General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGiven that there's a Federal Law banning interstate travel for purposes of sex with minors
already on the books ... I'm guessing SCOTUS will quickly green-light the next anti-choice case that lands on their docket, which will likely be one concerning interstate travel for the purpose of abortion.
Kinda seems like it's the same legal principle involved in the two instances, but please tell me how I'm wrong?
MichMan
(12,616 posts)The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Torchlight
(4,119 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Response to USALiberal (Reply #47)
Effete Snob This message was self-deleted by its author.
oldsoftie
(13,366 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)And consider anyone under 18 to be a 'minor'.
MichMan
(12,616 posts)Are they being prosecuted under the Federal law for having consensual sex with a 17 year old, where state law permits?
Surely it happens quite frequently in border towns. How many have been prosecuted?
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)I think that fact will likely be more important than 'how often is it actually enforced' when a case hits docket of this SCOTUS.
MichMan
(12,616 posts)Since sex with one's legally recognized married spouse would not be considered illegal, this wouldn't be remotely applicable
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)So are you saying if I, a 55 yo man in AZ, take a 16 yo across state lines so our sex is legal per Nevada's age of consent law ... I'd face no legal consequences, cause the sex is legal there?
Perhaps I misread the statutes, which were very popularly shared here on DU when everyone insisting Gaetz would go down if he'd screwed a 17 year old.
My interpretation (perhaps incorrectly) was that the transportation I described WOULD be illegal under Federal Law, but maybe I bought into groupthink.
He remains un-indicted, so ... I could be wrong.
Hekate
(93,581 posts)How about them horse apples?
MichMan
(12,616 posts)Are there many newly married couples that live apart in different states and travel back and forth for sex? Should they be arrested?
Makes no sense.
cbabe
(3,953 posts)MichMan
(12,616 posts)Clearly, sex with one's legally recognized spouse doesn't fall within the scope of the Federal law being referenced
First cousins that traveled to another state to get married in the first place.
Next?
onenote
(43,947 posts)You may be thinking of Tennessee where a bill was introduced that would have had the effect of eliminating the minimum age for marriage, but that bill was amended to restore the minimum age requirement.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)The Mann Act is pretty old.
One cannot safely assume how far this jack-leg 'court' might go, but it would take brutal torture of language to claim any existing law allowed restriction on travel for purposes of securing an abortion in a state where it remains legal.
Hekate
(93,581 posts)
that can probably be arranged, Sir.
I apologize I think I just tortured an English sentence. But I am distraught.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)I trust these people no farther than I can throw them, which isn't nearly so far as it once was.
Freddie
(9,522 posts)And abortion is not (yet). I think the best comparison was brought up by another DUer - recreational pot is illegal in my state (PA) but they cant stop me from driving to Colorado and getting high there.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Age of consent is either 16 or 17 years old ... in 38 of these 50 states.
What's also different from your example is that 'getting high' is not what's illegal in your state. POSSESSION is what's illegal. You don't actually run afoul of the law (as it now stands) in your state by this travel to get high in Colorado.
So the question becomes ... what can individual states get away with in this regard? Can they make laws saying they'll prosecute you for traveling for an abortion?
What if you actually MOVE to the other state, for example, not just travel there and back?
This will be the next battle, IMHO. Along with providing abortion pills, esp. via telemedicine.
MichMan
(12,616 posts)If someone is within the age of consent, that clearly wouldn't be considered illegal, so it isn't even applicable
VMA131Marine
(4,457 posts)Essentially they would be restricting the right of pregnant women to travel freely. That seems like a step too far even for this court but who knows where their dogmatic approach will take them.
We are citizens of the United States not individual states. A ruling allowing states to restrict travel by certain citizens because of a medical condition would end that. What if a pregnant woman from another state travelled to a state that banned abortion but was overheard talking about getting one? Would the state deny her the ability to leave until the baby is born? Thats the kind of thing thats on the table if SCOTUS eliminated the right to travel. The US would be over as a country at that point.
Hekate
(93,581 posts)It was awhile before I saw that echoed in the media but yes, think on that precedent.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)A state law restricting interstate travel is not Constitutional. And that principle is in the literal text. It is not up for debate.
