Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

[TurkeysGhost]

This would not be possible in Australia. Under section 117 of the constitution, a resident in one state can not be subject to a disability in another state that wouldn't equally apply to a resident of that other state. IOW you can't treat people differently in a state depending on which state they reside.

It's blatantly unconstitutional in the US too, but the fun thing is that laws are more of a vibe than anything. Constitutionality matters as much of the current SCOTUS says it matters, so for the pet issues of the right wing, that means not at all.

 

[psionl0]

It's blatantly unconstitutional in the US too, but the fun thing is that laws are more of a vibe than anything. Constitutionality matters as much of the current SCOTUS says it matters, so for the pet issues of the right wing, that means not at all.

Is there a specific clause in the US constitution that prevents discriminating against people in a state depending on which state they reside?

(I am aware that even if there was, the SC could just say "**** the constitution, we say go ahead").

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Is there a specific clause in the US constitution that prevents discriminating against people in a state depending on which state they reside?

(I am aware that even if there was, the SC could just say "**** the constitution, we say go ahead").

It's established law that states do not have jurisdiction over activity that occurs outside their borders.

The "Full Faith and Credit Clause" requires for states to recognize each others judicial proceedings.

I'm not sure what you mean by your "discrimination by state residence" comment or how it pertains to this issue.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Is there a specific clause in the US constitution that prevents discriminating against people in a state depending on which state they reside?

(I am aware that even if there was, the SC could just say "**** the constitution, we say go ahead").

Does this touch upon it?

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

 

[psionl0]

I'm not sure what you mean by your "discrimination by state residence" comment or how it pertains to this issue.

If you read Bob001's link you would know that they intend to go after anybody who seeks a (legal) abortion in another state. So a resident in the legal state is untouchable but the resident of the red state is subject to sanctions.

Does this touch upon it?

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

So that's the section that the SC intends to interpret away.

 

[Stacyhs]

The right-wing in this country is taking us back decades. I feel like I'm in a damn time machine. You couldn't pay me to live in a GOP-controlled state.

 

[Bob001]

Kentucky joins the bandwagon.

Oklahoma’s governor signed a bill into law Tuesday that makes performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony, becoming the latest state to move to restrict access to the procedure ahead of a Supreme Court decision expected this summer that could alter its trajectory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/14/kentucky-abortion-republicans/

 

[ponderingturtle]

I look forward to seeing more women in labor in the process of having a stillbirth have to get on a plane to fly several states away. Because that is something you have to be prepared to do if you have sex and don't want to be left to die from pregnancy complications.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You couldn't pay me to live in a GOP-controlled state.

I’m a TN resident. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty are my senators, and they suck. Big time.

But these right-wing machinations don’t affect my day to day life enough to move. Then again, the protagonist in Handmaid’s Tale waited just a tiny bit too long to flee Gilead, so there’s that.

 

[Bob001]

It's blatantly unconstitutional in the US too, but the fun thing is that laws are more of a vibe than anything. Constitutionality matters as much of the current SCOTUS says it matters, so for the pet issues of the right wing, that means not at all.

I don't think you can depend on that. The abortion might actually be performed in a blue state, but the crime in the red state would be traveling to obtain an abortion, or assisting someone for that purpose by driving them, buying a bus ticket, providing information etc.

And the state is not enforcing the Texas law. Private parties can sue other private parties for obtaining an abortion. I would imagine it could be the same in any red state: If anyone finds out you had an abortion, they could sue you and anyone who helped you. If the SC decides abortion can be illegal, then all these laws would be enforceable.

 

[Warp12]

I don't think you can depend on that. The abortion might actually be performed in a blue state, but the crime in the red state would be traveling to obtain an abortion, or assisting someone for that purpose by driving them, buying a bus ticket, providing information etc.

And the state is not enforcing the Texas law. Private parties can sue other private parties for obtaining an abortion. I would imagine it could be the same in any red state: If anyone finds out you had an abortion, they could sue you and anyone who helped you. If the SC decides abortion can be illegal, then all these laws would be enforceable.

