4 minutes ago, Procus said:

I would think there are well founded constitutional protections that would render a statute prohibiting this unconstitutional, although this is very likely a moot point in this day and age in that no state would enact such legislation.

I’m referring to Virginia v. Loving

2 minutes ago, paco said:

I dunno.  This was a pretty f'n good lunch

I had some tender beef brisket over some delicious home made mac and cheese with a sweet siracha sauce.  Spicy, Sweet, cheese and brisket. I should have taken a picture. 

6 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

weren't there a couple states proposing to make it illegal for residents to travel to another state to get an abortion?  we could see some crazy scenarios like that. 

Not sure how they could enforce that, but let they try and fail.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

There's no way that holds up legally. 

I think the JD just said people doing so would be allowed.

Quote

Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion. The law was ultimately blocked in the state’s legislature, but experts expect such legislation to gain more support if Roe is weakened or overturned.

"I think states are not going to rest with just saying ‘there won’t be abortions in our state.’ I think they’re going to want to ban abortion for their citizens as much as they can, which would mean stopping them from traveling,” said David Cohen, professor at Drexel University’s Kline School of Law and lead author of a forthcoming article on cross-state legal issues that could arise in the abortion context.

"We’re going to see state-against-state battles that are really going to divide this country even deeper on this issue,” he said.

If the supreme court overturns abortion protections, such travel bans might also be permitted to stand, Cohen said.

"The supreme court does not have well-developed case law regarding extraterritorial application of state law,” he added in an email. A court that has gone so far as to overturn Roe, he said, "would likely take that unclear precedent in the direction that is most anti-abortion.”

sounds like the proposal didn't really go anywhere...but i won't be shocked if it's attempted again. 

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I think the JD just said people doing so would be allowed.

 

I think the state that they're a resident of could prosecute them, though, if they returned and it could be proven that they had an abortion.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I think the state that they're a resident of could prosecute them, though, if they returned and it could be proven that they had an abortion.

Don't really see how that's proven.  The abortion provider in the other state isn't giving them any information, so where's the proof?

I would imagine state lines isn't even really the issue.  It would be the blackmarket for the abortion pill.

15 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Not banned. States are free to do what they want now.

That seems to be the confusion I'm seeing. Some think all of this is now banned

This should get more people to actually vote about state matters now

The people that choose not to vote will just be crap out of luck

3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I think the state that they're a resident of could prosecute them, though, if they returned and it could be proven that they had an abortion.

They'd likely have no jurisdiction since the act occurred elsewhere. 

3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I’m referring to Virginia v. Loving

Both Roe v Wade and Virginia v Loving relied on the 14th amendment.  Roe's reliance was a stretch in that inferred the right to privacy set forth protect a woman's right to abortion.  Loving relied on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which is a much better legal foundation.

 

5 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

sounds like the proposal didn't really go anywhere...but i won't be shocked if it's attempted again. 

I would think that would not withstand legal challenge, even in the Supreme Court with the current makeup of justices.

We should get Biden to have a rally, tell people to march on the Supreme Court, and drag the justices out for some old fashioned lynching.

 

The GOP will support this 100%. It is their go to move.

3 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

They'd likely have no jurisdiction since the act occurred elsewhere. 

This is purely academic, but the issue is what constitutes the "act".  It would depend on how the legislation is worded.  If it's a crime to go to another state to get an abortion, perhaps the "act" would include leaving your state to go to another state.  If crimes are committed in multiple states, all states involved have jurisdiction to prosecute, and double jeopardy wouldn't be invoked as crazy and unfair as that sounds.

4 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

They'd likely have no jurisdiction since the act occurred elsewhere. 

 

8 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I think the state that they're a resident of could prosecute them, though, if they returned and it could be proven that they had an abortion.

That will be very hard to prove and I can't see courts upholding this if they are hit with a crime/penalty.

10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I think the state that they're a resident of could prosecute them, though, if they returned and it could be proven that they had an abortion.

This seems like a perfectly sane take.  I'd like to know what the process\logistics of this looks like.  Do they take note of every pregnant woman in the state and check to see if they are still with child when they return?  Force people to register when they get pregnant?

1 minute ago, Toastrel said:

We should get Biden to have a rally, tell people to march on the Supreme Court, and drag the justices out for some old fashioned lynching.

Biden rallys do get a large turn out.

1 minute ago, paco said:

This seems like a perfectly sane take.  I'd like to know what the process\logistics of this looks like.  Do they take note of every pregnant woman in the state and check to see if they are still with child when they return?  Force people to register when they get pregnant?

 

Some have been concerned that the data entered into period trackers could be used in court to prove that a woman had an abortion.

Quote

Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion.

 

Wow, a sitting congresswoman calls the court's decision "illegitimate". Crazy when one party goes full fascist and tries to overthrow one of our sacred institutions. This is a threat to democracy. This isn't who we are. 

3 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

We should get Biden to have a rally, tell people to march on the Supreme Court, and drag the justices out for some old fashioned lynching.

 

The GOP will support this 100%. It is their go to move.

that wimp biden just called for peaceful protests...with an emphasis on peaceful. 👎

21 minutes ago, Kz! said:

 

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

Wow, a sitting congresswoman calls the court's decision "illegitimate". Crazy when one party goes full fascist and tries to overthrow one of our sacred institutions. This is a threat to democracy. This isn't who we are. 

  No one's ever wanted anything more than the right wants the left to riot over this.

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

 

I think I see a short bald hippy in there 

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Wow, a sitting congresswoman calls the court's decision "illegitimate". Crazy when one party goes full fascist and tries to overthrow one of our sacred institutions. This is a threat to democracy. This isn't who we are. 

It was rigged!

5 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

We should get Biden to have a rally, tell people to march on the Supreme Court, and drag the justices out for some old fashioned lynching.

 

The GOP will support this 100%. It is their go to move.

Nah, it would just be considered a mostly peaceful protest and nothing would be done about it.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Some have been concerned that the data entered into period trackers could be used in court to prove that a woman had an abortion.

 

What standing would your state of residence be able to prosecute a woman for an abortion that took place in another state? If you were driving drunk in NJ but you live in PA, PA isn’t going to prosecute you. 

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Some have been concerned that the data entered into period trackers could be used in court to prove that a woman had an abortion.

Oh, sorry your honor, it's been a busy few months and I forgot to add it.

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Wow, a sitting congresswoman calls the court's decision "illegitimate". Crazy when one party goes full fascist and tries to overthrow one of our sacred institutions. This is a threat to democracy. This isn't who we are. 

Yeah AOC!  Stop the steal!!!!

Quote

(Bloomberg) -- Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who emerged Friday as the Supreme Court’s pivotal vote on abortion, said states outlawing the procedure may not bar residents from traveling to other states to terminate their pregnancies.

 

"May a state bar a resident of that state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion?” he wrote in a concurring opinion. "In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”

Kavanaugh also said he didn’t believe a state could constitutionally impose liability or punishment for an abortion that took place before the court’s ruling Friday. He said that practice would violate either the Constitution’s due process clause or the ex post facto clause, which bars retroactive punishment.

 

 

He said those types of abortion-related legal questions "are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter.”

 

squee's buddy has proven to be trustworthy in the past...so i have no reason to doubt him now.