3 ms·

> Now consider states make it illegal to get birth control pills and retroactively go after anyone who has them prescribed. It's according to the law, ain't it?

> Now consider states make it illegal to get birth control pills and retroactively go after anyone who has them prescribed. It's according to the law, ain't it? Your example is ex post facto, but it doesn't even have to be that egregious. State A makes it illegal to leave the state with the intention of having or facilitating an abortion. Because CVS operates nationally, cops in State A can go to a CVS locally and pull records of a CVS in State B filling a prescription for a medication that is sometimes, but not always, used for abortion. They can then use that to build a case for prosecuting the person in State A.

anonuser123456 3y ago
> State A makes it illegal to leave the state with the intention of having or facilitating an abortion. States do not have the authority to regulate travel across borders. The supreme court would strike this down 9-0, as the implications would be enormous.
- lazide 3y ago
  You might be meaning to refer to interstate commerce? Which appears to be the more applicable situation?
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    Medical procedures are commerce.
- u32480932048 3y ago
  There are already numerous "leave the state with the intention of" laws, which I assume to be just some extra charge to throw at someone, like wearing body armor while committing a felony.
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    Can you show a ‘leave state with the intent’ law that has been successfully prosecuted?
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      Texas counties are taking the “bounty hunter” model, similar to the states abortion ban law. So, not sure what “prosecution” means in that type of case. https://www.vox.com/23868962/texas-abortion-travel-ban-unconstitutional https://www.vox.com/23868962/texas-abortion-travel-ban-uncon... Regardless, the law only needs to be on the books to lead to needless pain and suffering of women, as we’ve already seen in Texas and elsewhere.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Tell that to Idaho https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/idaho-most-extremae-anti-abortion-state-law-restricts-travel-rcna78225/ https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/idaho-most-extr...
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    That statute applies to people facilitating the travel of minors without parental consent. This bill establishes parents as having full legal authority over their minor children and no one else. As such, it does not really apply in the same way as a blanket travel ban. Parents have always been given preferential dominion over their children.

anonuser123456 3y ago

> State A makes it illegal to leave the state with the intention of having or facilitating an abortion. States do not have the authority to regulate travel across borders. The supreme court would strike this down 9-0, as the implications would be enormous.

lazide 3y ago
You might be meaning to refer to interstate commerce? Which appears to be the more applicable situation?
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  Medical procedures are commerce.
u32480932048 3y ago
There are already numerous "leave the state with the intention of" laws, which I assume to be just some extra charge to throw at someone, like wearing body armor while committing a felony.
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  Can you show a ‘leave state with the intent’ law that has been successfully prosecuted?
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Texas counties are taking the “bounty hunter” model, similar to the states abortion ban law. So, not sure what “prosecution” means in that type of case. https://www.vox.com/23868962/texas-abortion-travel-ban-unconstitutional https://www.vox.com/23868962/texas-abortion-travel-ban-uncon... Regardless, the law only needs to be on the books to lead to needless pain and suffering of women, as we’ve already seen in Texas and elsewhere.
alistairSH 3y ago
Tell that to Idaho https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/idaho-most-extremae-anti-abortion-state-law-restricts-travel-rcna78225/ https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/idaho-most-extr...
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  That statute applies to people facilitating the travel of minors without parental consent. This bill establishes parents as having full legal authority over their minor children and no one else. As such, it does not really apply in the same way as a blanket travel ban. Parents have always been given preferential dominion over their children.