Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don’t want to be argumentative, but if you get a driving infringement in Nevada (a speed camera say) aren’t you going to get a ticket in California? I know it’s not prosecution, but a similar principal.

No. And you can't be extradited for minor infractions like a traffic citation. Nor will a state pursue extradition for misdemeanors.

I see I was ninja'd by half a dozen people.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. I am quite sure. Article 4, section 1 means one state’s laws cannot overrule anothers. Section 2 means every citizen of any state has the rights of every state.

Your naïveté is adorable. You are just so determined to ignore the damage Trump and Co. did to American institutions. These things can only not happen if someone steps up and stops them from happening. The GOP has spent decades eroding those people away and Trump nearly wiped out the last of them.

Just to be clear, you are relying on institutions to save the US government, but the Republicans are destroying those institutions. Once they are too weak, nothing written in the Constitution is going to matter.

 

[bruto]

Yes. I am quite sure. Article 4, section 1 means one state’s laws cannot overrule anothers. Section 2 means every citizen of any state has the rights of every state. Combined, they mean that one state cannot invade the jurisdiction of another state even for their own citizens and criminalize in another state what that state allows.

There is no ambiguity about this. It will not change. And a few idiots who don’t understand that won’t change it.

Extradition is a separate matter, and so is federal law, so the fugitive slave act has no bearing on this argument.

I think you are misreading this, or at least misreading what I am talking about. Article 4, which I quoted, says explicitly that a crime committed in one state cannot be escaped by going to another state. It does not specify whether that other state does or does not count the crime the same. If you commit a crime in one state, that state can extradite you on the charge. A person can enjoy the privileges and immunities of "the several states," which, as I and some others read it, means that the privileges and immunities granted to the entire United States apply to all the States, and that a visitor to any State can enjoy its privileges and immunities the same as a resident. It does not mean that things legal in one state must be legal in another.

I do believe (as I did say, I think) that the Constitution would forbid a state from declaring that what happens in another state is illegal. Thus, it seems clear, a person from Mississippi who came to Vermont for an abortion, for example, could not be charged with the abortion itself, nor could the providers of it be charged if they did not involve themselves in some way within Mississippi. But if Mississippi passed a law stating that leaving the state for the purpose of an abortion was a crime, then that crime would be committed in Mississippi, and the Constitution says that that crime could be prosecuted, not only if the person returns, but if she does not. And if Mississippi were to pass a law saying that advocating abortion is a crime, then if a provider in Vermont advertised their services in a publication that appeared in Mississippi, they might find themselves liable as well.

I bring up the fugitive slave laws, not because I think them directly relevant: of course the abolition of slavery makes fugitive slaves nonexistent, and the laws were repealed. But the basic constitutional principle on which they were based - that a State may not legally harbor fugitives from the laws of another - remains, as far as I can determine, unchallenged.

And stupid as such laws might be, as selectively, invasively, and stupidly enforced as they inevitably would be, and as just plain bad all around, and even if doomed to failure in court tests, such laws are under consideration by opponents of abortion right now. They're out there. Pandora is carrying a crowbar.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you are misreading this, or at least misreading what I am talking about. Article 4, which I quoted, says explicitly that a crime committed in one state cannot be escaped by going to another state.

Yes. I get that, and I'm not contending it's wrong. I'm saying that isn't the issue.

It does not specify whether that other state does or does not count the crime the same.

Also true. If you, say, hire a hooker in California, you can be prosecuted for that even if you go to a county in Nevada where it's legal.

But that doesn't mean that states have any jurisdiction over what happens in other states. They do not.

If you commit a crime in one state, that state can extradite you on the charge.

Yes, they can. But a crime in one state can only be a crime under that state's laws. California cannot prosecute you for hiring a hooker in Nevada.

A person can enjoy the privileges and immunities of "the several states," which, as I and some others read it, means that the privileges and immunities granted to the entire United States apply to all the States, and that a visitor to any State can enjoy its privileges and immunities the same as a resident.

Which means that if abortion is legal in California, it's legal for everyone in California. If you're visiting California from a state where it's illegal, you can still legally get an abortion in California, because you have all the privileges and immunities of a resident of California, and may do what it is legal for citizens of California to do within California.

