3 ms·

The difference (at least for now) is that the visit is presumably in a place where abortion is legal. You can't issue a subpoena for someone doing something leg

The difference (at least for now) is that the visit is presumably in a place where abortion is legal. You can't issue a subpoena for someone doing something legal (in another state, outside your jurisdiction, no less). The (very unlikely, even with this supreme court) theoretical moment of doing something illegal is either the 'exit' from the state "with intent to abort" but they need some info. If woman-over-fetus-priority states create laws that shield other state-data from respecting subpoenas from the fetus-over-woman-priority states (like NY and NJ), then there's no data. Of course, Google isn't the only one that has access to your phone's geo -- so a question is whether they'll also block all apps within some radius.

labster 4y ago
I wouldn’t count on shield laws in abortion states protecting women. We’re one Republican administration away from a law requiring other states to cooperate, built on the model of the Fugitive Slave Act. It’s obviously interstate commerce.
- vkou 4y ago
  An appropriate response to that kind of law would be for blue states to criminalize the criminalization of abortion.
  - wutbrodo 4y ago
    What do you mean here? How would you criminalize the act of a different state's govt? Do you mean (attempt to) hold state legislators criminally liable?
    - vkou 4y ago
      Hold the agents executing the state's laws criminally liable - arrest them and try them if they ever cross into your state. Police, prosecutors, legislators, etc. The logic holds for me - if state A is criminalizing behavior that's legal in state B, and is prosecuting people who engaged in it in state B, then state B can do the converse.
awinter-py 4y ago
foreign corrupt practices act lets US officials prosecute behavior that is legal in a foreign country and illegal here (I'm not saying it applies in this case, but it's an example of applying local law to a locally domiciled company operating abroad). same with going abroad for sex tourism with minors (PROTECT act) in US state-vs-state situations, I'm pretty sure some states have public policy exceptions to forum clauses in contracts, though I can't quote you a case

labster 4y ago

I wouldn’t count on shield laws in abortion states protecting women. We’re one Republican administration away from a law requiring other states to cooperate, built on the model of the Fugitive Slave Act. It’s obviously interstate commerce.

vkou 4y ago
An appropriate response to that kind of law would be for blue states to criminalize the criminalization of abortion.
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  What do you mean here? How would you criminalize the act of a different state's govt? Do you mean (attempt to) hold state legislators criminally liable?
  - vkou 4y ago
    Hold the agents executing the state's laws criminally liable - arrest them and try them if they ever cross into your state. Police, prosecutors, legislators, etc. The logic holds for me - if state A is criminalizing behavior that's legal in state B, and is prosecuting people who engaged in it in state B, then state B can do the converse.

awinter-py 4y ago

foreign corrupt practices act lets US officials prosecute behavior that is legal in a foreign country and illegal here (I'm not saying it applies in this case, but it's an example of applying local law to a locally domiciled company operating abroad). same with going abroad for sex tourism with minors (PROTECT act) in US state-vs-state situations, I'm pretty sure some states have public policy exceptions to forum clauses in contracts, though I can't quote you a case