Experts See Legal Abortion Without Roe



Questions for debate

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?

Should a state have that much power over a person?

I don't think it would be Constitutional, no. It would require state intrusion into individual privacy rights (unless they would restrict travel for every person in the state). Women in their third trimester are not supposed to travel by plane, but they bundle up and do all of the time...now these "experts" predict that women no one can tell are pregnant might not be permitted to travel state lines?

Furthermore there is nothing to indicate this would be the case. Women traveled to receive abortions before Roe, and they would if Roe were repealed. What would they do, set up a pee-test road block for women at every state line? Only permit pregnant women to cross that line if they had a doctor's permission slip that indicated they wouldn't abort? This is a scare tactic, the practical limitations to restricting travel this way are obvious and insurmountable even if you ignore the (equally obvious) privacy right intrusion aspects.

I sincerely doubt that the States would be able to restrict inter-state travel for this type of business, but maybe more over they couldn't prohibit the travel of their citizens without stepping on the Privacy Act of 1988.

The state shouldn't be able to prohibit inter-state travel for any reason, excepting those that violate federal laws, in which case the traveler would still be subject to state laws. Again, in this case, the state would never know what type of procedures one would be involved in as the Privacy Act prohibits such action.

So, basically to break it down, yes, if Roe was to be overturned (or rather reversed... as it probably should never have happened) nothing would prohibit someone travelling from Louisiana to New York for an abortion.

However, Roe being overturned would often probably decrease abortions in the states that vote to prohibit in-state abortion, in that many abortion candidates might not decide to or have the means to travel to an abortion-friendly state.

1. Of course not. This would be a violation of the full faith and credit clause, not to mention the privileges and immunities clause. Not only it is unconstitutional, it is highly unfeasible.

2. No. And no state does.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?

My understanding would be that they could, if they changed their own, and the Federal, constitution to allow such a law. That would be insurmountably difficult, esepcially at the Federal level, so for all practical purposes such a law would not be allowed to stand

Should a state have that much power over a person?
Absolutely not. Which is why I believe abortion should remain legal - those who are poosed to it are not forced to submit to it, after all.



I agree 100%. Prostitution is something that only has direct physical effects on women, which is socially scorned by most people, and which is illegal in most of the country. Just like abortion would be if this proposal were passed.

To fairly apply the law, women would have to also prove that they were not intending to enter into prostitution if they intended to travel anywhere where it was legal.

For the most part, men, and women past the menopause, would be entirely unrestricted (for both abortion and prostitution, though only 100% for the former, obviously). Would this not be against the Bill of Rights, let alone interstate commerce?


Don't discount illegal, back street abortions, which accounted for the far more abortions than such 'termination tourism' before Roe vs Wade, and which put the mother at far more risk.

The 'market will decide', after all. It's likely going to be cheaper for a Texan woman seeking abortion to go to someone's back room in their local town than it is to fly, drive or ride to NYC, staying in hotels/motels along the way, and to recover.

As with Prohibition, prostitution or the largely unsuccessful 'War on Drugs' amply illustrate, illegalising something socially undesirable puts it entirely beyond social control rather more often than it brings it under control.

Prohibition was often considered to be a 'socially unacceptable' notion, where as the United States is split on the abortion issue. Roe v Wade was an act of unparalleled judicial activism, and there is a stark legal difference that could even spawn a new thread.

The War on Drugs, however, is a relatively arguable point. However, if we didn't fight the drug war, it's impossible to tell the outcome, as we've never existed with a threat of drug infestation without actively pursusing its sources.

Abortion, however, and its acceptability was geographically centric in the United States, and if came to a popular vote it's tough to tell the outcome. Abortion in the United States splits party lines and often is based upon religious affiliation (or lack there of).

I think what you don't understand about the US is the lack of "shame" that often would exist in another culture. The existence of abortions are, in my eyes, such a product of this cultural mality. The Japanese, for instance, allow very few abortions and have a culture that often prevents such action due to its cultural indignity. Many parts of the south, prior to Roe v Wade, often relied on similar cultural norms.

