HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How is it possible for a ...

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:25 AM

How is it possible for a state to make something illegal in another jusidiction?

I've been hearing about this Georgia law that would make it illegal for women (presumably residents of Georgia) to have abortion procedures in other states. Just how the hell does that work?

It would be like punishing people who go to Europe and have a drink before they are 21. Or punishing people who go to Amsterdam and smoke hemp. It's not illegal there - so if I'm doing it there, how does the state have a right to punish me for doing something _legal_.

Is this just plainly an illegal law on its face, or am I missing something?

42 replies, 1443 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply How is it possible for a state to make something illegal in another jusidiction? (Original post)
ProfessorPlum May 16 OP
beachbum bob May 16 #1
Bettie May 16 #2
beachbum bob May 16 #3
Bettie May 16 #4
beachbum bob May 16 #11
StarfishSaver May 16 #14
Generic Other May 16 #22
beachbum bob May 16 #23
keithbvadu2 May 16 #42
John Fante May 16 #32
Rambling Man May 16 #5
Solly Mack May 16 #6
procon May 16 #7
obamanut2012 May 16 #8
StarfishSaver May 16 #16
elleng May 16 #27
underpants May 16 #34
zipplewrath May 16 #9
ProfessorPlum May 16 #12
StarfishSaver May 16 #17
beachbum bob May 16 #19
zipplewrath May 16 #18
Nevilledog May 16 #15
qazplm135 May 16 #40
CanonRay May 16 #10
Takket May 16 #13
Blecht May 16 #20
mr_lebowski May 16 #30
Liberal In Texas May 16 #21
Celerity May 16 #25
MineralMan May 16 #24
wryter2000 May 16 #26
dawg day May 16 #28
treestar May 16 #38
rampartc May 16 #39
11 Bravo May 16 #29
mr_lebowski May 16 #31
treestar May 16 #37
delisen May 16 #33
TeamPooka May 16 #35
treestar May 16 #36
fescuerescue May 16 #41

Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:26 AM

1. If they did, no way this will be held up in court any where

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #1)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:28 AM

2. Might not have held up in a court before the

recent spasm of ultra right wing, unqualified judges that the Senate put in place.

These are yahoos whose only goal is to destroy the judiciary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #2)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:30 AM

3. A state law criminalizing something done legally in another state WILL never be held up in any court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #3)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:32 AM

4. I'd like to believe this

but, frankly, I suspect that there will be an 'abortion exception' carved out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #4)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:27 AM

11. not a f*cking chance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #11)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:51 AM

14. Agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #3)

Thu May 16, 2019, 12:12 PM

22. A pregnant Dred Scott will go to jail

In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."

I think we can safely substitute the word "women" here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Other (Reply #22)

Thu May 16, 2019, 04:32 PM

23. never happen here and NOW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Other (Reply #22)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:00 PM

42. Good point.

Good point. Before DS (and quite a while after), women were citizens but did not have all the rights and privileges such as voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #3)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:11 PM

32. Absolutely. This law is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:35 AM

5. They'll do and say whatever they please.

Decency and precedent is not a regulator in their minds .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:39 AM

6. I wondered the same but it will be effective as a scare tactic until it is challenged.

Will scare women and young girls to the point they do nothing until it is too late.

Will scare women and young girls to the point they do something desperate.

Then the sick fucks in Georgia (and elsewhere) who support these measures will stand over the dead bodies of women and young girls and gloat about the "wages of sin".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 08:53 AM

7. They deliberately packed that law with

legal impossibilities to increase the likelihood that it would quickly be challenged and open the pathway to the Supreme Court.

The whole purpose of this disgusting Republican plot is to force the abortion issue back to the SC. Now that Trump has stuffed the court with religious conservative male judges who oppose a woman's individual right to full personhood with body autonomy, women are faced with state mandated, forced births under penalty of prison and death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:02 AM

8. Loving vs. Virginia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #8)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:56 AM

16. That's different

Marriage is an ongoing status, not an act.

