States Rights and Abortion Drugs

[Lursa]

I know. The written record showing you I sourced it does.

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone IN TX sue ANYONE for something that happened IN ANOTHER STATE, where that thing is legal in that other state. Due to jurisdiction, and standing. I even gave you a court case to this effect.

So then apparently you do care if I accept your responses? Well, I dont care anymore either way.

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.​

 

[rahl]

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require proof and sources.

I have already explained that I will correct you as often as you seem to need it. Why are you posting about topics, in this case constitutional law, when you don't even seem to grasp the VERY BASIC concept of jurisdiction or standing?

 

[Lursa]

I have already explained that I will correct you as often as you seem to need it. Why are you posting about topics, in this case constitutional law, when you don't even seem to grasp the VERY BASIC concept of jurisdiction or standing?

All people have to do is go back to my original post and see that you failed to even understand it. Or 'standing.'

And they dont care enough about this to bother. It's all about you at this point, failing to save face.

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require ACCURATE and SPECIFIC proof and sources.

So...post away. No one cares but you and it still wont ever show you're right. (Since only my agreement on the requested sources will do so )

 

[rahl]

All people have to do is go back to my original post and see that you failed to even understand it. Or 'standing.'

What they will actually see is I gave you specifically what you asked for, and showed you why you are wrong.

And they dont care enough about this to bother. It's all about you at this point, failing to save face.

I have no face to save. I have actual constitutional law and 2 centuries of precedent showing you why you are wrong.

Since I'm sure you dont care if I accept your posts or not, it seems odd you keep repeating yourself with empty responses. "My" responses will also not change, LOL....since I require ACCURATE and SPECIFIC proof and sources.

So...post away. No one cares but you and it still wont ever show you're right. (Since only the requested sources or my agreement will do so )

the requested sources were given. Your agreement is meaningless. You have been shown how and why you are incorrect.

 

[Lursa]

What they will actually see is I gave you specifically what you asked for, and showed you why you are wrong.

I have no face to save. I have actual constitutional law and 2 centuries of precedent showing you why you are wrong.

the requested sources were given. Your agreement is meaningless. You have been shown how and why you are incorrect.

LMAO...what am I wrong about? I didnt claim ANYTHING...I asked questions. You tried to supply answers that you couldnt properly/accurately support and so I didnt accept your opinion...and that's why you're trying to regain your self-esteem here.



Like I said, you never even understood what I was asking.

So...post away. No one cares but you and it still wont ever show you're right. (Since only my agreement on the requested sources will do so )

 

[rahl]

LMAO...what am I wrong about? I didnt claim ANYTHING...I asked questions. You tried to supply answers that you couldnt properly/accurately support and so I didnt accept your opinion...and that's why you're trying to regain your self-esteem here.

You are wrong about not being given specifically what you asked for. TX whether it's the state trying to prosecute someone, or a citizen trying to sue someone, can not do so because of jurisdiction and standing.

Like I said, you never even understood what I was asking.

So...post away. No one cares but you and it still wont ever show you're right. (Since only my agreement on the requested sources will do so )

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone sue someone for something that happens in another state where that something is LEGAL, because of jurisdiction and standing.

 

[Lursa]

You are wrong about not being given specifically what you asked for. TX whether it's the state trying to prosecute someone, or a citizen trying to sue someone, can not do so because of jurisdiction and standing.

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone sue someone for something that happens in another state where that something is LEGAL, because of jurisdiction and standing.

So you admit you had no idea what I was asking, not claiming...even tho you wont post it...poor form. (It was not what I bolded...no wonder you never got it right.)

Like I said, you never even understood what I was asking, so your info was not applicable and is unacceptable.

So...post away. No one cares but you and it still wont ever show you're right. (Since only my agreement on the requested sources will do so )

 

[rahl]

So you admit you had no idea what I was asking, not claiming...even tho you wont post it...poor form. (It was not what I bolded...no wonder you never got it right.)