The "back room" abortions that you coin as a phrase would probably be held on a far smaller scale than truly medically performed abortions. Want some interesting abortion stats?
From this website:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortions...ortionstats.htm
-Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
-88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
-60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
-47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.

That's nearly 1/2. I would love to see demographic statistics, in reference to socio-economic status and age as opposed to race.

These are all verifiable and medically administered abortions, of which many women probably would not have considered it safe or appropriate to have done illegally or in an unsafe manner.

Sure... I'm sure these abortions happened, and probably would continue on some scale, but I'm not confident as to what % would remain as if the procedure were illegal, there would be a certain component of these abortions that wouldn't proceed simply due to its lack of legality or medically acceptable nature.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?

I don't see anything that restricts states from doing that. I also don't see how it would be practically enforceable. And either way, I don't think most states are going to attempt it.

Should a state have that much power over a person?

I think that's a question that most voters in each state would be able to answer on their own, and I personally (like most Americans, I would wager) would vote against giving my state that kind of power. If you're asking me if I think the federal government should be expected to restrain the states from doing it, my answer is no, that's not necessary. I have confidence that the people and their representatives can work these things out on their own.

And like I said, the vast majority of states will not pass laws of this nature, so if worse comes to worst, people can move to a state that's more to their principles.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?
Not at all. As others have already detailed, this would be unconstitutional on face. A good current example is gambling. I can go to Vegas and gamble to my hearts content. Currently said activity would be illegal in North Carolina.

Should a state have that much power over a person?
Absolutely not. Ironically, this was one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation failed. States tried to enforce their commerce laws on other states.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?
Well, I don't know if this qualifies, but it's technically tax evasion to purchase cigarettes and tobacco products from another state whose taxes are lower than your home state. While it's not illegal to purchase these items in your home state, it is theoretically restricted by the state (e.g., Michigan) to purchase them in other states for the purposes of tax evasion.

States currently have the right to restrict cross-border economic traffic for environmental reasons. It is illegal to import and export certain plants and produce from places like California, Florida, and Hawaii. In California, you are subject to a fine if you purchase a car out of state and bring it in regardless if the required "smog" equipment is installed. I had to pay upwards of $300 in order to license a car that was purchased in Nevada even though it had the required equipment. I can't remember if this was covered in the Gray Davis car tax rollback, but this was not a Constitutional issue.

Should a state have that much power over a person?
Where the Federal government does not have jurisdiction, the state does. For the most part, States get to say what happens within their borders. When it becomes a cross-border issue, then the Feds become involved. States are not administrative districts of the Federal government, they are independent governmental entities who have agreed to to bound by Federal laws that govern relations with other states, and with the nation as a whole. It's perfectly plausible that a state would have this kind of control over its citizens.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?


Ha. I hadn't thought of that. Could a state tax abortions, thus making it more difficult to get one? And, if so, could a state then assess a tax on those folks who return to their home state after having had an abortion in another state?

I know that California does fruit and vegetable inspections at the border. A state can enforce certain restrictions for entry. Yet, I believe it would be unconstitutional for a state to prevent someone from leaving.

Should a state have that much power over a person?

You mean should a state be able to prevent someone from leaving? No, I don't believe it should. However, I can think of a couple of cases when it might be appropriate: martial law and disease control.

How would that be enforceable? By what means could personal medical information be forcibly disclosed for such a case to happen? This is far different than traversing state lines carrying fruit or driving a new vehicle purchased outside of the state.

Villages, townships, cities, counties, states, and the Federal government all tax services, and use their tax policies to encourage or discourage different services. Abortions are services, and there is no reason they couldn't be taxed. There's also no way, without amending the Constitution, that out of state services can be taxed. Add to it the incredible practical problems inherent in attempting to collect such a tax, as well as the real privacy issues already pointed out by others and no, such a taxation schema wouldn't be useable to limit out of jurisdiction pre-natal murders, er, abortions.

