States Want to Ban Abortions Beyond Their Borders.

[Lursa]

"Our" women? The Left believes women are property, now? What about the 50% of abortions that kill future women?

No one misses them...who would and why? And we have plenty of women.

 

[noonereal]

Opinion | States Want to Ban Abortions Beyond Their Borders. Here’s What Pro-Choice States Can Do. (Published 2022)

There’s a new tactic in the coming abortion wars: stopping citizens from getting abortions in other states.

www.nytimes.com

This has to be unconstitutional.

Yes, I read this.

The deplorables are out of control and need to fall back in line.

 

[EdwinWillers]

What "paywall"?

I don't give the NYT a dime and I could access the article simply by clicking on the link.

I don't know how it works, but a paywall I did indeed encounter. Maybe it's because I've tried to link to so many of these NYT articles I've exceeded my "goodwill limit" of views of their spayshul info. Regardless, for me? Paywall.

 

[code1211]

I know Florida is following TX, as with Arkansas. Other states as well are trying it.
Looks like women are going to have to really look into to this when considering where to live.

What I'm wondering is what the population will look like after twenty years. How many women will move out of these draconian states. Men will have to cross state lines to find a wife, but I think that should be banned as well. Fair is fair. Let men reap what they sow.

Do you have any support for the notion that women are moving to a new residence away from their current homes just so they can enjoy a nice abortion?

Link?

 

[code1211]

What's clear is anti-abortion groups are pushing the legal boundaries to see what can actually stick now that the SCOTUS has given a pass to the Texas law. To your point, I don't think this is going to fly.

Tension seems to be natural state of politics in this country.

"Pushing the legal boundaries" seems to be what the opposing factions do in all areas of social law.

If nobody and no group was ever in the process of "Pushing the legal boundaries", we'd be living in a vastly different world.

 

[code1211]

It already violates the 14th Amendment.

Here we have Missouri writing a law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of other states.

What is the wording of that law and how does that wording do what you say it does?

 

[MTAtech]

What is the wording of that law and how does that wording do what you say it does?

The law states that people can sue anyone in any state who helps someone get an abortion, and doesn't limit it to those in Missouri.

Missouri anti-abortion bills seek to stop crossing of state lines, ending ectopic pregnancies

Bills in the Missouri House would allow lawsuits for those who help residents cross state lines and criminalize ending nonviable pregnancies.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Cope]

It already violates the 14th Amendment.

Here we have Missouri writing a law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of other states.

Maybe that is the kicker.

 

[code1211]

It would require Congress to act using the Commerce Clause. It won't do that.

How would the commerce clause ban abortions in states outside of the state that passes a law for itself?

 

[Blue Dog]

Do those who support the states having jurisdiction on this issue support such an overreach?

 

[Cope]

Do those who support the states having jurisdiction on this issue support such an overreach?

Not really, I would much prefer States have autonomy in deciding this issue.

 

[j brown's body]

Please don't link to paywalled sites. We can't comment on an article we can't read.

Did you try Breitbart?

 

[j brown's body]

Not really, I would much prefer States have autonomy in deciding this issue.

Would you leaved it to states to enforce racial segregation?

 

[j brown's body]

The Slimes is also one of the most dishonest publications in the world. It even covered up Stalin's genocide in Ukraine. So much for the NYS's "record". No one who demands truth in news reads their crap.

Try Infowars.

 

[Cope]

Would you leaved it to states to enforce racial segregation?

I mean, they are now with policy, they just don't call it that.
But no, I would prefer that the things that are constitutionally protected not be changed by the States.

 

[j brown's body]

I mean, they are now with policy, they just don't call it that.
But no, I would prefer that the things that are constitutionally protected not be changed by the States.

Abortion is constitutionally protected.

 

[Cope]

Abortion is constitutionally protected.

Not exactly.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Tension seems to be natural state of politics in this country.

"Pushing the legal boundaries" seems to be what the opposing factions do in all areas of social law.

If nobody and no group was ever in the process of "Pushing the legal boundaries", we'd be living in a vastly different world.

