Ed Justice Barrett

[Bob001]

I know of no such laws. The laws that I do know of which prohibit criminal activity in connection with crossing state lines are federal laws.

In this specific case, if a state saw the fetus as a person and abortion as murder, it would be a short step to argue that taking "a person" across state lines (or, actually, anywhere) against their will would be kidnapping, and that anybody who helped in any way is part of a criminal conspiracy. Don't be so sure it couldn't happen.

 

[theprestige]

But gambling, drugs and prostitutes don't involve MURDER, you see.

A demographic that sees an aborted fetus as a full on human murdered, and who would countenance the bombing of abortion clinics and even assassination of abortion providers could hardly be expected to balk at coming up with creative ways to punish those involved in out-of-state abortions.

Crossing state lines to commit a murder is already something states don't regulate, and have never tried to regulate. Johnny Cash didn't end up in Folsom because of the man he shot in Reno.

 

[theprestige]

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-availability-and-use-of-medication-abortion/

Many states restrict access to abortion medication. None of them have tried to criminalize traveling to another state with easier access.

 

[Ziggurat]

In this specific case, if a state saw the fetus as a person and abortion as murder, it would be a short step to argue that taking "a person" across state lines (or, actually, anywhere) against their will would be kidnapping, and that anybody who helped in any way is part of a criminal conspiracy. Don't be so sure it couldn't happen.

Wow, you're really getting desperate to prove that your paranoia is justified.

Yeah, no. Traveling with a fetus inside your womb isn't kidnapping. That's just stupid. I mean really, really stupid.

 

[Ziggurat]

But gambling, drugs and prostitutes don't involve MURDER, you see.

It doesn't matter how much individual anti-abortion advocates think abortion is murder, the law doesn't treat it as such. Even laws outlawing abortion didn't treat it as murder. And undoing Roe v. Wade won't make it the legal equivalent of murder.

Here's a clue for you: half the country doesn't think that actual murder is OK.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

It might be tough to prove why someone is leaving the state.

How about charging women with murder if they enter a red state and have ever at any time in the past had an abortion. Perhaps even go a step further and include miscarriages since they are proof that the fetus was not being properly cared for.

Ridiculous, but less and less surprises my these days.

That's currently happening in El Salvador.

Wow. If there was an award for most dishonest statement made on the forum, I'd nominate this one.

It wouldn't be able to get in a squeak with the myriad of lies you spout on a daily basis.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

That was like 150 years ago. It had been 10 before that. So I don't think "the number of circuit courts" has any particular signifigance. The changes in number have always been related to political concerns, not practical ones in the administration of circuit courts.

I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations- I can't think of a good reason to increase it. At some point it becomes a little unweildy, I should think.

Too small a number given the size and complexity of the US judicial system and the importance the Supreme Court has in deciding law.

Even with the best will in the world, the current number of Supreme Court justices is too small to ensure proper delivery of the job the Supreme Court was set up to do. Either take powers off the court and grant them to new bodies or drastically increase the number of judges.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's currently happening in El Salvador.

The US isn't El Salvador. Public opinion here doesn't resemble public opinion in El Salvador. Our government doesn't resemble the government of El Salvador.

So why would you think that's relevant?

 

[Mader Levap]

Do I want to believe fervent assurances of Nazi soldier about safety of that Jew family? Hmm hmm hmm.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

One argument is that you want the SC to remain unable to deal with many cases per year, to disincentivise frivolous appeals.

An Isaac Wunder order process would sort that out.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

... which some red state will immediately challenge in Federal Court, which will then be overturned by the Theologian Court of the United States.

And the Federal government can reply by asking them with which army will they be able to enforce their illegal decision.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The US isn't El Salvador. Public opinion here doesn't resemble public opinion in El Salvador. Our government doesn't resemble the government of El Salvador.

So why would you think that's relevant?

Because with the current split on the Supreme Court, without some serious adjustments being made to the way the courts system works, the situation in El Salvador will be the situation across most of the South, Centre and Mid-west within ten years.

Don't try to lie to me that this won't be the case. We both know it will, you want it. I, being a moral being, am horrified by it.

 

[Bob001]

Wow, you're really getting desperate to prove that your paranoia is justified.

Yeah, no. Traveling with a fetus inside your womb isn't kidnapping. That's just stupid. I mean really, really stupid.

Maybe stupid. But not impossible. If states are allowed to treat a fetus as a "person," why wouldn't they try to apply laws regarding "persons" to this particular "person?" Why do you insist an anti-abortion Supreme Court wouldn't protect abortion restrictions? They wouldn't even have to approve them; all they would have to do is decline to hear appeals from lower-court decisions. Considering the state laws that are being passed even while abortion is legal, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it will be anything goes.

 

[Bob001]

Too small a number given the size and complexity of the US judicial system and the importance the Supreme Court has in deciding law.

Even with the best will in the world, the current number of Supreme Court justices is too small to ensure proper delivery of the job the Supreme Court was set up to do. Either take powers off the court and grant them to new bodies or drastically increase the number of judges.

No matter how many justices you put on the SC, they would all have to read the briefs, hear the arguments and debate the decisions. The SC doesn't work in subcommittees. Expansion wouldn't affect the number of cases they could hear.

 

[theprestige]

Do I want to believe fervent assurances of Nazi soldier about safety of that Jew family? Hmm hmm hmm.

"Nazi."

 

[Ziggurat]

Because with the current split on the Supreme Court, without some serious adjustments being made to the way the courts system works, the situation in El Salvador will be the situation across most of the South, Centre and Mid-west within ten years.

Don't try to lie to me that this won't be the case. We both know it will, you want it. I, being a moral being, am horrified by it.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Maybe stupid. But not impossible. If states are allowed to treat a fetus as a "person," why wouldn't they try to apply laws regarding "persons" to this particular "person?"

Because, again, state laws don't work that way regarding cross-state actions, and nobody want to make them work that way. There is no constituency to make such a monumental change either.

Why do you insist an anti-abortion Supreme Court wouldn't protect abortion restrictions?

Because not everything is about abortion. Unlike the chicken littles here, they are going to actually consider the ramifications of such a change to how states relate to each other. And none of them are going to want to go down that road.

 

[Mader Levap]

"Nazi."

My point is ya guys have no credibility whatsoever. No one will fall for "I want and support X, but for some reason I will assure opponents of X that it surely won't happen" gig.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Because not everything is about abortion.

Not for you, or me, or sensible people. But there are a surprisingly large number of people in this country for whom the abortion issue is so important it eclipses everything else.

 

[theprestige]

My point is ya guys have no credibility whatsoever. No one will fall for "I want and support X, but for some reason I will assure opponents of X that it surely won't happen" gig.

Where:

X = "criminalizing crossing state lines to get an abortion"

Nobody is saying they want and support X.

Plus, you've already been given evidence that state legislatures aren't actually interested in doing X. Not just Ziggurat's theoretical rebuttals. Actual evidence that the theory is correct.

 

[Bob001]

....
Because, again, state laws don't work that way regarding cross-state actions, and nobody want to make them work that way. There is no constituency to make such a monumental change either.
....

But some states have already attempted to make it illegal to carry a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. The crime is committed within the original state. And that's at a time when abortion is legal. It's just not realistic to imagine that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, restrictions won't be increased any way legislators can get away with.

And it's also a mistake to imagine that what the majority wants matters much in the present environment. Most Americans support abortion rights, tougher gun laws, more social spending, etc., etc. But they're not running Congress or the courts or the red state legislatures.