One thing that hasn't been noted is that if Roe were reversed, struck down, overridden or otherwise no longer "the law of the land" (btw, I thought under our Constitution only legislators made laws....), the arenas of taxation, regulation, and litigation as instruments of restricting and reducing abortion would explode, as abortion's current special Constitutional protections evaporate. Planned Parenthood, as both the "deep pockets", largest provider, and abortion champion, would be destroyed in a tsunami of personal injury suits.

This sounds as unlikely as amending the Constitution for or against abortion, or amending the Constitution to clarify the commerce clause in the case of abortion. Doing so could have an impact on non-pre-natal murder services.

States interested in outlawing pre-natal murder won't have to rely on "taxation, regulation, and litigation as instruments of restricting and reducing abortion." They can simply outlaw it, and will have no jurisdiction over states that choose to allow medical access to pre-natal murder.

Political realities may not allow them to simply outlaw abortion in some states, and while it may be legal in certain states, jurisdictions within the states may attempt to use taxation and regulation to block/discourage providers from setting up shop. As for the litigation aspect, consider the litigation attacks on the gun industry, and the tremendous power of class action suits. If a state passes a law making it illegal for a non-parent to transport a minor out of state for an abortion, and the out of state clinic performs an abortion on the minor thusly transported, they can be in a world of civil and potentially criminal hurt if something goes wrong. Accessories to kidnapping... Laws regarding minors are pretty sticky, and they only shield they would have would be to go all Sergeant Schultz. The problem with that is, in the medical world, it makes followup impossible, and that's an abrogation of the doctor's fiduciary responsibility. Throw in the abortion industry's silence and denial of the downsides of abortion (shades of tobacco, eh?) and there are undoubtedly a bevy of both activists and ambulance chasers that would be eager to hammer the industry.

BTW, I'm not saying that all, or even most, of the personal injury suits would succeed, simply that they would come hot and heavy, and the financial burden of responding would be significant, not to mention the cost of losses. Finally, consider this: if Roe is overturned, men again would have standing . . . . How much is the loss of a child worth?

Abortion would become rarer. It would it many states remain legal. Whether or not it would become safer is harder to call... (personally, I don't think there'd be much change.)

grace and peace,
BD

This is one reason why I wonder about the Right’s (or perhaps I should narrow it down to the pro-life movement’s) judicial activism mantra. If Roe is overturned abortion cases will continue making their way up to the USSC challenging the constitutionality of state laws in favor of or against legal abortion. One side will seek an interpretation of a Constitutional right to life at conception in pro-abortion states, the other side (abortion advocates and doctors) will continue challenging laws that don’t make exceptions for a woman’s/girl’s life/health in anti-abortion states.



We know how to deal with that. Get a majority in the legislature and pass a bill exempting abortion providers from class action suits.



And I’m not saying all, or even most of these restrictions won’t be passed into law but they sound like a recipe for encouraging a slow migration of women and fertility treatment facilities to liberal states over time.

Now that you brought it up I wonder whether rapists will be given standing or states will step in as custodian for 9 months.

[quote=Lesly,Dec 2 2005, 03:30 PM]
[quote=Bikerdad,Dec 1 2005, 04:55 PM] Political realities may not allow them to simply outlaw abortion in some states, and while it may be legal in certain states, jurisdictions within the states may attempt to use taxation and regulation to block/discourage providers from setting up shop. [/quote]
This is one reason why I wonder about the Right’s (or perhaps I should narrow it down to the pro-life movement’s) judicial activism mantra. If Roe is overturned abortion cases will continue making their way up to the USSC challenging the constitutionality of state laws in favor of or against legal abortion. One side will seek an interpretation of a Constitutional right to life at conception in pro-abortion states, the other side (abortion advocates and doctors) will continue challenging laws that don’t make exceptions for a woman’s/girl’s life/health in anti-abortion states. [/quote]

The grounds for any such challenges will be dependent on what basis Roe is overturned. If its tossed on state's rights, then there won't be a lot of room for challenges. Ditto for a finding that "penumbras and emanations" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Of course, a lack of basis won't stop the challenges, certainly not initially.