It does not mean that things legal in one state must be legal in another.

I know that. But that's not the issue. Missouri can make abortion illegal in Missouri. Missouri cannot make abortion illegal in California. Not for Californians, and not for Missourians.

I do believe (as I did say, I think) that the Constitution would forbid a state from declaring that what happens in another state is illegal.

And that's the point. Which means that states cannot prosecute citizens for getting abortions out-of-state even if they make it illegal in state.

But if Mississippi passed a law stating that leaving the state for the purpose of an abortion was a crime, then that crime would be committed in Mississippi

Except they cannot do that either, since that's a restriction on interstate travel which states are not allowed to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

And if Mississippi were to pass a law saying that advocating abortion is a crime

That immediately runs afoul of the 1st amendment, so they can't do that either.

I bring up the fugitive slave laws, not because I think them directly relevant: of course the abolition of slavery makes fugitive slaves nonexistent, and the laws were repealed. But the basic constitutional principle on which they were based - that a State may not legally harbor fugitives from the laws of another - remains, as far as I can determine, unchallenged.

Sure, but so what? You aren't a fugitive if you haven't broken the law, and I'm saying that states can't make going out of state to get an abortion illegal. So people who do so aren't fugitives, and this isn't relevant.

And just in case it's not obvious that this is how the Supreme Court would rule, Kavanaugh in his Dobbs concurrence specifically said that's how he would rule: states cannot prohibit travel out-of-state for abortions.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your naïveté is adorable. You are just so determined to ignore the damage Trump and Co. did to American institutions. These things can only not happen if someone steps up and stops them from happening. The GOP has spent decades eroding those people away and Trump nearly wiped out the last of them.

Just to be clear, you are relying on institutions to save the US government, but the Republicans are destroying those institutions. Once they are too weak, nothing written in the Constitution is going to matter.

This kind of paranoia must be exhausting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.

Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

Says who? Based on what evidence?

...

Back to addressing this lie with more evidence.

From Donald Trump to Mike Pence, the GOP parrots claims about 'abortions at the moment of birth' that experts call 'terrible lies' and a 'complete falsehood'

Before the Supreme Court eliminated the federal right to an abortion in the US, top conservatives long-claimed that the landmark ruling had allowed abortion "all the way up to the moment of birth."

Despite pushback from expert data and medical professionals, the claim "abortion until birth" has been parroted by abortion opponents for years and weaponized to limit abortion rights.

As Republicans work toward a nationwide abortion ban, doctors have warned that such rampant misinformation is "extremely pervasive" and not reality.

Of course Drumpf promoted the lie:

"In the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby," Trump said in 2016 at the third presidential debate against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. "You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day. And that's not acceptable."

Former Vice President Mike Pence echoed the claim in a 2020 debate against then-VP candidate Kamala Harris.

And there's more:

The "abortion on demand" claim was repeated during a House hearing on access to abortion services in May. GOP Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana pressed Dr. Yashica Robinson, an obstetrician-gynecologist, on whether she supported abortion if a woman is "just seconds away" from birth, insisting that "it happens." ...

The reality:

Retired gynecologist Debbie McNabb dismissed these kinds of claims, saying medical emergencies may prompt a doctor to evacuate a fetus for the mother's safety, but "it's not the same as abortion that's allowed up to the moment of birth."

"Like, 'Oh, I'm going to file my fingernails and smoke a cigarette, and then I'll go in when I'm in labor and have an abortion.' That's just crazy, but that's what the Republicans are saying," McNabb told Insider. "'Abortion up to the moment of birth' is a complete falsehood."

The data:

"In 2019, 79.3% of abortions were performed at [or before] 9 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (92.7%) were performed at [or before] 13 weeks' gestation," according to 2019 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

Just 1.1% of abortions occurred after 21 weeks gestation, per the 2019 data, which is still months away from the full-term definition of 39-40 weeks of gestation.

Raising money and fear mongering for votes:

"Sadly, in today's political environment, politicians have learned that if they tell a lie early enough, loudly enough, frequently enough, and over a long period of time, people tend to believe these lies," McNabb said. "And, these politicians tell these terrible lies, not because they care about women, the fetuses they carry, or babies, but because these lies garner votes which maintain their personal positions, power, and wealth."

