunting down their residents or tracking activities in other states is as far fetched in the context of abortion as it is in any other activity that is perfectly legal elsewhere. There is no legal uncertainty in this matter, just as there is no uncertainty whether you can be charged with soliciting upon returning from a legal brothel in Nevada, for example. You should not be surprised by the coordinated effort by interested parties to push this as a narrative, both the agency you mentioned and google in the original article. All these concerns will magically disappear after November, with each org quietly backtracking on their heavily publicized actions.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    A state can make it illegal to transport someone or to travel for purposes of getting an abortion (the transportation would be happening in state) and it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to rule it's constitutional or not.

I'm missing something. If a state outlaws abortion, why would these clinics still be open? And if we're talking about underground, black market clinics, how would google know?

mattzito 4y ago

I think they’re optimizing more for people who travel across state lines to obtain an abortion in a state where it’s legal. Those people may face a risk of prosecution in their home state, so avoiding evidence they were at a (legal) abortion clinic is helpful.

kyrra 4y ago
What right would one state have to go after a resident that travels to another state to have an abortion? Isn't it clearly outside the first state's jurisdiction?
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I live in a state where failing a drug test is a crime, even if the drugs were consumed legally elsewhere. They can likely make a law similar to that for having an abortion, though I don't know the exact method you'd use.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    What state? Never heard of that and it's horrifying.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      No comment. It's a misdemeanor in Utah and a felony in South Dakota though. It's called possession by consumption.
- londgine 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure that if the age of consent in another state is less than your state, it is forbidden to travel there to take advantage of that. I don't know how that law is legal, but I'm pretty sure the same logic can be applied to abortions.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    No.
    - nathanaldensr 4y ago
      You're wrong. > Interstate Travel While each state’s legislature sets its own age of consent, crossing state lines does not grant a free pass. Crossing state lines to have sexual relations invokes federal law. The federal age of consent is 18. That means, for example, if two people over 16 in North Carolina and South Carolina moved across state lines to have relations, they would still be subject to the federal age of consent, even though they meet the age of consent in both states. In the case of online relations, the law applies based on the younger person’s state. For example, if an adult in Nevada attempted to send lewd messages or pictures to a minor in California, the Nevada resident would violate the law. https://www.cwsdefense.com/blog/2020/january/state-lines-and-the-age-of-consent/ https://www.cwsdefense.com/blog/2020/january/state-lines-and...
      - wutbrodo 4y ago
        The claim was that going from state A to state B to engage in sex would use the minimum of the two states' ages of consent. That is still false. What you are describing is the _federal_ aoc applying if interstate travel was involved. In the case of online activity, the act is considered to be happening in both states, without involving fedgov due to no state lines being crossed. None of this has anything to do with an act occurring entirely in state A and being subject to state B's laws. This is what's under discussion with abortion.
      - dekhn 4y ago
        No
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pxmpxm 4y ago
  None? But that doesn't stop this being the midterm election narrative, pushed by left leaning mass media in wake of the Supreme court decision. Remember when Utah was mass-arresting residents returning from a gambling and booze weekend in Vegas? No? Probably because that's not a real thing, either.
  - mariojv 4y ago
    Regardless of what you think about the "left leaning mass media," abortion funds in Texas like the Frontera Fund are pausing abortion funding, even for out of state abortions, due to the fear that a recently passed Texas law criminalizing anyone who helps someone get an abortion will apply to them: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/29/texas-abortion-funds-legal/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/29/texas-abortion-funds... It is not clear that this is enforceable for funding an out of state abortion, but the uncertain legal framework is already harming abortion access. It will take a long time for criminalization of out of state travel to work its way up the courts. It is not just a fear to drive up midterm turnout: this is actually happening right now. Please do a modicum of research rather than dismissing peoples' concerns out of hand due to your perceptions around media bias. Even if there is such a bias, it seems to be clouding your view of what is factually observable.
    - pxmpxm 4y ago
      The very premise of this type of FUD was actually explicitly mentioned in the Supreme court decision (by Kavanaugh if I recall correctly) - the notion of states hunting down their residents or tracking activities in other states is as far fetched in the context of abortion as it is in any other activity that is perfectly legal elsewhere. There is no legal uncertainty in this matter, just as there is no uncertainty whether you can be charged with soliciting upon returning from a legal brothel in Nevada, for example. You should not be surprised by the coordinated effort by interested parties to push this as a narrative, both the agency you mentioned and google in the original article. All these concerns will magically disappear after November, with each org quietly backtracking on their heavily publicized actions.
- staticman2 4y ago
  A state can make it illegal to transport someone or to travel for purposes of getting an abortion (the transportation would be happening in state) and it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to rule it's constitutional or not.