US Supreme Court overturns abortion precedent

[Seattle]

Is that constitutional though? I thought the 14th Amendment allowed the 'right to travel'?

Unless they want to detain or check women at the various entry points and borders for Texas, they cannot infringe on the right of people to travel where they wish to travel. And if they attempt to stop women or essentially declare women are prisoners in Texas if they are pregnant or could be pregnant and cannot leave in case they are going to procure an abortion, or even if they leave the state to obtain an abortion, then that would be unconstitutional - particularly when it comes to the right to privacy, would it not?

It wouldn't be about stopping travel. It would just be about making going to another state for that purpose illegal. It wouldn't stand up in court however but then again if it makes it up to this Supreme Court...all bets are off.

If this continues, the Democrats will be forced to add more justices to the Supreme Court. Having a conservative interpretation is one thing, what they are currently doing is quite another.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Might come under something like "Travelling for the purpose of commuting a act which would be a crime in Texas's"

but traveling to another state to buy a bag of chips is legal and a right
and
traveling to consult about a medical procedure is also not illegal
im fairly sure they can not demand a reason for travel across a state line

 

[Michael 345]

demand

It would not be classed as a "demanding a reason"

It would be filed under "suspected of travelling to commit a act which is illegal in Texas"

Think none of this speculations will occur but crazy Americans are up for anything

Another aspect of Roe vs Wade is the legal definition of LIFE and of PERSON

Abortion is removal of a POTENTIAL human being and there are so so many hazards (natural) along the way that (Australia) (just looked it up) 10% to 15% fail

I am betting the extreme god bothers will be asking for those persons who miscarry be investigated to check if they did anything to bring on the miscarriage

You frequently hear the pro-life call abortion as the killing of a PERSON

Not so. If it were so autopsy rooms would be of festal remains and courts full of homicidal killers

 

[Bells]

is it constitutional? probably not. will the current nut job supreme court rule it is? who knows. they just threw out a settle precedent with the most flimsy of bullshit arguments, essentially ruling, at least as far as i'm concerned, women aren't people. I don't know where the line is and that scares me. not to be melodramatic but roe v wade overturned could be the beginnings of the end of humanity. if the us loses the republic, especially to a person like trump i don't see how humanity lives. its all a matter of time. if the us loses democracy, its gonna go fascist. fascist countries tend to need to be put down militarily and i don't see how that can happen with the us unless we go full kleptocracy like russia.

Might come under something like "Travelling for the purpose of commuting a act which would be a crime in Texas's"

It wouldn't be about stopping travel. It would just be about making going to another state for that purpose illegal. It wouldn't stand up in court however but then again if it makes it up to this Supreme Court...all bets are off.

If this continues, the Democrats will be forced to add more justices to the Supreme Court. Having a conservative interpretation is one thing, what they are currently doing is quite another.

Just responding to all 3 of you, since it's essentially the same answer. Kavanaugh addressed traveling to another state to obtain an abortion in Dobbs:

[Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf ]​

In Bigelow v Virginia (1975), Justice Blackmun:

​

The decision in Dobbs was clear, the only issue they were addressing was the Constitutional right to an abortion, which they determined does not exist (which I think is utter bollocks, btw) and was thrown back to the states to determine on an individual basis - in other words, they determined that the right to access an abortion is not a Constitutional right. What is a Constitutional right is the right to travel freely between states and this has been addressed multiple times. So while Texas may be trying to appease the wackjobs in the state by writing a law that would make it illegal for anyone to travel to another state to access an abortion, such a law would, by every definition, be absolutely Unconstitional.

While they may be going by civil recourse, any laws passed that would impede the freedom of movement of citizens and residents, would and should be challenged in court. I imagine they are already looking to do so if such laws come into existence.

 

[pjdude1219]

Just responding to all 3 of you, since it's essentially the same answer. Kavanaugh addressed traveling to another state to obtain an abortion in Dobbs:

View attachment 5003

[Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf ]​

In Bigelow v Virginia (1975), Justice Blackmun:

View attachment 5004
​

The decision in Dobbs was clear, the only issue they were addressing was the Constitutional right to an abortion, which they determined does not exist (which I think is utter bollocks, btw) and was thrown back to the states to determine on an individual basis - in other words, they determined that the right to access an abortion is not a Constitutional right. What is a Constitutional right is the right to travel freely between states and this has been addressed multiple times. So while Texas may be trying to appease the wackjobs in the state by writing a law that would make it illegal for anyone to travel to another state to access an abortion, such a law would, by every definition, be absolutely Unconstitional.

