Let's say a state bans abortion and considers it murder.

[Yavin4]

Does that mean that a woman could be prosecuted if she left the state to have an abortion?

[superpatriotman]

1. That is a scary concept

And should be discussed

[treestar]

2. No. The state could only criminally

charge for acts illegal in that state. We have complete freedom of interstate travel.

If you went to Colorado and smoked pot and then returned to your state where pot is still illegal, your state could not punish you.

[Yavin4]

5. But the state would not have any way of proving that you smoked weed in Colorado

unless they drug test you which would not be practical. OTOH, if a woman got a pregnancy diagnosis from her doctor, then there would be documented evidence of pregnancy. If she does not give birth, then that's evidence of a crime.

I could see states requiring doctors to notify the state of pregnancy diagnoses.

[clementine613]

7. But still not a crime in that state

For example - murder is a crime in both New York and Colorado. If a person commits a murder in Colorado, New York still can’t prosecute him, no matter how much evidence they have. The best they can do is turn the evidence over to Colorado and let them prosecute.

So too here. State1 can turn over that evidence to State2, but State2 will say “that’s not a crime here.”

[treestar]

8. Doctor Patient confidentiality would apply at first

So a law like that would have to set that aside which might be tough to pass even in a state that wanted to make abortion illegal. Then it would be challenged. I suppose the one side would argue that the state's interest in knowing a crime was committed was greater than the interests that doctor-patient confidentiality serves. The courts would have to be extremely right wing to uphold that idea.

And the other state would have doctor-patient confidentiality and refuse to honor any subpoena from the first state and that would go into the courts, too.

Then the courts would have to deal with the issue of whether or not one state could enforce its laws in another.

If the feds were extremely right wing, they might say the crossing of state lines allowed them to prosecute - Congress would have had to have passed a law prohibiting crossing state lines for the purpose of an abortion. That too would be challenged due to the right of interstate travel and the fact that it was only a crime in one of the states would be a large factor. Other federal crimes due to crossing state lines involve something illegal in all states. Some cases could arise about marijuana, maybe crossing state lines to sell it in a state where it is legal, from states where it is not (and I think it is still a federal crime).

[mythology]

13. Nor would the state be able to prove you didn't miscarry, give the kid up for adoption etc

There is no danger of this.

[Cerulean Southpaw]

10. In theory

Couldn't they do something like the Mann Act, about transporting a minor across state lines?

I wouldn't put it past them to try.

[treestar]

11. That is true :

Attempt to make a federal crime of it for crossing a state line - affects interstate commerce.

[shraby]

3. What about miscarriages? Will women be charged with abortion and punished for losing

her child?

[Laffy Kat]

4. If it's taken to the extreme.

I guess the state could require death certificates for miscarriages and it would depend on the cause. If they took blood samples for instance, and determined the mother had alcohol or drugs in her system. Let's face it, ultimately that's what they're after: complete control of women's bodies.

[treestar]

9. The usual burden of proof would require the state to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an abortion, which would require proof of intent to terminate a viable pregnancy. Defendants would often use miscarriage as a defense. Trials would be about whether the state had enough evidence to prove it was an abortion. In practice, that would be difficult in many cases. At most they could have circumstantial evidence, say someone saw the defendant go to someone known to provide abortions. Like with drugs, they would probably end up going after the providers (like the sellers of drugs). Also like possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of medical equipment that is used. The more I think about it, the more I think the right is being rather stupid. It's not going to work that well, especially now after 40 years of people able to provide safe abortions. It'll be mostly symbolic and not enforced much.

[roamer65]

6. Imagine the polarity between the states that are legal and illegal.

This will rival slavery from the pre-Civil War time.

Then there is the possibility of a Repuke Congress passing a national abortion ban, with some states basically nullifying the law.

[smirkymonkey]

12. This just makes me so angry I could spit nails.

It's nothing more than an attempt to control and punish women. These pro-lifers don't give a damn about "unborn life" or any other kind of life. They are filled with hatred and judgement and only want women who are unwilling to give birth to suffer.

[Demsrule86]

14. There is a precedent for this...where women have been charged with murder when using

oral abortion pill obtained by mail order or by going out of state. A Georgia woman was charged with first degree murder with the death penalty on the table after taking the abortion pill...the charges were dropped where as the prosecutor said you couldn't 'yet' use this law to prosecute women who 'illegally' obtained an abortion.