4 ms·

California bars tech companies to comply with other states abortion warrants

53 points by bubblehack3r 4y ago

realjhol 4y ago
- birdyrooster 4y ago
pyuser583 4y ago
Is this going to be like Californias law that required women in the board of trustees? It applied to only a very small number of companies. Shouldn’t we be looking at Delaware?
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Is this going to be like Californias law that required women in the board of trustees? And that law was recently overturned. Thankfully. With regards to this new law, IANAL, but given the interstate element here, I think Article IV, Section 2 of the USC might apply, thus rendering this law invalid. If this new law were valid, it would interesting to see if Texas could compel companies and individuals located in the state with a nexus in California to not pay taxes to the latter.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    The article takes a different approach than that.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. - U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1. A judgement instituted in Texas, will likely have to be respected. "Choice of law" might work if the state of California itself refused to comply on jurisdictional grounds, but actively compelling companies to ignore warrants is when this gets tricky, even if those companies are principally located in California. This might require a Supreme Court case.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > A judgement instituted in Texas, will likely have to be respected A final judgement, sure, but that’s not the issue: the issue is the legal scope and force of evidence-gathering orders, and unlike final judgements those would seem pretty clearly to be subject to the public policy exception to the FFC and the implementing federal legislation that the Supreme Court articulated in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 502 (1939).
      - FrontierPsych 4y ago
        Yeah, I have a problem with that. This is a hyperbolic example to make a point -> What happens if a state passes a law that has a mandatory death penalty for people who are left-handed, and our new Supreme Court justices say it is A-OK with a state to have this kind of law? I'm not saying this specific law, again it is a silly example to make a point, but why would a state be compelled to give full faith and credit to laws of other states that are completely batshite crazy? One that is NOT crazy is many red states want to convict women having an abortion of murder. This is an actual thing that many Republicans take seriously and want. This can mean life imprisonment, or even execution of the woman for murder. How is this ok?
        Dracophoenix 4y ago
        Yeah, I have a problem with that. > This is a hyperbolic example to make a point -> What happens if a state passes a law that has a mandatory death penalty for people who are left-handed, and our new Supreme Court justices say it is A-OK with a state to have this kind of law? Time to learn ambidexterity. In all seriousness, what you've described is basically a Dred Scott scenario, except left-handedness is discriminated against. Luckily, The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment addresses this. > I'm not saying this specific law, again it is a silly example to make a point, but why would a state be compelled to give full faith and credit to laws of other states that are completely batshite crazy? A law isn't considered "batshite crazy" if there's a "compelling interest". And now that the issue has been left to the states, what constitutes a compelling interest is mostly left to them as well. > One that is NOT crazy is many red states want to convict women having an abortion of murder. This is an actual thing that many Republicans take seriously and want. This can mean life imprisonment, or even execution of the woman for murder. How is this ok? I don't support the argument for the convictions myself, however even in blue states, killing a pregnant woman can result in a charge for double homicide. The first step would be coming to consistent defining what life is, but many lawmakers and judges avoid that. As for life imprisonment and executions, if abortion is considered murder, then those punishments are considered proportionate to the alleged crime. Proportionality is what makes it "ok".
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  They're going with where employees are, as well as principle executive office.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    Is that allowed? Why didn’t California do that with the “board of trustees just include women” law?
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      Different cosponsors, sympathy based causes that don't allow oxygen for disagreement Just pass and let the courts handle it kinda vibe
throwayyy479087 4y ago
This won’t hold up in court
- olliej 4y ago
  Given many of the women-aren’t-people states are passing involuntary detention laws against women, and passing laws to allow prosecution of women because they went to another less sexist state to get basic healthcare, and passing laws that violate the interstate commerce act, I don’t think they get to complain when another state says “fine, we’ll actually stand up for women’s rights”.
- armchairhacker 4y ago
  idk if abortion warrants even hold up in court, because of states rights and liberal politics
  - FrontierPsych 4y ago
salawat 4y ago
- throwaway5959 4y ago
lupire 4y ago
California stepping up for States' Rights.