TomSlick
(11,591 posts)SCOTUS is now not so much a judicial body as a political one. I would not bet a whole lot of money on how such a case would be decided.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Is this the same as saying 'there can be no consequences for what you did out-of-state ... when you return'?
Generally we think 'no, you can gamble in Vegas, smoke weed in Cali, and when you get back to your anti-gambling, anti-weed state you can't be punished'.
But could this instance somehow be adjudicated more along the lines of interstate travel for the purpose of sex?
Almost surely the situation wouldn't arise where an individual pregnant person couldn't get themselves, with their own money/means, to another state and secure an abortion.
But what about going after anyone who 'aids/abets' them? What about when they get home from their travel and there's evidence they traveled for purpose of an abortion?
That's what I wonder/worry about. Perhaps most specifically, if I give money to a fund to help transport women out of their backwards state for an abortion, could I be held liable?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)"But could this instance somehow be adjudicated more along the lines of interstate travel for the purpose of sex?"
That's a federal law. No state could make that law.
Generally we think 'no, you can gamble in Vegas, smoke weed in Cali, and when you get back to your anti-gambling, anti-weed state you can't be punished'.
The Sixth Amendment.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
So, unless your state decides to start having its judicial proceedings conducted in Nevada or California, you run into a problem trying to prosecute crimes under a long-arm statute.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)I just wonder what sorts of convolutions some of these states will now attempt to pass as law, and how SCOTUS will react.
I feel like 'what we think we know' is out the fucking window right now.
I think it's CLEAR no state could do shit if you moved and got an abortion somewhere it's legal. But if you come back? I'm not as sure how all this will shake out. It's not like this SCOTUS protected us against this TX 'bounty' insanity a couple months back.
I appreciate your level-headed analysis. Just so pissed and fatalistic atm.
onenote
(43,947 posts)For example, during COVID a number of states restricted individuals from entering from other states. That's a restriction on interstate travel. But fortunately, its not the type of restriction that would impact abortion -- that would be the enactment by a state of a limitation on the right of its citizens to travel to another state. That would seem more ripe for challenge.
Tickle
(2,891 posts)it's illegal to have sex with minors and/or take them out of state
The federal Government through the courts have stated that abortion is up to the states.
Abortion is not illegal it's up to the states, if your state prohibits abortion you have two options, go to another state for the abortion and vote vote vote to change your state
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Here's a map showing the age of consent in the 50 states. It's 16 or 17 in 38 of 50 states.
If the PuQ's get back the House and Senate, what's to stop them from making it illegal, via legislation, to make it illegal to travel to another state (where it's legal), to procure an abortion? Congress did it with sex. Why not this?
And how sure can any of us be that THIS court ... would see fit to strike down a State law ... that did the same?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Why the Congress would pass such a federal law, given that it would not pass either house of Congress nor would Joe Biden sign it, is a weird assumption in your post.
If you are talking about a state law "concerning interstate travel for the purpose" of anything, then you do not quite get how the regulation of interstate commerce works.
But, no, a federal law concerning interstate commerce is not at all the "same principle" as a state law attempting to regulate interstate commerce which would inherently run into pre-emption doctrine issues with the Constitutional assignment of the power to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)However, if the PuQ's got back power in the WH and House/Senate ... with this SCOTUS makeup, what would there be to stop them from passing a federal law banning such travel?
I guess that would be ... the filibuster.
That so many seem to want to do away with.
And which the PuQ's would do away with, given this very opportunity.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)However, if the PuQ's got back power in the WH and House/Senate
So, you are talking about some time in 2025 when you say:
I'm guessing SCOTUS will quickly green-light the next anti-choice case that lands on their docket, which will likely be one concerning interstate travel for the purpose of abortion.
Because there is not going to be another party in the White House until 2025 at the earliest, and there are a couple of court terms left before that.
So, I assumed you were talking about a state law restricting interstate travel which, for reasons no one disputes, would be a non-starter.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)I do still wonder, given how corrupt this SCOTUS is, if the forced-birthers might not make some headway with that kinda argument.
2naSalit
(90,893 posts)That women are 3/5 of a person.