[quote][quote=Bikerdad,Dec 1 2005, 04:55 PM] As for the litigation aspect, consider the litigation attacks on the gun industry, and the tremendous power of class action suits. [/quote]

We know how to deal with that. Get a majority in the legislature and pass a bill exempting abortion providers from class action suits.[/quote] Far less likely to succeed, both in the legislatures and subsequently in the courts. The differences between providing a flawed product and/or misleading the public (tobacco, Ford Pinto, etc) and producing an accurate product that is misused by the end consumer is legally significant.

[quote=Bikerdad,Dec 1 2005, 04:55 PM] If a state passes a law making it illegal for a non-parent to transport a minor out of state for an abortion, and the out of state clinic performs an abortion on the minor thusly transported, they can be in a world of civil and potentially criminal hurt if something goes wrong. Accessories to kidnapping... Laws regarding minors are pretty sticky, and they only shield they would have would be to go all Sergeant Schultz. The problem with that is, in the medical world, it makes follow up impossible, and that's an abrogation of the doctor's fiduciary responsibility. Throw in the abortion industry's silence and denial of the downsides of abortion (shades of tobacco, eh?) and there are undoubtedly a bevy of both activists and ambulance chasers that would be eager to hammer the industry.

BTW, I'm not saying that all, or even most, of the personal injury suits would succeed, simply that they would come hot and heavy, and the financial burden of responding would be significant, not to mention the cost of losses. Finally, consider this: if Roe is overturned, men again would have standing . . . . How much is the loss of a child worth? [/quote]

And I’m not saying all, or even most of these restrictions won’t be passed into law but they sound like a recipe for encouraging a slow migration of women and fertility treatment facilities to liberal states over time.[/quote] "Fertility treatment facilities?" EDITED OUT PROFANITY I can't say that I've ever heard an abortion clinic referred to that way. Reproductive Health Services, yeah, but FTF? Talk about using euphemisms to obfuscate the reality. Fertility clinics, which is what pretty much everybody I know would think of when they hear "fertility treatment facility", are for initiating pregnancies, not terminating them.

As for migration of abortion clinics to liberal states, duh. As far as the local pro-lifers will be concerned, that's the point. Will women migrate? Only those whose definition of "the good life" hinges upon being able to murder their chil.., er, terminate a pregancy at will. I'll charitably grant that the proportion of women with such a twisted vision of life is quite small, so it won't amount to much. Most women will simply adapt their behaviors and those determined to get abortions will travel to do so.

[quote]Now that you brought it up I wonder whether rapists will be given standing or states will step in as custodian for 9 months.

[/quote]
Doubtful, only women rapists are permitted (actually encouraged) to benefit from the actions currently. I doubt very much that overturning Roe will have any "positive" impact for male rapists in that regard.

Could individual states make that judgment? Has anyone else read The Handmaids Tail by Marget Atwood, because that sounds like a scenario out that book. Would it be constitutional? Absolutely not, to enforce it we would be living in a police state. States and countries can't regulate what their citizens do in foreign countries so why should they be able to regulate what citizens do in other states? How would they do this anyway, send the state police to arrest her on her way, deny reentry? Would have border check points between states the way we have customs with foreign countries? It's crazy! States can't even prosecute someone who commits murder in another state; they extradite the person to the state the crime was committed in. That kind of stuff, where states extended their laws to have effects in other states is a large part of what provoked the civil war. If a state would punish a woman for having an abortion in another state could she apply for political amnesty in the other state? And what about the fact that only women can have an abortion? Would women have to register when they travel, maybe she would need a pregnancy test to leave the state? What if you're a business woman and you were pregnant, would the state have the right to refuse you passage out for business purposes? Maybe women would need to get a note from their husband like is required in the middle east? This kind of twisted scenario is the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade in the 1st place.

Planned Parenthood would not be destroyd by personal injury suits because that would be applying post-ex-facto law which is unconstitutional. Sure we could always change the constitution to allow that, to say states can do what ever they want, we could even add an amendment to say "this document does not apply to pregnant women or women who could become pregnant" or something equally insane. Again, anyone read The Handmaids Tail ? For the sake of this discussion let's assume that we do not alter the constitution, and that we have not declared martial law to make it irrelivent.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?