You asked me to provide a citation/source for why TX can't do anything about someone traveling out of state for an abortion, and I then gave you a source/citation and even a court case. You then CLAIMED i hadn't. lol

Like I said, you never even understood what I was asking, so your info was not applicable and is unacceptable.

So...post away. No one cares but you and it still wont ever show you're right. (Since only my agreement on the requested sources will do so )

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone sue someone for something that happens in another state where that something is LEGAL, because of jurisdiction and standing.

 

[Lursa]

You asked me to provide a citation/source for why TX can't do anything about someone traveling out of state for an abortion, and I then gave you a source/citation and even a court case. You then CLAIMED i hadn't. lol

I've given you specifically what you asked for. TX can not charge anyone, nor can anyone sue someone for something that happens in another state where that something is LEGAL, because of jurisdiction and standing.

Nope. Wasnt the basis for the question at all and I have repeated it a few times. It was about being charged as an accessory ONLY for crime. Having an abortion...in TX or another state...is not a crime. Providing them is. It had nothing to do with standing, too bad you opened that door.

And you definitely failed on standing...and I asked you to support your very definite, black and white claim that your description was right. It is not black and white and often requires judicial review. Or...prove I'm wrong (try again).

 

[rahl]

Nope. Wasnt the basis for the question at all and I have repeated it a few times.

And it was answered each and every time

It was about being charged as an accessory ONLY for crime.

And I explained why you can't be.

Having an abortion...in TX or another state...is not a crime. Providing them is. It had nothing to do with standing, too bad you opened that door.

Providing an abortion in OK to TX resident is not a crime. TX has no jurisdiction in OK, and can not charge anyone with being an accessory, because no crime was committed. I've shown you why they can't.

And you definitely failed on standing...and I asked you to support your very definite, black and white claim that your description was right.

Except as you are quite well aware, I clearly supported it using constitutional law as well as providing an actual court case regarding standing.

It is not black and white and often requires judicial review. Or...prove I'm wrong (try again).

It's very clearly black and white. I've already proven you wrong on that.

 

[Lursa]

And it was answered each and every time

And I explained why you can't be.

Providing an abortion in OK to TX resident is not a crime. TX has no jurisdiction in OK, and can not charge anyone with being an accessory, because no crime was committed. I've shown you why they can't.

Except as you are quite well aware, I clearly supported it using constitutional law as well as providing an actual court case regarding standing.

It's very clearly black and white. I've already proven you wrong on that.

Read the first sentence which is a lie. The rest is TL;dr.

I gave you a second chance to redeem yourself and you are only struggling on with your failed arguments.

But once again...all I wanted was your explanation of how people could be charged as accessories for something that's not a crime. You insisted they could. I was referring to accessories like those driving, etc. In TX or elsewhere. So I wasnt referring to out of state providers because they not accessories.

In the conversation I was in, you said there had to be a crime to have an 'accessory'. I pointed out that even in TX, having an abortion is NOT a crime and yet people can still be sued (at minimum) for assisting a woman to have one....to have something 'not a crime'. So...it doesnt have to be a crime for someone to be considered an accessory.

Providers in other states are performing abortions...they are not "accessories," they are providers and I never questioned their liability. I was discussing people that drove women to clinics, etc.

Accessories get civil suits and fines...providers get criminal charges. Out of state providers were never accessories.

A crime has to occur to be an accessory.

Prove it. The TX law states it and was not overturned. I never said it couldnt be challenged but you are the one with the black and white statements. So...prove it.

 

[rahl]

Read the first sentence which is a lie. The rest is TL;dr.

Well, in addition to YOU being fully aware I have addressed and answered your question, to include sources, there is a written record showing as much.

I gave you a second chance to redeem yourself and you are only struggling on with your failed arguments.

I don't need any chances. I directly addressed your question and showed you why TX can no charge someone with accessory.

Providers in other states are performing abortions...they are not "accessories," they are providers and I never questioned their liability. I was discussing people that drove women to clinics, etc.

