Congressman Jim Banks, Republican US Senate candidate backs abortion travel ban for Hoosier women

[Francee89]

A Republican congressman seeking to represent Indiana in the U.S. Senate is expressing support for a potential law barring Hoosier women from leaving the state to obtain an abortion.

During an interview on Fort Wayne's WOWO-AM radio, U.S. Rep. Jim Banks, R-Columbia City, responded favorably Thursday to a suggestion by host Pat Miller that more needs to be done to restrict abortion in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 24, 2022, Dobbs decision repealing the right to abortion established in 1973 by Roe v. Wade.

"Our work as a pro-life movement is far from over," Miller said. "If a young lady can hop in a car in Fort Wayne and in an hour and a half she can be in a place in Michigan, or in just under three hours she can cross the line into Illinois, and achieve what she was (un)able to do with abortion clinics here in Indiana, the fight is far from over."

Banks responded: "That's exactly right. I'm for federal legislation, I'm for stronger laws at the state level, whatever we can do, to save lives, to protect babies. That's what this fight is all about."
…

Earlier in the WOWO interview, Banks left no doubt he intends to target continued access to abortion in Democratic-led "blue" states if Hoosiers elect him to the U.S. Senate in 2024.

"We have some very blue states that didn't do what Indiana did. Indiana was the first state in the country after the Dobbs decision to pass a pro-life bill. So there's much more that we must do, that we need to do, that I'm going to fight for in the House, and when I get to the Senate, I'm going to fight for there in a bigger way as well," Banks said.

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/gov ... adbe1.html

[Deleted User 1990]

Amdt14.S1.8.13.2 Interstate Travel as a Fundamental Right

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The doctrine of the right to travel actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the latter state.2 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000840/

[jessilin0113]

How would they even know women are planning to do that? Are they trolling medical records for positive pregnancy tests then monitoring those women? The GOP is ridiculous these days.

[Della]

"That's exactly right. I'm for federal legislation,

So much for smaller government.

[Francee89]

Amdt14.S1.8.13.2 Interstate Travel as a Fundamental Right

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The doctrine of the right to travel actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the latter state.2 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000840/

Which will mean absolutely nothing if Jim and his GOP pals succeed in implementing a national abortion ban. Nor does it stop them from attempting things like “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… borrow[ing] 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/

[Pjmm]

"That's exactly right. I'm for federal legislation,

So much for smaller government.

That's why I keep saying the Republican party is full of outright hypocrites. God forbid we should want social programs that might positively influence our society years down the road. Heck God forbid we wanted mask mandates to maybe stop the spread of a pandemic. Then it's socialism, against my body my choice, and all big government. But if it's something they don't like such as pro-choice, gender surgery, or birth control then government control is absolutely fine. Uh huh.

[Momto2boys973]

That’s what I was thinking. Would they demand a pregnancy test for every woman traveling? That’s invasión of privacy. And if a woman is pregnant, is she forbidden from leaving the State?

How would they even know women are planning to do that? Are they trolling medical records for positive pregnancy tests then monitoring those women? The GOP is ridiculous these days.

[MonarchMom]

That’s what I was thinking. Would they demand a pregnancy test for every woman traveling? That’s invasión of privacy. And if a woman is pregnant, is she forbidden from leaving the State?

How would they even know women are planning to do that? Are they trolling medical records for positive pregnancy tests then monitoring those women? The GOP is ridiculous these days.

It does sound like the next step may be mandatory reporting by health care providers and pharmacies of all pregnancy tests and test results. We already have mandatory reporting requirements established for child abuse. If the state declares the embryo a "person" the law could be expanded to mandatory reporting of anything that might threaten its safety.

I see this leading to women being reluctant to seek routine OB/GYN care if there is any possibility of pregnancy. Postponing care and exams leads to less healthy outcomes, and the US is already lagging behind other developed nations in mortality rates for pregnant women.

[jessilin0113]

That’s what I was thinking. Would they demand a pregnancy test for every woman traveling? That’s invasión of privacy. And if a woman is pregnant, is she forbidden from leaving the State?

How would they even know women are planning to do that? Are they trolling medical records for positive pregnancy tests then monitoring those women? The GOP is ridiculous these days.

It does sound like the next step may be mandatory reporting by health care providers and pharmacies of all pregnancy tests and test results. We already have mandatory reporting requirements established for child abuse. If the state declares the embryo a "person" the law could be expanded to mandatory reporting of anything that might threaten its safety.

I see this leading to women being reluctant to seek routine OB/GYN care if there is any possibility of pregnancy. Postponing care and exams leads to less healthy outcomes, and the US is already lagging behind other developed nations in mortality rates for pregnant women.

Almost any treatment of women who happen to be pregnant comes with fetal risk. Not only will women be scared to seek treatment but doctors will refuse to treat. If something like this were to pass, I imagine Indiana would start to see a significant doctor shortage. Who would be willing to take the legal liability? I wouldn't practice in a state actively hostile to women and doctors.

[Della]

"FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., has picked up the backing of top former Trump official Stephen Miller for his "bold pro-American agenda" nearly a week after Banks launched his 2024 Senate bid -- as the Indiana congressman touts his record as a conservative warrior in Washington.

Banks, currently the head of the conservative Republican Study Committee in the House, launched his candidacy on Tuesday to succeed outgoing Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., in 2024. Braun will be running for governor of the Hoosier State.

Banks already secured the endorsement of Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-Ind. Now Miller, a top immigration hawk who served in the White House as a senior adviser, added his name to those endorsements in a statement to Fox News Digital."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jim-ba ... senate-bid