A state could try, but without records this becomes impossible to enforce. First we'd need compulsory health care, where a woman who finds herself pregnant would have to sign up at a clinic or hospital and get monitored throughout the pregnancy. Thus the state would have to fund universal health care.

Think I just heard an idea crash and burn.

Should a state have that much power over a person?

Not if the people don't want it to. Some might want a police state where all movement is monitored and the police poke their noses into everyone's business, but I doubt the majority wants this.

But then, strange things do happen. Keep yer eyes open.

Even if the state funded universal health care the woman would still have to go to hospital or clinic of her own free will, unless we lived in a complete police state and the police could come to your door and force you to submit to a pregnancy test.

Should a state have that much power over a person? Could the state have that much power over a person (even if we tossed the constitution out the window)?
No, no state (meaning state in the US or state as a country) should have that much power over a person. A state could try to exert that much power over a person, but unless it was a totalitarian police state they would fail; the best road to a oppose totalitarian state may be to enact a law you need a police state to enforce. No State should ever have that type of power over it's citizens; Not here in the US and not anywhere else in the world (but we don't have the right to militarily oppose such things in foreign states, although I would not condemn their militant opposition from the citizens subjected to such laws). The Taliban had trouble regulating if women had abortions outside their jurisdiction and they ran a police state. If we were to to regulate the right of pregnant women to travel, we would be living in some twisted cross between 1984 and Taliban controlled Afghanistan and we may very well be headed in that direction.
I believe that a person has a right to resist with any means possible a states attempt to exert that much power over them.

The civil litigation does not depend on Roe v. Wade directly, but rather upon removing the barriers to information that the current understanding of the law creates. Simply consider the situation in Kansas right now where protecting the right to abortion is the motivation to blocking access to records that will reveal statutory rape.

In short, tort protection, pursuit of statutory rapists, etc are all being sacrificed in order to protect the right to abortion. Overturn Roe v. Wade, let the information out and tort claims can get traction again.

1.) Legally, certainly not. It is not the state's responsibility to regulate or exercise power over a persons body to the degree of which this would require. A person is only a person when personal choices can be made, to inhibit, limit or deny a person a choice is to strip them down of their American freedoms. A state cannot hold a person under "state's arrest" in order to enforce their laws. Federal law comes first. You cannot say that a person cannot do something here but they can there so we will keep them here in order to enforce our view of federal law.

2.) Never. A person is answerable to themselves. When you cannot make a choice over your body and the state must intervene and tell you that you shall not or cannot do something even though you know your body better than the state does... that's just plain totalitarianism.

Their would be no record reveal regarding the statutory rape if the girl hadn't gone to get an abortion in the first place. Overturn Roe v. Wade and you have no records to reveal. My guess would be that some state would give legal protection to the privacy of those records and other states would not, so if you lived in a state that didn't provide legal privacy protection for doctors records or has outlawed abortions then you go to a state that does provide that.
My guess is that should Roe v. Wade be overturned on a federal level a number of state supreme courts would set similar precedents based on state constitutions.

les:
Consider the scenario in which not the demand is punished, but the supply. The doctor performing the procedure might have to ask the individual for residency information. You can't police the state line for pregnant women, but there is the possibility of policing the physicians and other abortion providers from performing abortions on women from other states. This gets around the freedom of movement restriction, and it also puts the onus on the provider instead of the client. The provider runs the risk of losing his license, and, depending on the wording of the statute, jail time.