I know you like to pretend you are not persuaded by these kinds of political lies, but here's a case where you clearly are. You could admit it and quit amplifying the falsehood or you can stick to your guns and never provide any evidence because there isn't any.

 

[Bob001]

......
Sure, but so what? You aren't a fugitive if you haven't broken the law, and I'm saying that states can't make going out of state to get an abortion illegal. So people who do so aren't fugitives, and this isn't relevant.

And just in case it's not obvious that this is how the Supreme Court would rule, Kavanaugh in his Dobbs concurrence specifically said that's how he would rule: states cannot prohibit travel out-of-state for abortions.

This is all about criminal law. But it doesn't say a word about civil law. The Texas law, which the SC did not overturn, allows any private party to sue anyone for obtaining or assisting (very broadly speaking) anyone to obtain an abortion. Suppose other states pass similar laws. It wouldn't matter where a woman actually got an abortion; for the purpose of a civil suit in her home state, it would only matter that she did (or that somebody else bought her a bus ticket or drove her to the station or helped her find a clinic, etc., etc.). That's the real danger, and the Constitution doesn't say a word about it.



'

 

[Upchurch]

This kind of paranoia must be exhausting.

If Trump is held accountable for his attempted coup, then I will concede to that. If he doesn’t, my point is made.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is all about criminal law. But it doesn't say a word about civil law. The Texas law, which the SC did not overturn, allows any private party to sue anyone for obtaining or assisting (very broadly speaking) anyone to obtain an abortion. Suppose other states pass similar laws. It wouldn't matter where a woman actually got an abortion; for the purpose of a civil suit in her home state, it would only matter that she did (or that somebody else bought her a bus ticket or drove her to the station or helped her find a clinic, etc., etc.). That's the real danger, and the Constitution doesn't say a word about it.
'

Nope, still wrong. State courts don't have civil law jurisdiction for out of state actions any more than they do for criminal law. And you aren't accurately describing the Texas law either.

 

[Ziggurat]

Back to addressing this lie with more evidence.

You are addressing claims I never made. I never made any claims about what any particular law said about 9th month abortions. I said some activists want them to be unrestricted. None of your responses contradict that. I also said that third trimester elective abortions happen, I didn’t say they were common, and again, your sources don’t actually contradict me. I didn’t say they happen moments before birth.

You also seem to want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell didn’t exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Trump is held accountable for his attempted coup, then I will concede to that. If he doesn’t, my point is made.

No, you pretty much made mine.

Edited by jimbob: 

personal attack removed

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, you pretty much made mine.

Edited by jimbob: 

personal attack removed

plenty of empirical evidence that Upchurch's scary world is the real one.
One look at the blatant activism of Trump appointed Judges or anti-democracy rhetoric of republican politicians should make everyone scared.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

...

Edited by jimbob: 

personal attack removed

The rise of authoritarianism is a global phenomenon, its most common trait an erosion of civil liberties. There was an attempted coup to overthrow your government just last year. SCOTUS now openly employs extra legal and dubious reasoning to overturn settled precedent. This makes an accusation that others ignore reality pure projection. Sad.

 

[bruto]

Yes. I get that, and I'm not contending it's wrong. I'm saying that isn't the issue.



Also true. If you, say, hire a hooker in California, you can be prosecuted for that even if you go to a county in Nevada where it's legal.

But that doesn't mean that states have any jurisdiction over what happens in other states. They do not.



Yes, they can. But a crime in one state can only be a crime under that state's laws. California cannot prosecute you for hiring a hooker in Nevada.



Which means that if abortion is legal in California, it's legal for everyone in California. If you're visiting California from a state where it's illegal, you can still legally get an abortion in California, because you have all the privileges and immunities of a resident of California, and may do what it is legal for citizens of California to do within California.



I know that. But that's not the issue. Missouri can make abortion illegal in Missouri. Missouri cannot make abortion illegal in California. Not for Californians, and not for Missourians.



And that's the point. Which means that states cannot prosecute citizens for getting abortions out-of-state even if they make it illegal in state.



Except they cannot do that either, since that's a restriction on interstate travel which states are not allowed to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law



That immediately runs afoul of the 1st amendment, so they can't do that either.