53 points by bubblehack3r 4y ago

birdyrooster 4y ago

Is this going to be like Californias law that required women in the board of trustees? It applied to only a very small number of companies. Shouldn’t we be looking at Delaware?

Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Is this going to be like Californias law that required women in the board of trustees? And that law was recently overturned. Thankfully. With regards to this new law, IANAL, but given the interstate element here, I think Article IV, Section 2 of the USC might apply, thus rendering this law invalid. If this new law were valid, it would interesting to see if Texas could compel companies and individuals located in the state with a nexus in California to not pay taxes to the latter.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  The article takes a different approach than that.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. - U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1. A judgement instituted in Texas, will likely have to be respected. "Choice of law" might work if the state of California itself refused to comply on jurisdictional grounds, but actively compelling companies to ignore warrants is when this gets tricky, even if those companies are principally located in California. This might require a Supreme Court case.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > A judgement instituted in Texas, will likely have to be respected A final judgement, sure, but that’s not the issue: the issue is the legal scope and force of evidence-gathering orders, and unlike final judgements those would seem pretty clearly to be subject to the public policy exception to the FFC and the implementing federal legislation that the Supreme Court articulated in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 502 (1939).
    - FrontierPsych 4y ago
      Yeah, I have a problem with that. This is a hyperbolic example to make a point -> What happens if a state passes a law that has a mandatory death penalty for people who are left-handed, and our new Supreme Court justices say it is A-OK with a state to have this kind of law? I'm not saying this specific law, again it is a silly example to make a point, but why would a state be compelled to give full faith and credit to laws of other states that are completely batshite crazy? One that is NOT crazy is many red states want to convict women having an abortion of murder. This is an actual thing that many Republicans take seriously and want. This can mean life imprisonment, or even execution of the woman for murder. How is this ok?
      - Dracophoenix 4y ago
        Yeah, I have a problem with that. > This is a hyperbolic example to make a point -> What happens if a state passes a law that has a mandatory death penalty for people who are left-handed, and our new Supreme Court justices say it is A-OK with a state to have this kind of law? Time to learn ambidexterity. In all seriousness, what you've described is basically a Dred Scott scenario, except left-handedness is discriminated against. Luckily, The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment addresses this. > I'm not saying this specific law, again it is a silly example to make a point, but why would a state be compelled to give full faith and credit to laws of other states that are completely batshite crazy? A law isn't considered "batshite crazy" if there's a "compelling interest". And now that the issue has been left to the states, what constitutes a compelling interest is mostly left to them as well. > One that is NOT crazy is many red states want to convict women having an abortion of murder. This is an actual thing that many Republicans take seriously and want. This can mean life imprisonment, or even execution of the woman for murder. How is this ok? I don't support the argument for the convictions myself, however even in blue states, killing a pregnant woman can result in a charge for double homicide. The first step would be coming to consistent defining what life is, but many lawmakers and judges avoid that. As for life imprisonment and executions, if abortion is considered murder, then those punishments are considered proportionate to the alleged crime. Proportionality is what makes it "ok".
yieldcrv 4y ago
They're going with where employees are, as well as principle executive office.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Is that allowed? Why didn’t California do that with the “board of trustees just include women” law?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    Different cosponsors, sympathy based causes that don't allow oxygen for disagreement Just pass and let the courts handle it kinda vibe

throwayyy479087 4y ago

This won’t hold up in court

olliej 4y ago
Given many of the women-aren’t-people states are passing involuntary detention laws against women, and passing laws to allow prosecution of women because they went to another less sexist state to get basic healthcare, and passing laws that violate the interstate commerce act, I don’t think they get to complain when another state says “fine, we’ll actually stand up for women’s rights”.
armchairhacker 4y ago
idk if abortion warrants even hold up in court, because of states rights and liberal politics
- FrontierPsych 4y ago

salawat 4y ago

throwaway5959 4y ago

lupire 4y ago

California stepping up for States' Rights.