ForgedCrank
(2,064 posts)difference and this isn't a valid comparison.
Sex with a child is illegal, at all levels. Todays ruling does not deem abortion illegal, therefor, travelling to another state to utilize a legal service is not a crime that can be punished. Any attempts to do so will be met with defeat in the Supreme Court since there is no crime.
They can no more do this than to jail people for shopping in another state. The only exception I know of is if you travel to another state, buy a gun, and bring it back. That is illegal and that can land you in prison.
And yes, I realize some will probably try to do this, but it can never survive scrutiny in the long run. The unfortunate part is that some woman will have to be arrested for it and fight it through the courts in order to fix it.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)But you're incorrect if you think that 'sex with a child is illegal at all levels', at least if you consider a 'child' to be someone under 18 years old.
You'll note I said 'minor', but you interpreted that as 'child'. They are not synonymous. I said 'minor' on purpose here.
If an 18 year old travels from state X with age of consent of 18 to state Y with age of consent of 16 with 'purposes' having sex with a 16 year old, they break Federal Law. If they already lived in state Y, they would not (probably, there are some exceptions to some of the state-level Ages of Consent, such as the person can't be a relative, or in a position of authority over the minor, such as a teacher).
So the GENERAL precedence exists, at least in Federal Law, for making travel for certain 'untoward purposes', illegal.
The question I have is ... could a State be successful in arguing for having such a right of their own (i.e. State level) that does something similar, but wrt abortion?
Given this SCOTUS, I'm not entirely sure they'd be unsuccessful.
Edit: The argument they'd likely proffer is that, if the mother is a resident of State Z that bans abortion, so then is their fetus, and that therefore travelling to another state for an abortion is 'murdering' a resident of State Z.
Sounds crazy but I think the PuQs will try it, and I'm not sure how this SCOTUS would decide it. Are you?
ForgedCrank
(2,064 posts)prosecute actions in it considers illegal if the act is committed in another state.
They have no standing in what happens outside of their own borders regarding their local laws. That would create outright chaos.
California, for example, would be subject to the draconian laws of Idaho or Texas. It doesn't work that way, except for gun purchases and federal laws that are applicable. There are other federal laws where this applies as well, but it is all federal law, and federal law enforcement and federal courts always prosecute those instances, not the states. They can't.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)What happens when these states pass laws saying not only is abortion illegal, but it's also MURDER, and then argues that the fetuses are de-facto residents of the state in which the pregnant person ... resides, and are therefore covered by its laws against murder?
Do you really have full confidence THIS SCOTUS decides against that state in such a case?
We say "it doesn't work that way", but how sure are we that the Cons on SCOTUS believe the same thing?
I think there's no way these states could do shit if the mother MOVED to another state, but if they return, post-abortion?
I'm not as certain about that scenario.
ForgedCrank
(2,064 posts)matter for the same reasons.
They have no standing and cannot write laws applicable to actions in another state. Period.
Again, it would have to meet the criteria outlined in the federal law describing murder, and federal authorities would be the only ones able to do anything about it if that were the case.
Be it betting on a game of marbles, or actual murder, the rule remains the same.
And yes, I do have full confidence in the court on this subject. It cannot be enforced, it is very clearly outlined in law.
Now, if you see a federal law trying to achieve this, THEN we might need to worry a little. But again, The Constitution has some very pointed things to say about that, and I don't even think that could survive.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)ForgedCrank
(2,064 posts)I'm just trying my best to remain optimistic through all of this turmoil.
I have faith in the system, as long as we use it the right way. It's a long path to take but the rewards are solid in the end.
Best to you!
Zeitghost
(4,248 posts)Because the Republicans will never have 60 votes in the Senate to pass such a law to begin with.
Thanks to the filibuster some here want to get rid of...
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)The filibuster is our safeguard against such a federal law ... unless GQP goes nuclear (should they get the chance). Then it's suddenly not.
Just saying.
Zeitghost
(4,248 posts)Is essentially where we are with the filibuster. Nobody will get rid of it for fear of what the other side will do. It's not perfect, but it's been working.
I'm just shocked that so many are so short sighted that they want to get rid of it for short term gains.