Sure, I wasn't qualifying "pushing the legal boundaries" as a good or bad thing; just describing what they're doing.

 

[Lursa]

Not exactly.

A woman's right to bodily autonomy (4th Amendment, 'security of the person') is. There is no reason to deny a woman a safer medical procedure** that's available. What would justify the govt doing so, forcing women to take such additional risk without our consent?

If there is a reason, what is it? It needs to be a legally-based reason to justify that rights violation (as well as the due process and privacy rights involved).

​

**Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy​

​

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​

​

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​

​

link​

 

[Ginger Ale]

Do you have any support for the notion that women are moving to a new residence away from their current homes just so they can enjoy a nice abortion?

Link?

I'm a woman, and have friends. Trust me, every woman I've talked to wouldn't move to TX now if they landed a great paying gig with a free house, because no woman wants to live in a place that has no respect for women. Nobody wants their neighbors playing detective either, especially if it pays them to do so.

We ask ourselves questions. "What if I get pregnant, and it dies inside me, and I need an abortion?" "What if I'm raped and they want me to carry the kid?" Women think about those things.

I can tell you don't because you wouldn't have asked me this stupid question.

The only women in TX will be stuck there. Even die hard conservative religious women don't want to die during childbirth. Or carry a rapists child to term.

This law is a legal menace. It's the new toy for states passing what they previously couldn't. I'm just waiting for this to bite conservatives in the ass. One day, your neighbor will be able to report you gun and you'll reap what you sow.

At least some businesses are showing some respect. Just wait, it's only going to take ten years to clear women out of Texas.

Salesforce told thousands of employees in a Slack message on Friday that if they and their families are concerned about the ability to access reproductive care in the wake of Texas’ aggressive anti-abortion law, the company will help them relocate.

Salesforce offers to relocate employees and their families after Texas abortion law goes into effect

In a message to employees, Salesforce said on Friday that it will help employees and their families relocate if they're concerned about reproductive care.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Bob_Bennet]

Abortion is murder.
To say otherwise is anti-science and anti-human rights

 

[code1211]

The law states that people can sue anyone in any state who helps someone get an abortion, and doesn't limit it to those in Missouri.

Missouri anti-abortion bills seek to stop crossing of state lines, ending ectopic pregnancies

Bills in the Missouri House would allow lawsuits for those who help residents cross state lines and criminalize ending nonviable pregnancies.

www.usatoday.com

That seems like it might require additional agreements between States to facilitate that sort of a liability for folks outside the state.

Obviously, I could be wrong.

 

[roguenuke]

Not exactly.

It is part of that 9th and 10th Amendment thing. Privacy, especially medical privacy, should be an absolute right.

 

[Cope]

It is part of that 9th and 10th Amendment thing. Privacy, especially medical privacy, should be an absolute right.

I don't disagree but any father unwilling to terminate knows, has the right to know, or has standing with the child.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Imagine Texas demanding New Mexico extradite a woman to answer for criminal charges because she drove herself to Albuquerque for an abortion.

Imagine Texas suing New Mexico for allowing it to happen.

The larger issue isn't whether these attempts at encroaching on another states' laws are unconstitutional (they are) or whether they'd be summarily killed via legal challenge (they would). The larger issue is the political push driving the anti-choice faction:

Can states limit abortion and gender-affirming treatments outside their borders?

Building on SB 8 in Texas, some Republican lawmakers are trying a new strategy: pushing bills that would attempt to limit what residents can and can't do even beyond state lines.

www.npr.org

"States are free to have their own rules, and those rules differ from state to state. But the notion that a state can tell its citizens what they could do, not just within but without their borders, really is anathema to how we think of our constitutional system," Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional scholar and law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, tells NPR.

At their core, Vladeck says, such bills are legal experiments intended to slowly erode constitutional protections. "What's ominous and scary about them is that if they work even a little, even the fact that they're part of public discourse, they've done a ton of damage to our constitutional system."

The ramifications are twofold: not only the potential damage done to constitutional protections, but the unforseen damage these people may well do to themselves setting the precedent of attacking those protections in the first place.