Mom Confessions

Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to people involved in the discussions.

The idea has gained momentum in some corners of the antiabortion movement in the days since the Supreme Court struck down its 49-year-old precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide, triggering abortion bans across much of the Southeast and Midwest.
The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ate-lines/

This should even bother pro-lifers because HOW WILL THEY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING???

Interstate commerce should apply perhaps.

Thelma Harper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:29 pm Interstate commerce should apply perhaps.

It likely would be a much easier case to have these sorts of laws blocked if they were planning to criminalize it (although with this Supreme Court, who knows? They might refuse to stay the law while it went through lower courts). Instead, they’re using the Texas anyone can sue anyone civil method, which is apparently more challenging to fight legally.

“In relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than attempting to impose a state-enforced ban on receiving abortions across state lines, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups don’t have a clear person to sue.

Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a chilling effect, where doctors in surrounding states stop performing abortions before courts have an opportunity to intervene, worried that they may face lawsuits if they violate the law.”

One method of neutralizing these laws is for legal abortion states to refuse to cooperate:

“Connecticut passed a law in April that offers broad protections from antiabortion laws that try to reach into other states. The measure would shield people from out-of-state summonses or subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in Connecticut. And it would prevent Connecticut authorities from adhering to another state’s request to investigate or punish anyone involved in facilitating a legal abortion in Connecticut.”

That’s a Gideon move. Having citizens inform on each other.

jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:29 pm This should even bother pro-lifers because HOW WILL THEY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING???

The eyes. Or abortion bounty hunters trying to make some money.

IKR?
So say you’re going to Disneyland, sheesh. This will only be an issue if you want to be a pro-choice advocate and scream it to the world.

jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:29 pm This should even bother pro-lifers because HOW WILL THEY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING???

Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:09 am IKR?
So say you’re going to Disneyland, sheesh. This will only be an issue if you want to be a pro-choice advocate and scream it to the world.

jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:29 pm This should even bother pro-lifers because HOW WILL THEY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING???

You won't need to "scream it to the world" for enforcement to happen. All it will take is someone who knows you and suspects you could be pregnant when you take a trip. Do you want to have to undergo a pregnancy test because of a cousin, or neighbor, or coworker for instance, making an assumption? How about an ex-partner? Paying citizens to inform on each other is going to be a big motivator, especially if there is no penalty for misinformation.

Law enforcement can search your phone records, your computer search history, your text messages. And they are moving to criminalize sharing information. This violates so many assumptions we have about autonomy and freedom.

Isnt there already constitutional law allowing free travel within the states?

Frau Holle wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:25 am Isnt there already constitutional law allowing free travel within the states?

Yes, under the 14th amendment.

I question if these laws aren’t a violation of the 6th amendment as crimes are to be tried in the state in which they occurred. So for example, a California resident could not be charged in California for open carrying in Texas. They'd have to be charged in Texas BUT it’s not illegal in Texas to open carry so therefore couldn’t be charged and tried there either. This also doesn’t really meet the criteria for civil suits. A person bringing a civil suit against another must show they suffered damages.