NowISeetheLight
(3,987 posts)When the ends justifies the means the Republican cult will have no issue ending the filibuster.
Zeitghost
(4,248 posts)And did not take it. They know that as the party that will more often be in the minority that it will come in useful. They will not get rid of it.
LuckyCharms
(18,441 posts)I don't see how they can, due to their reasoning for ruling the way they did.
1) They gave the issue back to the states. To my layman mind, this means that they washed their hands of the issue. No federal funds for abortions, but no support to states for abortion state law enforcement either.
2) It seems to me that restricting freedom to travel, for any reason, is a can of worms, a bridge too far. I cannot see any politician or jurist wanting to get near that issue. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm kind of dim-witted, but it seems that changes to laws would have to be made by Congress, and the issue would also have to be addressed from a constitutionality perspective.
3) Unless we go full Hitler, I can't see it happening.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)fescuerescue
(4,464 posts)I really doubt that Pelosi would even allow a vote on it.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)And would (almost surely) require the PuQ's to 'go nuclear' ... but can one really rule it out after that point?
The underlying principle exists in Federal Law, where one cannot 'travel/transport for purposes of' such and such, even though it's legal in the state in which one does the said purposes.
So how sure are we really that the RePuQ's won't make that a project, and that this SCOTUS wouldn't go along with it?
ancianita
(37,672 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)My question is more along the lines of what happens when the formerly pregnant person gets back to their home state and their ex-boyfriend calls the cops and says "Lucy went to Cali for an abortion, against my wishes?!?"
Or another one: "what could happen to ME ... if I contribute to a fund that helps women travel to other states for abortions?"
Right now I'm sure the answer is 'nothing', to both.
But I'm worried about that changing.
Response to Hugh_Lebowski (Reply #51)
ancianita This message was self-deleted by its author.
ancianita
(37,672 posts)and the woman has never been with that man in her life. It's just street gossip and harassment. Any woman can sue for defamation if she knows the guy has no absolutely scientific proof that she got an abortion. Medical records are private records.
For YOU: Nothing would happen to you. You are not contributing through some data gathering org., are you. Hell, no. You are contributing directly and only to a woman to "go camping." ANY money you give directly to ANYONE is NOBODY'S damn business, is it.
Tim Snyder's First Lesson In Tyranny: Never obey in advance.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)In an anti-choice state, prosecutors and judges might just listen to a guy saying this.
IMHO, thinking that the fascists will stop with this victory is a pipe dream. I think they'll go after abortion pills and interstate travel for abortions (esp. driving someone, or contributing to it monetarily) ... next.
Not saying I know how it'll shake out ... but I'm worried about even THAT avenue for abortion will be attacked next.
ancianita
(37,672 posts)They've been relentless, but we have the numbers. If you're feeling fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), women can't depend on you.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Maybe I am, but I'm merely expressing my concern of what might happen in the not-too-distant future.
If you reject the notion, fine, but please don't imply I'm undependable in this cause. It's really not fair. Being pro-choice is the first 'political' ideal I ever held in my life, starting at around 11 years old.
I recommend you don't denigrate your natural, devoted allies in this way. Just MHO.
ancianita
(37,672 posts)When it comes to women's lives, ally is as ally does. There are forces at work that allow corruption of our branches, and arguments are of no more use in this situation. Only courage and action will change what is happening -- that takes 54 Democratic senators.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)ancianita
(37,672 posts)Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)ancianita
(37,672 posts)I'm surprised you thought we were arguing. I was trying to allay your doubts, is all.
I expect that as Democrats we will continue to fight the good fight together.
ecstatic
(34,000 posts)We're watching in real time as our country morphs into Gilead.
ancianita
(37,672 posts)when we're watching men complain in real time about not getting laid in Herland.
jcgoldie
(11,827 posts)The opinion specifically states they are taking no stance on abortion itself or when life is viable. How can they outlaw interstate travel for something that the federal government claims to have no opinion on?
MerryBlooms
(11,870 posts)States like Texas, already covered that issue in their laws against aiding a woman seeking an abortion. That covers intrastate and interstate.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)It's a scary situation in totality.