In Loving vs. Virginia, the Lovings were punished NOT because they got married out of state, but because Virginia didn't recognize their marriage and, thus, arrested and prosecuted them for miscegenation.

In this instance, the state would punish a woman for an act she completed while out of state.

Perhaps they'll claim that she left the state with the intention of having an abortion, but having an abortion in another state is not a crime in that state, they cannot hold her accountable for intending to commit a crime. Or, better stated, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to do so - they will certainly try to do it anyway and will do it until they are stopped. That's the point - to intimidate women into not going out of state due to fear they will be prosecuted, even if the prosecution is later thrown out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #16)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:04 PM

27. Thanks. Watched the movie Loving last night (again.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #8)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:24 PM

34. Loving made something legal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 09:04 AM

9. My concern

The "loop hole" they seem to be pursing is that the abortion wouldn't be the "crime" but the transporting someone "over state lines" or whatever would be the crime that occurred within the state. Basically "conspriracy to" kind of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #9)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:29 AM

12. conspiracy to commit a lawful act, though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #12)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:59 AM

17. It could be a version of the Mann Act

But as noted below, that would have to fall under federal jurisdiction. And it would be very difficult to support a conspiracy to commit an act that is legal.

Of course, none of that is the point. The point is to frighten women into not doing it because they don't want to risk being prosecuted. And it doesn't matter to the women whether the prosecution is legal or not - they can't afford or don't want to have to endure the fight to prove they're rights are being violated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #17)

Thu May 16, 2019, 11:24 AM

19. Would be plenty of free legal help available if needed..besides, this law

is going nowhere. We need to use it has a hammer on GOP candidates though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #12)

Thu May 16, 2019, 11:03 AM

18. Yeah

I don't think Clarence Darrow came up with this idea. Alternately, I don't put anything past the current Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #9)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:51 AM

15. That would make it a federal crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #9)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:36 PM

40. if you can criminalize this

then you could have and can criminalize any act that is legal in another state but not in the home state.

Want to go gamble in Vegas? Conspiracy! if the act is not legal in the home state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:00 AM

10. Last time I can recall when this happened

was the Fugitive Slave Laws. I believe they both were sponsored by the same people...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 10:35 AM

13. It really doesn't matter

The law is never meant to be enforced. It and all the other bills are just meant to get Roe in front of SCOTUS where their true goal is is a complete overturn, which would make abortion illegal everywhere anyway.

The alternative is SCOTUS upholds Roe and then this law, I assume, gets nullified.

Basically Jon Roberts has the sanctity of every woman’s body in his hands. That is how FUCKED UP this country is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 11:31 AM

20. South Korea does this with weed

South Korean law states that their citizens must obey their laws anywhere in the world.

Their government issued warnings when Canada went legal.

Nothing like that exists in America -- every aspect of this Georgia law is a sick joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blecht (Reply #20)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:06 PM

30. Pretty sure it does ...

Pretty sure I've read one can be prosecuted for traveling to Thailand (for example) with the intent to have sex with minors.

Probably difficult to prove unless you're dumb enough to respond to a travel advertisement that's actually a FBI Sting operation, but ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 11:41 AM

21. Might actually encourage women who need to have an abortion to leave and never come back. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal In Texas (Reply #21)

Thu May 16, 2019, 04:57 PM

25. part of their plan, the explosion of 'carpetbaggers' into the Atlanta area is fucking up the RWers

old school 'KKK-friendly' state's way of life and politics.

The rural, redneck, red clay shit-kickers want to reclaim the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 04:36 PM

24. It isn't possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:02 PM

26. I think you're right

About the only way would be to make it illegal to cross a state line to get an abortion. But that would be federal jurisdiction.