And I showed you why the person driving them there can not be charged as an accessory.

Accessories get civil suits and fines...providers get criminal charges. Out of state providers were never accessories.

The person driving can not be charged as an accessory, nor can they be sued in civil court. Jurisdiction and standing prevent it.

Prove it.

I have

The TX law states it and was not overturned.

It meaningless, as you've been shown. Standing and jurisdiction preclude it.

I never said it couldnt be challenged but you are the one with the black and white statements. So...prove it.

I have proven it. Jesus christ, i even gave you a court case regarding standing.

 

[Lursa]

Well, in addition to YOU being fully aware I have addressed and answered your question, to include sources, there is a written record showing as much.

I don't need any chances. I directly addressed your question and showed you why TX can no charge someone with accessory.

And I showed you why the person driving them there can not be charged as an accessory.

The person driving can not be charged as an accessory, nor can they be sued in civil court. Jurisdiction and standing prevent it.

I have

It meaningless, as you've been shown. Standing and jurisdiction preclude it.

I have proven it. Jesus christ, i even gave you a court case regarding standing.

The record is there, correct, showing how far off base you were.

I asked a couple of questions you couldnt answer properly/accurately...and look at you go! It would have been smarter for you to be open to debate rather than making claims you couldnt back up. (THere was nothing to debate without valid sources...why waste my time? Including on standing)

The rest is TL;dr...it's sad how important it is to you that I accept your misrepresentations and faulty opinions. But, carry on...people can see for themselves if they care and the ship has sailed on you saving face.

 

[rahl]

The record is there, correct, showing how far off base you were.

by directly addressing your question and showing why nobody in TX can be charged with accessory for an abortion that occurs out of state where it's legal? lol

The rest is TL;dr...it's sad how important it is to you that I accept your misrepresentations and faulty opinions.

I have not provided any opinions. I've shown you constitutional law and why nobody in TX can be charged with accessory.

But, carry on...people can see for themselves if they care and the ship has sailed on you saving face.

I have no face to save. I am simply correcting you, schooling you in constitutional law, and you are very much aware of that fact.

 

[Lursa]

by directly addressing your question and showing why nobody in TX can be charged with accessory for an abortion that occurs out of state where it's legal? lol

I have not provided any opinions. I've shown you constitutional law and why nobody in TX can be charged with accessory.

I have no face to save. I am simply correcting you, schooling you in constitutional law, and you are very much aware of that fact.

The record is there, showing how far off base you were. post 161 for reference. LAMO even your post here shows you didnt understand my initial posts/questions. It's still wrong! The main question you had to support was that it had to be a crime for people to be charged as accessories...and you failed, for all these posts. Still nowhere to be seen.

It's sad how important it is to you that I accept your misrepresentations and faulty opinions. But, carry on...people can see for themselves if they care and the ship has sailed on you saving face.

 

[rahl]

The record is there, showing how far off base you were.

I have not been off base at all. the record shows I answered your question and showed why TX can't charge someone with accessory.

post 161 for reference. LAMO even your post here shows you didnt understand my initial posts/questions. I

It actually shows I did understand, directly addressed your question and provided the requested citations.

t's still wrong! The main question you had to support was that it had to be a crime for people to be charged as accessories...

Which I supported, as you are fully aware.

and you failed, for all these posts. Still nowhere to be seen.

I directly addressed your question and provided you the citations needed to show why TX can't charge anyone.

It's sad how important it is to you that I accept your misrepresentations and faulty opinions.

I have not offered any opinions. I have repeatedly schooled you on constitutional law, BASIC law, and what jurisdiction and standing means.

But, carry on...people can see for themselves if they care and the ship has sailed on you saving face.

Everyone reading can clearly see you have been given every available citation to show why TX can not charge anyone with accessory, for an abortion that happens out of its jurisdiction.

 

[Lursa]

I have not been off base at all. the record shows I answered your question and showed why TX can't charge someone with accessory.

