Alabama can’t prosecute groups who help women travel to get an abortion, federal judge says

[NatMorton]

The laws provide a source for the doctors and providers to find out how to respond, legally, to such contacts or to know that they can ignore it without wasting $ and time. Doctors and providers are not generally legal professionals.



I disagree. In WA St when they created our shield laws they were created for consistency in response, clarification in the support the providers could legally expect and get from the state, and how the providers should respond when contacted by medical or legal professionals from outside the state. It was all codified and shared so that doctors and providers would know exactly how they were protected and how to respond...so, no worries about spending time or funds on their own solutions. It also informed judges, that they had state support in not creating/serving subpoenas, etc...it codified the state's response to such "illegal" actions in general. If all that equals "do nothing", please clarify your characterization.

If it's illegal for other states to do this, as you state...why arent states like NY taking legal action against them? Is there some way to hold those red states accountable for wasting taxpayer $ and breaking the law? It seems like they are using illegal actions "as scare tactics,' as intimidation.

I've just explained to you why states are "taking action against them." The purpose is to get the Democratic base all worked up. What they're not doing it for is to protect their citizens or visitors against legal risk, because there isn't any.

As for holding those red state legislators accountable, that's up to their voters, and not you. Worry about holding your own state's legislators, and if they're spending time on shield laws in your state, they're wasting your money.

 

[NatMorton]

Fascists don't give a ****, they'll just throw whatever at the wall and hope it sticks, and it's worked for them. This is the same dynamic with birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment and yet they will throw all kinds of wack ass arguments at the issue hoping that a bought judge can give them what they want (which to this point even Trump-appointed judges have told them to **** off, at least for now).

It's nice you feel that way.

 

[Lursa]

I've just explained to you why states are "taking action against them." The purpose is to get the Democratic base all worked up.

Why would it bother the left? It is a victory for us. It would more likely be infuriating the red states, blocking their small-minded misogyny and efforts to punish women and providers.

What they're not doing it for is to protect their citizens or visitors against legal risk, because there isn't any.

Then how is it illegal? Arent there charges for illegal acts?

As for holding those red state legislators accountable, that's up to their voters, and not you.

Hey, you made the claim. Wouldnt you be pro-active is someone acted illegally against you? See the law upheld with whatever criminal penalties were appropriate? Should states be able to attempt to intimidate people in other states for legal services and behavior?

Worry about holding your own state's legislators, and if they're spending time on shield laws in your state, they're wasting your money.

The bold: how so? I just gave specifics in how they're not, so please directly refute what I wrote and explain the bold.

 

[NatMorton]

Why would it bother the left? It is a victory for us. It would more likely be infuriating the red states, blocking their small-minded misogyny and efforts to punish women and providers.



Then how is it illegal? Arent there charges for illegal acts?



Hey, you made the claim. Wouldnt you be pro-active is someone acted illegally against you? See the law upheld with whatever criminal penalties were appropriate? Should states be able to attempt to intimidate people in other states for legal services and behavior?



The bold: how so? I just gave specifics in how they're not, so please directly refute what I wrote and explain the bold.

It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?

If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.

 

[Lursa]

It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?

Why would it "energize" the left? It's already in place, has been, and is succeeding. It is a victory for us. It would more likely be infuriating the red states, blocking their small-minded misogyny and efforts to punish women and providers.

So yes...you need to explain your statement re: Democrats.

If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.

Show why. Your "na huh" is meaningless...I gave specifics. Let's see you dispute those? Show the lies? "It's really not more complicated than that."

 

[Luce]

So why do republicans pull this shit over and over?

Beats working, I guess.

 

[Bodi]

People in Alabama should be disgusted with this... or if they actually agree with this they should be ashamed.

I bet we could pass laws that would deny these people the right to vote... since they are keen about denying people rights.

 

[choiceone]

Hardly. The same scare tactic, reversed, is being used in states like PA that are attempting to pass do-nothing "shield laws."

You and I even discussed such a law in this thread:

Pennsylvania House passes ‘shield law’ to protect providers, out-of-staters seeking abortions

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-access-pennsylvania-out-of-state-protection-7ec5009ec08073807a47513717a95c79 HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A bill seeking to protect those who travel to Pennsylvania to get abortions by barring public officials from cooperating with authorities in other states that...

debatepolitics.com

This is not a do-nothing law.

Some anti-abortion state is suing because New York won't enforce their anti-abortion law as regards a NY doctor's mailing abortion medications prescribed over the web to a woman in the anti-abortion state.

But NY has a shield law that protects both NYers and their out of state people in such a case. Even if the woman in the other state has broken laws in that state, NY claims that no one broke the law in NY and they won't help the other state at all because of the law.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Anyone with even a superficial understanding of state and federal law would know that such a case would have been thrown out.

Right.

Roe v Wade isn't in any danger either, anyone with a modicum of knowledge knows that.

 

[choiceone]

It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?

If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.

I really don't agree with this. The Democratic base is pretty much always energized. What it isn't always is optimistic. NY wants that base not to be hopelessly depressed, and in the face of all the anti-abortion legislation all over the country, the governor and other top Democrats want to reassure that base that they're on top of it and will make sure that those horrible people in other states can't enforce their stupid laws across state lines.

We may be willing to help LA law enforcement get back escaped people charged with murder in LA, but if LA wants to impose capital punishment on someone charged with LA murder, and NY evaluates the person as mentally ill, NY doesn't always cooperate.

Similarly, in this case, if someone comes to NY and gets an abortion, no one did anything wrong in NY, so NY is clarifying that providers don't have to provide any information, and no one has to help the out of state cops find the out of state woman if she's still here.

Many of us are horrified by the states that are trying to enforce their anti-choice laws beyond their borders, because it appears to be very much like the old state slavery laws, which free states never wanted to help, back in the 1800s.

 

[NatMorton]

The Democratic base is pretty much always energized.

How about last November?

 

[Lursa]

It's an attempt to energize the base. Do you really need an explanation for why either party would want to do that?

Why would it "energize" the left? It's already in place, has been, and is succeeding. It is a victory for us. It would more likely be infuriating the red states, blocking their small-minded misogyny and efforts to punish women and providers.

So yes...you need to explain your statement re: Democrats.

If you've been told shield laws are necessary you are being lied to; they are not. It's really not more complicated than that.

Show why. Your "na huh" is meaningless...I gave specifics. Let's see you dispute those? Show the lies? "It's really not more complicated than that."

 

[What if...?]

You too need to think it through. If your can come up with a reason why the Republicans are trying to stir up their base there's a good reason you've also answered the same questions for Democrats.

Or it’s just a watered down Handmaid’s Tale situation.

Demographic problem. Same as Israel.

Force white women to have every child they become pregnant with.

To help offset all those kids brown people have.

 

[choiceone]

How about last November?

I won't say the Democratic base didn't vote in numbers.

These elections all depend on getting three other kinds of votes - the people who belong to the Democratic Party who aren't part of the base, the independents who lean Democrat but don't belong to the party and sometimes vote Republican, and independs who lean Republican and members of the Republican Party who aren't part of its base.

The Republicans have the same problem. For example, Liz Cheney is a Republican and usually even part of that party's base, but she stumped for Democrats to prevent Trump from having the presidential power he now has. There are several members of this forum who are Republicans who, however, haven't voted for Trump because they can't stomach him. There are Independents who have gone both ways. Etc.

The base of each party is the totally loyal minority of the party and usually comes close to the furthest left and furthest right just within the party.