While they may be going by civil recourse, any laws passed that would impede the freedom of movement of citizens and residents, would and should be challenged in court. I imagine they are already looking to do so if such laws come into existence.

this is the same man who under oath told congress that roe was settled law and than voted to undo it. the promises of a perjurer mean nothing. the mans a liar through and through. Kavanaugh's reassurances are worth less than a cow patty.

 

[Michael 345]

This is religion at its worst ànd most stupid

Trump-backed secretary of state nominee makes shocking abortion remark

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...y-of-state-nominee-newsroom-kaczynski-vpx.cnn

 

[Bells]

this is the same man who under oath told congress that roe was settled law and than voted to undo it. the promises of a perjurer mean nothing. the mans a liar through and through. Kavanaugh's reassurances are worth less than a cow patty.

This is different though in that it was part of a decision he was party to.

I don't doubt that the man is a slime and should not be trusted. But short of testing every woman who intends to travel interstate, to see if they are pregnant, or stopping or barring people from travelling interstate while pregnant and/or delving into their internet searches, listening to their phone calls of every person who could theoretically fall pregnant, or expect doctors, hospitals, pharmacies to report pregnancies to the government, they can't really know or determine if someone has had an abortion. And if they are going with the bounty system, where someone reports women to the authorities, then they will have a gigantic mess on their hands.

And while they may try to implement the law, it will be challenged and I suspect there's an army of lawyers waiting to challenge it.

 

[Neddy Bate]

And if they are going with the bounty system, where someone reports women to the authorities, then they will have a gigantic mess on their hands.

And while they may try to implement the law, it will be challenged and I suspect there's an army of lawyers waiting to challenge it.

And they will be willing to take it all the way up to the supreme court, where, oh wait... they already decided last year that the bounty system was constitutional. So then what??

I would like to hope that you are correct, but I gave up long ago on the idea that we have any kind of properly functioning justice system in the US, especially at the SCOTUS level.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am not sure about what I am about to suggest but hasn't the supreme court just given people the right to vote on the issue of family planning/abortion in every state? A right to vote that they didn't have before?

 

[Neddy Bate]

I am not sure about what I am about to suggest but hasn't the supreme court just given people the right to vote on the issue of family planning/abortion in every state? A right to vote that they didn't have before?

SCOTUS giving the power back to the states just means the individual state legislatures can make their own laws about it, without any concern that their laws may be found unconstitutional at the US Supreme court in the future. The people elect state legislators in their state (actually by district), but we do not get to vote on the legislation, as the legislators vote on that themselves. Some states (maybe all, I'm not sure) allow referendums with enough signatures garnered to be placed on the ballot, and the people get to vote on the referendums. However, even if a referendum is passed by a vote of the people, the state legislature can still delay implementing it, or find reasons why it cannot be implemented fully in practice.

Why, what did you have in mind?

 

[Seattle]

I am not sure about what I am about to suggest but hasn't the supreme court just given people the right to vote on the issue of family planning/abortion in every state? A right to vote that they didn't have before?

That's a bit like suggesting that overturning the 13th amendment (repealing slavery) would be just giving people the right to vote on this issue in every state which would be a right to vote that they didn't have before.

It's true enough but is this what we want?

 

[Quantum Quack]

SCOTUS giving the power back to the states just means the individual state legislatures can make their own laws about it, without any concern that their laws may be found unconstitutional at the US Supreme court in the future. The people elect state legislators in their state (actually by district), but we do not get to vote on the legislation, as the legislators vote on that themselves. Some states (maybe all, I'm not sure) allow referendums with enough signatures garnered to be placed on the ballot, and the people get to vote on the referendums. However, even if a referendum is passed by a vote of the people, the state legislature can still delay implementing it, or find reasons why it cannot be implemented fully in practice.

Why, what did you have in mind?

Are the legislator's voted into and out of office?
If so this would mean that the issue becomes one of popular opinion and not decreed for or (implied) against, as a "beyond the collective" right by some god-like constitutional court.
To me this issue goes well beyond any legal or other jurisdiction as the right to self determine is inherent with in all human beings and is not subject to popular vote, constitutional court or other human machination.

 

[Seattle]

Are the legislator's are voted into and out of office?
If so this would mean that the issue becomes one of popular opinion and not decreed for or (implied) against, as a "beyond the collective" right by some god-like constitutional court.
To me this issue goes well beyond any legal or other jurisdiction as the right to self determine is inherent with in all human beings and is not subject to popular vote, constitutional court or other human machination.

The right to self-determine was taken away by the court. Your argument makes no sense (to me).

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's a bit like suggesting that overturning the 13th amendment (repealing slavery) would be just giving people the right to vote on this issue in every state which would be a right to vote that they didn't have before.