The provider is in another state, the state that would want to make this law would have no jurisdiction over the provider so this would not work. A situation like this would be unbelievably unstable - could the Texas State Police arrest a doctor in New Hampshire? What would New Hampshire do to stop them? This kind of stuff is what got us into the first civil war. The national government could pass such a law but if they were predisposed to do so it is more likely for them to pass a national ban on abortion. That and there is always Canada, Mexico and other foreign countries where a she could go and even the national government would have no jurisdiction, some of these countries would even provide the abortion for free or close to free so the plane ticket may be cheaper than paying for the abortion in the US anyway.
Because of the concept of jurisdiction even a person who commits terrorism in another country is responsible to that country's government not the government of the people they killed. We can threaten the country into properly prosecuting such crimes by threatening military action if they do not comply, but if we go into that country and arrest the person that is an act of war (sometimes going to war over this is worthwhile like in the case of Afganistan - Bib Laden likely would have been extradited anyway). If we can't hold terrorists who kill Americans and destroy buildings in foreign countries responsible how can hold abortion providers in foreign countries responsible, even our close allies would likely refuse to comply with a request to force abortion providers to make sure the woman wasn't from certain states in the US. Such a move would be politically impossible and depending how it was enforced could be a prequel to war.
The state only has jurisdiction over the woman who is a resident of that state. They can't go after the provider because they have no jurisdiction over the provider.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?

No.

First, the Constitution gives Congress, not the states, the power to regulate interstate commerce. Among other things, abortion is usually a commercial transaction. The Supreme Court has been striking down state laws purporting to regulate commercial traffic between states since at least 1824 (Gibbons v. Ogden, where I was surprised to see Justice Marshall already confronting a phrase I would have thought more recent: "What do gentlemen mean by a 'strict construction?'" ).

Second, although the word "travel" doesn't appear in the Constitution, the Court has frequently discussed the right to travel:


The right to travel has been invoked in recent cases such as Saenz v. Roe (no relation) (1999) to strike down state laws that limited the welfare benefits that were provided to newcomers to a state. I have no doubt that a far more intrusive law like the one proposed here would be struck down by the Court, even if Bush gets to nominate five more justices.

Should a state have that much power over a person?

No. I don't think anybody here thinks a state should have this power, so I don't feel the need to defend my position. But if someone disagrees...

Sure, that'll fly. Peform life threatening surgery on minors and keep no records. Lose license. Go to jail. Meet Bubba.

Privacy of medical records is already pretty secure, "but." There are explicit exemptions in most of the "personal privacy" law regarding minor victims of crimes. The seal of the confessional and the "cone of silence" surrounding school nurse provide no protection for the pedophile. This subject is exactly the matter at issue in Kansas. Do the "privacy rights" attendant abortion override the state's interest in identifying and prosecuting perpetrators of statutory rape?


I am unclear as to what you mean regading State Supreme Courts setting "similar precedents." Could you clarify please?

The first civil war?

So, you can't imagine a time when states would have deals with one another to regulate professions or transactions based on residency?

You could argue that the crime occurs in the free state, so that is where the law should apply.

But consider that the foreign state in question could have a law that mandated the recognition of laws in other states. In Massachussetts, you can't marry someone that you wouldn't be allowed to marry in your home state. (Chapter 207: Section 11)

In West Lynn Creamery v. Healy (2005), the Supreme Court said that states can't prevent out of state wineries to ship products to state residents while in-state wineries were allowed to. This leaves the state with four options:

1. Prohibit all winery shipments.
2. Allow all winery shipments.
3. Allow all winery shipments, but require that out-of-state wineries must pay in-state sales tax.
4. Allow all winery shipments, but require that out-of-state wineries pay a fee for an in-state license to sell there. If they didn't pay the fee, they couldn't ship the product.
- Source: Tennesseewines.com

Now what happens in scenario #4 if an in-state resident travels to a third state to receive the shipment? I believe that would be an attempt by both parties to avoid state-mandated fees, and both could be punished according to the state statute.

There is plenty of precedent concerning the regulation of out-of-state residents within a state's borders. Out-of-state doctors and lawyers currently must register with the relevant regulatory agencies in the foreign state in order to practice law/medicine there. Currently, out-of-state students are treated differently from in-state students for the California university system. They are required to pay (imho) an outrageous amount more than California residents, something like 6 times more, for tuition.

It's illegal to register your vehicle in Oregon if you are not an Oregon resident -- even though it's legal for anyone to drive anywhere with any state's license plate.