Sure, but so what? You aren't a fugitive if you haven't broken the law, and I'm saying that states can't make going out of state to get an abortion illegal. So people who do so aren't fugitives, and this isn't relevant.

And just in case it's not obvious that this is how the Supreme Court would rule, Kavanaugh in his Dobbs concurrence specifically said that's how he would rule: states cannot prohibit travel out-of-state for abortions.

I get what you're saying, and I hope you're right, but I just keep having to add that there are, right now, legislators who are trying to implement the very laws you claim cannot be implemented. I would like to think they will be thwarted by cooler heads and reasonable interpreters of the law, but I think there will be a lot of mess and damage on the way.

Despite what Kavanaugh might have said, I think it might be a poor idea to trust him, and though the right to interstate travel has plenty of precedent, we are becoming increasingly aware that precedent has no teeth. There is no constitutional right to interstate travel as such. There is a constitutional right, if you get into a state, to enjoy the full rights and privileges and laws that apply to its citizens, and a constitutional rule that no state can abridge rights that are Federally established, but that does not, by itself, rule out laws governing an individual's travel out of a state unless there is an explicit Federal law establishing it.

And there is still the question of what might happen if the US congress should manage to pass a nationwide abortion law. If such a thing is possible, and if such a thing survives challenges to its constitutionality, then the Federal government certainly can control interstate travel, as it does in other cases now.

Of course most of the possibilities here are absurd and impractical, and unlikely to survive scrutiny and litigation, but I don't think, in the world of today, that that means someone won't try hard to make them happen, and, unfortunately it does not mean conclusively that they never will.

In this case, though, I hope I'm as wrong as you allege.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are addressing claims I never made. I never made any claims about what any particular law said about 9th month abortions. I said some activists want them to be unrestricted. None of your responses contradict that. I also said that third trimester elective abortions happen, I didn’t say they were common, and again, your sources don’t actually contradict me. I didn’t say they happen moments before birth.

You also seem to want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell didn’t exist.

You are incapable of admitting your mistake. I knew you'd find some ludicrous claim you never said what you said and yet I quoted you verbatim.

And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.

Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never. Says who? Based on what evidence?

No it is not actually done, ever.

 

[Upchurch]

No, you pretty much made mine. You live in a sad, scary world inside your head, and you have framed everything that happens as confirming it.

Which of us is living in a fantasy world? Do you agree that, with all the available evidence, Trump and Co. staged a coup attempt on 1/6? Do you agree that, maybe for the first time, the Supreme Court has removed rights previously enjoyed by US citizens? Do you agree that one US party, if determined, can undermine the US institutions necessary for the country to function?

I’ve given my objective criteria for how I my position could be shown or falsified, although I acknowledge the timescale has been, and may continue to be, in terms of years. Can you do the same?

 

[shuttlt]

Your naïveté is adorable. You are just so determined to ignore the damage Trump and Co. did to American institutions. These things can only not happen if someone steps up and stops them from happening. The GOP has spent decades eroding those people away and Trump nearly wiped out the last of them.

It's like the damage Toto does to the institutions of Oz by pulling back the curtain. Because of Toto, the Munchkin's heads are full of wild conspiracies that the current management of Oz is, and always has been, institutionally dishonest.

 

[Upchurch]

Missouri is talking about it:

Missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out-of-state abortion



https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...w-to-make-illegal-to-aid-or-abet-out-of-state

Huh. Maybe this is why I have the impression it is more widespread, I’m surrounded by it. Still, there is no way other red states are going to let Missouri be the only one doing this. And, who is going to stop them? (Or, I suppose, us, in this case.)

 

[Upchurch]

It's like the damage Toto does to the institutions of Oz by pulling back the curtain. Because of Toto, the Munchkin's heads are full of wild conspiracies that the current management of Oz is, and always has been, institutionally dishonest.

I’m not following.

Institutions aren’t inherently dishonest. They are inherently made up. They have meaning because we agree they have meaning and because the alternative is far worse. Like language or money.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are incapable of admitting your mistake. I knew you'd find some ludicrous claim you never said what you said and yet I quoted you verbatim.

No it is not actually done, ever.

I didn't say it's done. I said some extremists WANT it to be legal. Really, learn to read.