Can a State Stop Abortion Travel? - WSJ Editorial

[question everything]

Two years after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, some states have moved to limit abortions while others become sanctuaries. The figures tell the story: In 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute, patients traveling across state lines accounted for 41% of abortions in Illinois, 69% in Kansas, and 71% in New Mexico. Each of those states borders tighter jurisdictions.

The political fallout still isn’t clear, but a legal question now percolating is whether restrictive states can make it a crime to help a woman obtain an abortion elsewhere. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has argued yes, but the answer from a federal court last week is no. “The Attorney General cannot constitutionally prosecute people for acts taken within the State meant to facilitate lawful out of state conduct, including obtaining an abortion,” writes Judge Myron Thompson.
(snip)

In a motion to dismiss, Mr. Marshall argued Alabama’s law “does not forbid a woman from leaving the state to obtain an abortion,” but instead merely “regulates certain assistance,” and in any case it’s “supported by strong, legitimate interests including preserving unborn life.” So far Judge Thompson has merely denied the motion to dismiss, although in a way that suggests his view of the law and the Constitution. The core of his ruling is on the right to travel. The judge says it goes back at least to the Magna Carta in 1215, which promised “all merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear.”

(snip)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh went a similar route in a concurrence to Dobbs, the ruling overturning Roe. “As I see it,” he said, “some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”

Judge Thompson’s small extension is to say that if a state can’t directly stop women from leaving for abortions, “it cannot accomplish the same end indirectly by prosecuting those who assist them.” If Alabama held such power, it’s hard to see the limiting principle. Other states could try to enforce their values by punishing anyone who helps their citizens fly to Las Vegas to gamble, to Colorado to smoke marijuana, or to Alaska to hunt majestic grizzly bears.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-state-stop-abortion-travel-alabama-5fd4de51?st=pzn1h9wzq2t28i7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[TwilightZone]

1. I've been referring to Kavanaugh's statement often.

It's really pretty simple, from a constitutional perspective.

I'm not sure even Alito and/or Thomas could weasel a way to rule the other way. though I'm sure they would try.

[sop]

2. I suppose other states could also try to enforce their values by punishing anyone who goes to another state

to buy a gun, for example. These RW idiots are opening up a Pandora's box.

[yankee87]

3. Going to happen

When this case is in SCOTUS, the current make up will allow states to bar travel between states. Anyone who believes has not been keeping up.
They want Handmaid's Tale.

[modrepub]

4. Someone Can Correct Me If I'm Wrong

But since healthcare is a paid service or commerce, no state can regulate interstate commerce. If the insurance and medical providers span across state lines then I'd say this is a case of interstate commerce.

[Skittles]

5. the very idea that they ask this as a serious question

what kind of FASCIST FUCKING SHIT is this

[Celerity]

6. Leave it to the christofashies to want to go back to PRE Magna Carta times. Even Edward Longshanks is too prog for them