It actually shows I did understand, directly addressed your question and provided the requested citations.

Which I supported, as you are fully aware.

I directly addressed your question and provided you the citations needed to show why TX can't charge anyone.

I have not offered any opinions. I have repeatedly schooled you on constitutional law, BASIC law, and what jurisdiction and standing means.

Everyone reading can clearly see you have been given every available citation to show why TX can not charge anyone with accessory, for an abortion that happens out of its jurisdiction.

A crime has to occur to be an accessory.

The record is there, showing how far off base you were. post 161 for reference. LAMO even your post here shows you didnt understand my initial posts/questions. It's still wrong! The main question you had to support was that it had to be a crime for people to be charged as accessories...and you failed, for all these posts. Still nowhere to be seen.

It's sad how important it is to you that I accept your misrepresentations and faulty opinions. But, carry on...people can see for themselves if they care and the ship has sailed on you saving face.

 

[rahl]

@Lursa

As you are very much aware, I have answered your questions, cited why TX can't charge anyone, and even provided a court case regarding standing for you.

 

[Lursa]

@Lursa

As you are very much aware, I have answered your questions, cited why TX can't charge anyone, and even provided a court case regarding standing for you.

That was never the question...keep going LMAO. That shit was discussed months ago when it was passed. You had some need to be right...and all you did was dig yourself in deeper on...the wrong argument.

Posts 161 and 167 for reference.

 

[Doug64]

You'll never get the right answers in life if you can't even ask the right questions. Try this one on for size.

"Is it at all reasonable that any state will spend the money to intercept, open up, and inspect every postal envelope and package coming into the state in search of a couple of pills, and then reseal every single searched envelope and re-post it to it's intended recipient?"

Knowing the answer to that question might be the beginning of wisdom.

Why would you expect the states to inspect every piece of mail in this case, when they don't for other items that state laws forbid be imported into them? Discovering that someone possesses the banned item could be the trigger of an investigation into how they acquired it, which could involve anyone that might have mailed it to them.

No, no legal status is recognized in any state under fetal homicide laws (AL may be an exception since RvW was overturned). The unborn has no rights recognized in any state under those homicide laws...in every single one, abortion is exempted and the mother can still terminate the pregnancy...so the unborn still has no right to life.

Those states that treat the murder of pregnant women as double homicides recognize the right of the unborn not to be killed except by their mothers' decision--which is why I said it is a limited right.

Yes I know, I write that all the time. However, in the tracking, identifying, or enforcing such a state law...they cannot violate a woman's Constitutional rights. States rights do not supersede federal rights.

For example, states may not stop women at their borders to check their reproductive status, nor check it when they return. That violates women's Const rights.

Or, they cannot charge a woman with murder for aborting...because federally the unborn have no status. And the fed govt is obligated to protect women's rights, while federally, the unborn have zero status. IMO, this is why all states so far ONLY criminalize providing abortions...not having them.

Of course states can pass whatever legislation they want...but when challenged...federal law supersedes state.

For Federal law to supersede state law there has to be a federal law. So what federal law declares that the unborn have no status as persons? And how would such a law survive judicial scrutiny, seeing how the Supreme Court has declared that abortion is a state matter?

In order to be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, a murder has to actually take place. If TX wants to charge someone as an accessory for something that isn't a crime, in another state, they have no jurisdiction or authority to do so. This is very, very basic law. Extradition deals with a crime occurring IN the state of TX, and the person flees to another jurisdiction/state.

You are right, an action must in some way involve the state. So, for instance, if a resident of Texas had a source of a Texas-banned item ship it to a friend in another state where it is legal, and then visited that friend to pick it up and bring it back into Texas, the only person that Texas could charge with the crime is the individual that brought it into the state. But if that source shipped it directly to the ultimate recipient in Texas, then that source can be charged because their act directly involves the state.

I would suggest no. Nullification doesn't work. Ask Fort Sumpter.