We could be on the cusp of a major humbling for abortion activists. It is kind of exciting, tbh. And probably a bit overdue.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

We could be on the cusp of a major humbling for abortion activists. It is kind of exciting, tbh. And probably a bit overdue.

Yes, ******** on the Constitution is terribly exciting.

Like most conservatives, you only care about the law when it's used as a cudgel against those you deem unworthy of rights.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Yes, ******** on the Constitution is terribly exciting.

Might be more accurate to say “Yes, ********* on the Supreme Court’s most recent interpretation of the Constitution is terribly exciting.”

This, since the right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution.

I’m not stating support for these new, draconian laws restricting abortion rights, which I wholeheartedly oppose.

 

[Bob001]

Might be more accurate to say “Yes, ********* on the Supreme Court’s most recent interpretation of the Constitution is terribly exciting.”

This, since the right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution.
I’m not stating support for these new, draconian laws restricting abortion rights, which I wholeheartedly oppose.

Let's note that the SC determined and confirmed in multiple decisions that what we have is a right to privacy and equal protection of the laws, which is the basis for a number of our rights that are not explicitly named in the Constitution. If the SC overturns Roe v. Wade, you can expect challenges to those other rights too.

 

[gnome]

Next to go would be Griswold v. Connecticut.

 

[Stacyhs]

I’m a TN resident. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty are my senators, and they suck. Big time.

But these right-wing machinations don’t affect my day to day life enough to move. Then again, the protagonist in Handmaid’s Tale waited just a tiny bit too long to flee Gilead, so there’s that.

Tennessee: been there, done that.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
We could be on the cusp of a major humbling for abortion activists. It is kind of exciting, tbh. And probably a bit overdue.

Yes, ******** on the Constitution is terribly exciting.

Like most conservatives, you only care about the law when it's used as a cudgel against those you deem unworthy of rights.

Well, women are only split tails after all. Who cares about them?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Might be more accurate to say “Yes, ********* on the Supreme Court’s most recent interpretation of the Constitution is terribly exciting.”

This, since the right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution.

I’m not stating support for these new, draconian laws restricting abortion rights, which I wholeheartedly oppose.

By "******** on the Constitution," I was referring to skirting it by passing nuisance laws designed solely to harass people.

But, thanks for explaining what I meant to me, I appreciate it, dad.

ETA: Also, as noted above, many things have been deemed to be covered by the Constitution not explicitly spelled out within it. That's why we have the SCOTUS.

But, you knew that.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't think you can depend on that. The abortion might actually be performed in a blue state, but the crime in the red state would be traveling to obtain an abortion, or assisting someone for that purpose by driving them, buying a bus ticket, providing information etc.



And the state is not enforcing the Texas law. Private parties can sue other private parties for obtaining an abortion. I would imagine it could be the same in any red state: If anyone finds out you had an abortion, they could sue you and anyone who helped you. If the SC decides abortion can be illegal, then all these laws would be enforceable.

I think the particular absurdity being described as unconstitutional is a Missouri resident making a civil claim against a non-Missouri resident for performing an abortion on a Missouri resident in a location not in Missouri.

Even if several states away, there are usually ways for court judgments in other states to encumber you with things like license suspension from a bench warrant for failure to appear, property liens when default judgment is awarded to the plaintiff, etc.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think you can depend on that. The abortion might actually be performed in a blue state, but the crime in the red state would be traveling to obtain an abortion, or assisting someone for that purpose by driving them, buying a bus ticket, providing information etc.

And the state is not enforcing the Texas law. Private parties can sue other private parties for obtaining an abortion. I would imagine it could be the same in any red state: If anyone finds out you had an abortion, they could sue you and anyone who helped you. If the SC decides abortion can be illegal, then all these laws would be enforceable.

That's my point entirely. The "Law" is not set in stone. It means whatever the SCOTUS decides it means, and given the current composition, that's going to mean a complete gutting of many personal liberties previously considered "established law".