It's true enough but is this what we want?

Of course not...
I was merely seeking clarification concerning: Now that the Federal right to abortion has been struck down the only avenue for the population to manage this issue is via the various State polls.

 

[Neddy Bate]

The problem is that there are many states which tend to elect, and have already elected, a majority of anti-abortion legislators. People in those states will not have access to any abortion services, or the other health care needs related to it, because of their state's elected legislature.

Before Roe v. Wade was reversed by this SCOTUS, those states had to take some care not to infringe on what was then considered to be a human right. Not that they cared about that -- they purposefully infringed time and time again hoping eventually the SCOTUS would not find their laws unconstitutional, and now they have what they wanted all along.

The question we have moved on to now is whether the freedom to cross state lines for such health care needs would come under attack. Bells mentioned that SC Justice Kavanaugh had stated in his Roe v Wade opinion that there is still a constitutional right to cross state lines. However, some of us are not convinced that means it is safe. Consider that there are states planning to pass laws modeled after Texas' bounty hunter system specifically to chill the movement of people over state lines for that purpose.

 

[Michael 345]

NT News newspaper 15 July 2022

Think there will be a few more cases like this. Keep lawyers busy

Some rewriting laws to eliminate loop holes, others exploiting loop holes

 

[Bells]

The question we have moved on to now is whether the freedom to cross state lines for such health care needs would come under attack. Bells mentioned that SC Justice Kavanaugh had stated in his Roe v Wade opinion that there is still a constitutional right to cross state lines. However, some of us are not convinced that means it is safe. Consider that there are states planning to pass laws modeled after Texas' bounty hunter system specifically to chill the movement of people over state lines for that purpose.

The states that attempt to pass laws that will prevent people from crossing state lines will be challenged and should be challenged. If they are going to prevent pregnant women from traveling out of state, then that will absolutely be unconstitutional, as that will have a knock-on effect as they will have no way to police it. Unless they are going to be stopping women at airports and borders within the country, effectively turning each state into a prison if one is a woman of child bearing age. I'm not saying they won't try to pass such a law, but it would be impossible to police and it has the potential to come back to bite them on their proverbial backsides. At least, one would hope.

 

[parmalee]

The states that attempt to pass laws that will prevent people from crossing state lines will be challenged and should be challenged. If they are going to prevent pregnant women from traveling out of state, then that will absolutely be unconstitutional, as that will have a knock-on effect as they will have no way to police it. Unless they are going to be stopping women at airports and borders within the country, effectively turning each state into a prison if one is a woman of child bearing age. I'm not saying they won't try to pass such a law, but it would be impossible to police and it has the potential to come back to bite them on their proverbial backsides. At least, one would hope.

Would it be "impossible" though? I mean, prosecuting women intending to get an abortion would undoubtedly prove difficult, but prosecuting those who have already gotten an abortion would be considerably less so. It's impossible to say how much of a deterrent that might be.

And seeing as nearly half of this Supreme Court perjured themselves under oath, the likelihood that they will strike down even the most egregiously unconstitutional of laws seems slim.

 

[billvon]

If they are going to prevent pregnant women from traveling out of state, then that will absolutely be unconstitutional, as that will have a knock-on effect as they will have no way to police it.

Unfortunately there is a precedent - the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required other states to return escaped slaves to the state they originated from. And while one state's supreme court (Wisconsin) declared it unconstitutional, it survived challenges in several other states, and the US Supreme Court decided to not hear it. It was the law of the land until 1864 when it was formally repealed.

Thus there is precedent for other states to demand the return of people suspected of committing crimes, even though they did not commit the crime in their original state. (If they had committed crimes in their origin state, the agreements on extradition cover that.)

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The states that attempt to pass laws that will prevent people from crossing state lines will be challenged and should be challenged. If they are going to prevent pregnant women from traveling out of state, then that will absolutely be unconstitutional, as that will have a knock-on effect as they will have no way to police it. Unless they are going to be stopping women at airports and borders within the country, effectively turning each state into a prison if one is a woman of child bearing age. I'm not saying they won't try to pass such a law, but it would be impossible to police and it has the potential to come back to bite them on their proverbial backsides. At least, one would hope.

additionally
they cant make a state law to force other states to obey it
so they cant make a state law to make other states have a law.
or it negates the state legal boundary.
so they cant make it illegal to have an abortion in another state because they are not in control of the other states laws.

any law which they try to create that comes into effect once a state boundary is crossed would be a federal law and involve the FBI
are they going to start asking the FBI to arrest women crossing state borders on the off chance they may have an intention to get an abortion ?

what businesses cross state borders to evade laws in those states ?