Nullification is the assertion by a state that it has the right to override the federal government in its constitutionally authorized activities. If the federal government doesn't have that right in the first place, then a state's refusal to be bound by its law or regulation isn't Nullification.

 

[Lursa]

For Federal law to supersede state law there has to be a federal law. So what federal law declares that the unborn have no status as persons? And how would such a law survive judicial scrutiny, seeing how the Supreme Court has declared that abortion is a state matter?

This has been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere. It's off-topic but "Reader' Digest" version, a specific law isnt required esp. since the Const refers specifically to 'born people and citizens' only in the 14th Amendment. However there is this that helps:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

This should answer both your questions. I'm not aware of any federal court decisions or laws that interpret the 14th or this US code differently but if you are, please provide that.

 

[Lursa]

Those states that treat the murder of pregnant women as double homicides recognize the right of the unborn not to be killed except by their mothers' decision--which is why I said it is a limited right.

Not for the unborn it's not. Except for the recent change in AL that has not yet been challenged, the unborn have no rights recognized anywhere including nowhere in any of those state fetal homicide laws. Unless you can quote it from their laws?

Do pets or livestock have 'limited rights' not to be killed except by their owner's decisions? Wny or why not?

 

[MamboDervish]

Why would you expect the states to inspect every piece of mail in this case, when they don't for other items that state laws forbid be imported into them?

I would not.

Discovering that someone possesses the banned item could be the trigger of an investigation into how they acquired it, which could involve anyone that might have mailed it to them.

It's not discoverable.

Those states that treat the murder of pregnant women as double homicides recognize the right of the unborn not to be killed except by their mothers' decision--which is why I said it is a limited right.

? So?

For Federal law to supersede state law there has to be a federal law. So what federal law declares that the unborn have no status as persons?

Could you miss the point any further?

And how would such a law survive judicial scrutiny, seeing how the Supreme Court has declared that abortion is a state matter?

Irrelevant.

You are right, an action must in some way involve the state. So, for instance, if a resident of Texas had a source of a Texas-banned item ship it to a friend in another state where it is legal, and then visited that friend to pick it up and bring it back into Texas, the only person that Texas could charge with the crime is the individual that brought it into the state. But if that source shipped it directly to the ultimate recipient in Texas, then that source can be charged because their act directly involves the state.

Did you think of that all by yourself? Planning on writing a short story? Self publish, maybe?
Don't give up your day job.

Nullification is the assertion by a state that it has the right to override the federal government in its constitutionally authorized activities. If the federal government doesn't have that right in the first place, then a state's refusal to be bound by its law or regulation isn't Nullification.

Nobody - no state - will start ****ing with the US Mail - nor should they. It isn't practical. Pills, tablets, powders, herbs, et al, come and go through that system all day, every day - legally. These pills will too. Legally. Their illegal possession in the state of their arrival will mean absolutely nothing, as that will never be known.

Don't you get it? That's why the misogynist minions have spent so much time and money trying to outlaw, or at least heavily regulate, these pills to begin with - because they already know what you seem to be unable or unwilling to wrap your head around. Once they're here legally anywhere - then they can be everywhere - legal or not. Which is as it should be.

 

[rahl]

That was never the question...keep going LMAO. That shit was discussed months ago when it was passed. You had some need to be right...and all you did was dig yourself in deeper on...the wrong argument.

Posts 161 and 167 for reference.

I've shown you why TX can not charge anyone. Your acceptance of very BASIC constitutional law principles is meaningless, and has no effect on reality.

 

[Lursa]

I've shown you why TX can not charge anyone. Your acceptance of very BASIC constitutional law principles is meaningless, and has no effect on reality.

Your inability to understand any of those things well enough to provide *relevant* sources to the topic arent my problem and has no effect on reality.

I see you didnt address the text re: crimes/accessories where you finally...it took how many posts and red text?...saw you error. That's ok, didnt expect it.