That, alone, would sink this law, imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:04 PM

28. I think evil legislators could gin up a reason.

You know, think of the old Mann act-- it's against Federal law to take someone across the state line for lewd reasons. (That can't possibly still be in effect.) So the legislators could just make it a crime to help (or self-help) a woman resident in the state to get an abortion anywhere, or to cross state lines with the intent of...

None of this, we dearly hope, will stand up to a court test. So why not swing for the fences? The Ohioans are already coming up with a new surgery that will no doubt kill most of the women who are forced to undergo it ("implanting" ectopic tissue from a dire emergency to another part of the body... can't actually be done safely). So why not make driving a woman across the state lines a crime?

I'm wondering if at any moment they even considered criminalizing impregnating a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. After all, it's very easy for a man to avoid that (condoms), and not avoiding could be considered something on the order of assault (by sperm that shouldn't be invading an unwilling womb).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg day (Reply #28)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:45 PM

38. A good argument to prevent that would be the Mann Act

involves something illegal in both states. This would only be illegal in one state, so the federal system would lack the jurisdiction from the commerce clause about crossing state lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg day (Reply #28)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:48 PM

39. the mann act is still enforced

two of jeanette maier's louisiana customers plead guilty to taking girls to mississippi for "immoral purposes." i remember the case becayse the poor guys were sentenced to 2 years house arrest inder the watchful eyes of their wives.

that would have been about 2002 in a case made notorious by the invilvement of our us senator "duaper dave" vitter. vitter (r), a family values champion, was not charged in the case but was defeated by john bel edwards (d) for governor and is currently unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:04 PM

29. If the state can define it as murder, then they can prosecute ...

residents who return afterwards. This is serious shit.
(But I'm not worried, because Susan Fucking Collins has a strongly worded letter of surprise and disappointment all ready to go!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #29)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:10 PM

31. Wouldn't they have to extradite them to the State where the 'murder' was committed?

Not sure how that would work.

It IS serious, but I don't know if what you describe is a legit legal avenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #31)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:43 PM

37. another issue - abortion was illegal at common law, but as abortion, not murder

the penalties were likely to be lesser. There is a difference from being born or not, and the old laws recognized that. After years of calling it "murder" are they going to want it to be penalized as such? SCOTUS may well not hold that up. There will be legal history from the distant past for why they are distinct crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:13 PM

33. Most of the antiabortion laws are red herrings. Having them all pass at one time

is part of a propaganda wave.

One or two may be the ones the anti-women forces intend for the Supreme Court. The most extreme are there to rev up the Republican evangelical base, intimidate other women and and the same time make others think that the Supreme Court will never hear them or will rule against them.

The wave of these various state initiatives also serve as distraction as other plots are ongoing - such as not securing the voting systems for 2020-a re-apportionment year-just like 2010 when Democrats lost so many seats.

So whomever is behind this planned attack achieve 4 things at once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:26 PM

35. Who smokes hemp? nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 05:41 PM

36. They definitely cannot

there are states that allow cousin marriage. Others don't and some of those even say it's a crime and if they go to a state that allows it and then return. Not only is the marriage not recognized, they can be fined and imprisoned. That would seem to violate the clause that says states have to recognize the legal acts of other states. But it was upheld.

As a practical matter, unless the people were celebrities, it would be hard to even become aware of it happening, though. Probably there aren't many cases prosecuted. (Interesting side note: West Virginia does not allow cousin marriage. Sort of defeats one prejudgment people have about it.)

It would be even harder to prove that a woman had an abortion in another state. Who would notice and report it and how would the state be able to prove it was her purpose in making the trip?

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, this could become common. California has a guarantee of freedom of choice in its constitution, so it will be legal there. And in many other states it will not be made illegal. Middle class and wealthy women will just travel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Original post)

Thu May 16, 2019, 06:54 PM

41. There is precedent at the Federal level

For instance, it is illegal to travel to another country, when the purpose of the trip is to have sex with minors. Even that is legal in the destination country.

https://esfandilawfirm.com/los-angeles-federal-attorney/traveling-sex-minor/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread