My point was that without an established constitutional right to abortion, these types of abuse and “misunderstandings” will happen with more frequency.
It’s small comfort knowing you’re right when you’re sitting in jail under false arrest because you can’t afford bail, can’t afford a lawyer, you’re losing money from not being at work, you get fired for not showing up to work, and your kids get taken by child protective services because you’re in jail.
Sure you get let out of jail eventually, but the damage is done.
This is why so many abortion clinics have outright stopped services immediately even though they might still be legal under certain circumstances - they don’t want to deal with the costs of lawsuits and threat of jail or loss of license. You can be right and still get screwed.
I agree that wrongful arrest is rotten, but it does occur all the time in all sorts of situations that have nothing to do with abortion. I wouldnt make too much out of one wrongful arrest in Texas, and I wouldnt spread unnecessary panic in an already emotionally charged situation. None of that parade of horribles happened in the case you cite.
Misinformation and speculation about hypothetical future laws just scare people out of pursuing their lawful options right now. Clinics/providers have reason to be concerned and close under the present law; abortion subjects do not not need to worry about liability at present.
Maybe we need to do a better job at getting that message out, along with donations to aid access or the other sites upon which to order medication abortions.
I think people should prepare for the reality that what seems like a worst case today may become a base case in the future. Many of these new state abortion laws appear to be able to jump across state borders. While California or Washington might have a sanctuary law, what are the odds of that law holding up if challenged in a federal court given the current Supreme Court make up? This reality will have a dramatic chilling effect on doctors, even in places that might seem “safe”. It is also not out of the question that this Court finds a case next term that enables it to make a nationwide abortion ban.
Honestly, I do not think any appellate lawyer would agree with you, nor does the recent decision reflect that. The SCourt sent the decision back to the states; it will defer to any states decision with respect to its own citizens or actions occuring there. I wish every state made abortions legal under its own state law, or Congress enacted a federal law legalizing it, as promised during former administrations. No evidence from the current Supreme Court it would ever overturn a state or federal legislation on the matter; quite the opposite.
My US Senator has an interesting idea–providing abortion procedures on federal land in states that have banned abortion. Not many specifics in this article, but it’s great that Warren’s ready with ideas on how to deal with the disasterous effects of this Supreme Court decision.
This is a sensible approach by rorycroft. It is extremely unlikely that out of state abortions can be prosecuted in another state. Also “mail order “ means will continue. And the fear of contraception being outlawed is far fetched—before Griswold only one state banned it for women and it was not enforced. How do I know? Read the opinion. People are reading too much into Thomas’ opinion and not reading what Alito or Kavanaugh actually said
I am not defending the decision. But it is a mistake to go to the extreme in reaction without reading it
Great idea @Bromfield2, but since The Hyde Amendment came into effect, federal funds havent been used for abortions in decades. Every single year, Congress reauthorizes the Hyde Amendment in its appropriation acts. Perhaps Senator Warren could stop that this year.
I don’t think that worrying about the worst case scenario is overreacting. The only way to keep from being blindsided is to plan for the what if’s. Nothing is a given anymore.
States have cooperation and extradition agreements - if you rob a store in TX, they can ask CA police to grab you and hold you for TX law enforcement to come pick you up for prosecution in TX. I think this applies to state laws making abortion services illegal for state residents - if you travel out of state, your provider would technically be breaking state law. Or maybe a TX resident could sue a CA doctor for providing an abortion to another TX resident.
That’s why some states are passing laws banning cooperation or extradition with other states’ abortion laws. I assume it’s an actual legal concern since blue states are passing such laws.
This comment just ignores the right to interstate travel which Kavanaugh said in his concurrence protects the right to go to another state and do something that the first state considers illegal within its own borders. A state law has no effect outside its own borders That is fundamental
And don’t expect those states who passed limited abortion laws won’t pass no abortion laws.
I’m looking at you Mississippi. This week it’s 15 weeks look for at conception soon.
The real issue is that now voters have to be so very vigilant. I grew up in Ohio, I remember when it was a swing state, it doesn’t seem to be anymore. Would you want to send your child to school in Ohio if they elect the pro life candidate for senator?How about Pennsylvania if they elected the pro life candidate for governor?
I just wonder if there’s a time in the near future that only a very few handful of states will have protection for our children and grandchildren.
Well, successful presidential candidates and current Congressional leaders promised federal legislation to authorize abortion in 2009, when there was both a supermajority and trifecta of control so it could have passed. Those promises were not enacted as the issue became, per the White House, not a “legislative priority”. I do not have any faith in political promises.
The focus of this thread is students (potentially) choosing a school based on state abortion laws. Undergrads will be at their school for four years, maybe longer. So while panic is never helpful, the issue is not just what a state’s abortion laws look like now, but how they might look in the near future. Not targeting the pregnant woman for criminal liability for an abortion is a political strategy, not a legal argument. I absolutely think it’s possible some states will criminalize the taking of mail-order abortion pills.
Regarding the constitutional right to travel, a couple of thoughts. Just because legal scholars, or Justice Kavanaugh, say something is unconstitutional, doesn’t mean states won’t pass laws testing the boundaries. Sure the law may be overturned, but it’s not like that will be instantaneous. Also, the right to travel is not absolute. States for example can bar a parent from traveling across state lines with a child without permission from the other parent or the court. If states do try to bar pregnant women from traveling across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, they will likely do so by declaring the fetus to be a minor person with protected status.
The Hyde Amendment says that the federal government will not pay for abortions–in other words, if woman has Medicaid as her health insurance, Medicaid won’t pay for an abortion. Medicaid is both a state and federally funded program; some states will allow state funds to cover abortions for women on Medicare. Massachusetts, for example, is one of those states.
What Senator Warren is suggesting is that a facility on federal land, which would not be under a state’s legislative jurisdiction, might be a place where an abortion provider in a state that prohibited abortion could provide services.
Senator Warren was a professor of law at Harvard University and several other universities, before she became a US Senator. I’m sure she knows about the Hyde Amendment prohibitions.
Alas, the Hyde Amendment’s reach goes well beyond Medicaid-military health insurance, the Indian Health Service and Peace Corps insurance programs, CHIPS, Tricare, federal employees health benefits-all impacted by the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition. I am sure Sen Warren is well aware of the restrictions Congress approves yearly. It is a nice suggestion, though, and might get her some votes even if impossible to implement.