I'm trying to point out that it's possible for one state to have a regulation on (something) and be able to enforce that on its own residents wherever they go. Naturally, you can't police the border, but you can go after the participants after the fact -- which is what happens with most crime cases anyway. The laws are there for deterrence. I'll grant you, that is a huge leap in legislative action. But just the fact that it is possible should give us all pause.

I would say that the only thing like this that would pass constitutional muster would be if a non-relative took a minor to another state to have an abortion. In the case of parents or custody granted individuals doing so, I fail to see how restricting them would be possible without violating the 10th amendment as things not specifically delegated to the federal and state governments, belong to the people.



No, and by no means would any state be successful in trying to keep people form crossing to obtain abortions. If they have border-checks and that kind of thing, a businessman could sue stating that interstate commerce is being messed with. You could sue that the law is illegal under the 4th amendment since if everyone is being pulled over, that probable cause/search and seizure rights are being violated. Even the biggest country-bumpkin state legislator isn't going to propose such actions which will hurt their economy, let alone cost the state millions in legal fees.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?

Yes, they could. If the state declared the unborm baby as a protected person and the mother receives a complaint in the state of her home, she would be subject to that states law upon return. there is no law to keep her from leaving the state to obtain a legal action in another state. But return would be different, if provable she had an abortion.

Should a state have that much power over a person?

According to the constitution, the 9th and 10th amdnemtn says yes. Roe v. Wade has actually had a greater fault, then in deciding abortion one way or the other. It has provided the federal government total power by the term substansive due process, thus putting the 9th and 10 amendments under the olgitory power of the USSC. If Roe is overturned, it will be because of this and if the USSC has such an jurisprudence attitude, they will also straighten out the commerce clause.

Could a state Constitutionally restrict it citizens from traveling to another state to do something legal in that state?



Would you please provide a court case or some scholarly legal opinion to substantiate this claim? Can you point me to one, just one, crime that was committed in one state and prosecuted in another? Note: I asking for state cases not those that might fall under federal jurisdiction.

In your considered opinion, could the mother be prosecuted in her home state if she flew to Europe for the abortion and then returned home?

It sounds to me as if you have no reservations about creating an authoritarian police state as long as it is administered by a semi-sovereign state and not the federal government.

No and no. Simple. The state has no control over a citizen not in its jurisdiction and cannot penalize or reward them for what they do somewhere else.

You're probably correct that some state Supremes would conjure similar penumbras and emanations, but at least some of the citizens in those same states would proceed to amend their state constitutions, as well is in some other states. In other states, the legislatures would specifically address abortion, anywhere from placing minimal regulatory conditions, addressing minor abortions, to strict restrictions allowing abortion only in the case of substantial physical risk to the mother. In short, real federalism in action.

Child support violations, as well as, much less frequently, custody violations. Heck, remember Linda Tripp? Sitting in Virginia, she taped conversations without the knowledge of the other party (legal in Virginia) and yet was subject to prosecution because such taping is illegal in Maryland. (forgive me if I reversed the states.)

http://www.dancingmonica.com/lindatripp.htm

The charges against Tripp were also dropped.



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s.../trippcase.cnn/

This sounds like a Maryland/Maryland case. Are you talking about something else?

BTW: Tripp now lives in Virginia:



http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/20/cnn25.tan.tripp/

I'm going to argue this from the premiss that abortion is murder (a premiss I strongly disagree with) but that will give me the ability to prove my point so it can be generally accepted. The idea of a state holding women responsible for there actions in other states is ridicules because the law does not allow a state the to prosecute a murder which occurred in another state. Even if one considers abortion murder this sitll does not give states the legal authority to prosecute women for abortions they have in other states.
If a California resident was brutally murdered in a hate crime that occured in Texas, California could not prosecute the offenders, even if they are also residents of California. The only exception would be if the victim was forced to accompany the offenders of the crime; in this instance California could prosecute them for kidnapping with the intent to commit murder. If a crime is initiated within a States jurisdiction they can prosecute the offense, or whatever part of it occurred in their jurisdiction.
To argue that a pregnant woman's actions can be governed based on the fetus' interests is premise which leads to all kinds of other ridiculous conclusions. Alcohol and Cigarettes are harmful to a fetus - should women be required to prove they are not pregnant before purchasing these things, Maybe women shouldn't be allowed to purchase such things at all? We know stress can be harmful for a pregnant woman, and that work and school are major causes of stress, should pregnant women be forbidden to work? What about certain types prescription drugs that some people are medically dependent on (certain types of asthma medication for example)? Should women be prosecuted for reckless endangerment if they become pregnant while they are on such medications?

