4 ms·

Why not all clinics?

krapp 4y ago
The US Supreme Court recently repealed Roe v. Wade, a previous decision which established access to abortion as a Constitutional right on the basis of an implied right to privacy the current Court no longer recognizes. As a result numerous states have declared abortion illegal, which makes visiting abortion clinics, specifically (even out of state, in some cases) a crime. Other kinds of clinics are likely not included because visiting them doesn't pose the same legal risk.
- mlindner 4y ago
  This is the third different rationale I've heard for roe v wade, and none of them agree. Last I heard it wasn't about privacy but about liberty. > specifically (even out of state, in some cases) a crime. That's not legal under federal law and the constitution. You can't arrest citizens for participating in some activity outside of the state.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >This is the third different rationale I've heard for roe v wade, and none of them agree. Last I heard it wasn't about privacy but about liberty. I don't know what you've else you've heard but you can study the decision itself[0], or summary material[1,2], to find the actual legal argument used. "On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion." [0]https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410113/usrep410113.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade [2]https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wa... >That's not legal under federal law and the constitution. Feel free to tell that to the several state governments attempting to do so[3]. Relevant quote: “Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.” Of course the obvious challenge is through the Interstate Commerce Clause but given the nature of the current court and Conservative's disdain for it in general, I wouldn't expect the court to rule in the government's favor. [3]https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7Goi6ixabHAJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7Goi6i...
    - mlindner 4y ago
      > Feel free to tell that to the several state governments attempting to do so[3]. Because they're doing so to score points for future elections for their far right electorate. They know it won't succeed and will be challenged immediately and fail. > Of course the obvious challenge is through the Interstate Commerce Clause but given the nature of the current court and Conservative's disdain for it in general, I wouldn't expect the court to rule in the government's favor. The current court is using sound legalist principles to rule in the way they're ruling. There's nothing that lets them just simply erase the interstate commerce clause.

The US Supreme Court recently repealed Roe v. Wade, a previous decision which established access to abortion as a Constitutional right on the basis of an implied right to privacy the current Court no longer recognizes. As a result numerous states have declared abortion illegal, which makes visiting abortion clinics, specifically (even out of state, in some cases) a crime. Other kinds of clinics are likely not included because visiting them doesn't pose the same legal risk.

mlindner 4y ago
This is the third different rationale I've heard for roe v wade, and none of them agree. Last I heard it wasn't about privacy but about liberty. > specifically (even out of state, in some cases) a crime. That's not legal under federal law and the constitution. You can't arrest citizens for participating in some activity outside of the state.
- krapp 4y ago
  >This is the third different rationale I've heard for roe v wade, and none of them agree. Last I heard it wasn't about privacy but about liberty. I don't know what you've else you've heard but you can study the decision itself[0], or summary material[1,2], to find the actual legal argument used. "On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion." [0]https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410113/usrep410113.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade [2]https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wa... >That's not legal under federal law and the constitution. Feel free to tell that to the several state governments attempting to do so[3]. Relevant quote: “Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.” Of course the obvious challenge is through the Interstate Commerce Clause but given the nature of the current court and Conservative's disdain for it in general, I wouldn't expect the court to rule in the government's favor. [3]https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7Goi6ixabHAJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7Goi6i...
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > Feel free to tell that to the several state governments attempting to do so[3]. Because they're doing so to score points for future elections for their far right electorate. They know it won't succeed and will be challenged immediately and fail. > Of course the obvious challenge is through the Interstate Commerce Clause but given the nature of the current court and Conservative's disdain for it in general, I wouldn't expect the court to rule in the government's favor. The current court is using sound legalist principles to rule in the way they're ruling. There's nothing that lets them just simply erase the interstate commerce clause.