This is slightly incorrect.

(emphisis mine)

Respectively: Singly in the order designated or mentioned. Adv (source)

Since "respectively" is an adverb, it cannot modify a noun; it can only an adjective or another adverb. We have to prepositional clauses that have prepositional objects (nouns), so those cannot be it. Two adjectives (the) which are articles, so those mostly likely will not be it. (Besides, they are in a prepostional phrase too.) The "not ... nor" adjective phrase modifies "poweres". So the only real choices would be that phrase or "are reserved". Since "respectively" is on the predicate side of the sentence, the item it modifies is "are reserved".

And since states are mentioned first then the people, the powers are mentioned are reserved to ths states first then the people second.

So there is a good possiblity that if Roe v. Wade is over turned that the power to legistate on abortion would be thrown to the states.

This is an interesting one.

I guess I read the questions and considered them slightly differently. To wit: Let me suppose that the governing body of State X and it's constituents wish abortion to be illegal and discouraged. They therefore make the following law: "it is illegal to leave State X for the explicit purpose of committing an act illegal in State X even if it is legal in the destination." On the one hand, I think "So what? Even if this law is found constitutional, it's unenforceable. Let the lawmaker(s) of State X blather on."

Then, however, I consider it from a different angle. What if the law is meant as intimidation? Suddenly, the implications of such a law are horrifying. It gives anyone with an personal or ideological axe to grind the ability to bring someone into a criminal proceeding at any time. Not only is abortion illegal in that state but anyone seeking an abortion must always worry that the father, a family member, whatever will "drop a dime" (for whatever reason, ideological opposition, personal vendetta, bad divorce, you name it). State prosecutors and judges have leave to aggressively target certain members of our society (and can choose to ignore other violations, nothing says those returning from Vegas MUST be prosecuted, particularly if prosecutions are politically/ideologically driven and not REALLY expected to result in a conviction). Granted the law is unenforceable, but how many women will be willing to take a long, public (and potentially publicized) trip through the criminal courts in order to realize this? How many are willing (or even able) to take on the time and expense of mounting a criminal defence for a charge that, while unlikely to result in eventual punishment, will possibly result in a trial or even a conviction (reversible on appeal though it may be)? It's the threat of time, money, publicity, etc that, in essence, precludes a woman from leaving the state to have an abortion (particularly if combined with advertising reminding folks that those who leave the state to do something illegal in the state will be prosecuted, etc).

I think this is similar to BikerDad's civil scenario. Merely, being named in a civil suit requires the MD in question to mount a defence, be deposed (on the record, with a wide range of acceptable questions, some not totally relevant to the matter at hand), and basically let a group of highly motivated partisans impact his/her life on a regular basis for a long period of time (and also, by the way, potentially take a hit on his/her malpractice premiums). In essence, while technically legal, the opponents of abortion raise the personal, professional and financial costs to a point where it's easier just to "obey" the law.

Granted, the example I've used depends on a particular scenario (a very homogeneous view of abortion within the state combined with significant parts of the legal establishment being elected rather than appointed and a willingness to support a law that may well be unconstitutional purely to prevent abortion, substantial political benefits to prosecutors who bring these charges but not ones related to other subjects, etc). On the other hand, given the emotion that surrounds this subject, the recent law in South Dakota, etc; such a scenario seems unlikely to be commonly found in a US state, but also far from impossible.

As always, just my Euro .02.

-TheCook