I keep hearing talk about states potentially prohibiting interstate travel to get abortions.

[LuckyCharms]

As a practical matter, how the hell can that even be done?

You live in PA and travel to OH to visit your sister. For discussion, I'm assuming that OH would be a state where abortion rights are not threatened. May not be the case, but anyway...

While you are there, you get an abortion.

Prohibiting travel to another state where abortion is legal, and then punishing someone for doing so, in my mind, is equivalent to someone who lives in a non-legal pot state traveling to a legal pot state, smoking pot while there, and then getting arrested when you return to your home state, for smoking pot in another state.

Monitoring interstate travel, and preventing the performance of a legal act while in the state you travelled to, is the exact same thing as putting an immovable ball and chain on the ankles of women.

[roamer65]

1. This is a can of worms best not opened by these christofascist scumbags.

[MyMission]

31. But they're christoFascist scumbags

And some will certainly enjoy opening that can of worms. My similar reaction was they're going down the rabbit hole, but then I thought it's more treacherous than that, more like a snake hole as opposed to rabbit hole, or a hornets nest rather than a slimy can of worms.

A few states tried closing borders during Covid. Not the red states. But what they wouldn't do for covid they'd do for their own purpose. I hate to consider the possibilities of how states might try to enforce their laws.

36 GOVERNOR'S WILL BE ELECTED IN NOVEMBER 2022.

We knew it was coming, yet is was a punch in the gut.
This christofascist ruling subverts the will of the majority.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/03/1102872199/gallup-poll-pro-choice-roe-v-wade-supreme-court

VOTE

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Look up The Fugitive Slave Act.

[LuckyCharms]

5. Just did. Only have time to briefly scan it to get the gist.

Is that act in effect today?

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Repealed by Congress. 1864

[LuckyCharms]

70. Got it. Thank you!

[Texaswitchy]

3. Stop cars going over the states borders..

All females of a certain age take a pregnancy test on the spot.

I remember going to California when I was a kid.

We had to stop at the border..

[LuckyCharms]

7. What was the purpose of the stops?

[Texaswitchy]

8. Fruit and vegetables.

The guards wanted to know if we had any.

This was about 1970 or so.

[LuckyCharms]

12. OK, thanks, I understand, but...

forcing women to pee on a stick to see what lines show up, while they are travelling in an automobile to another state, is something I don't see happening. Traffic would be stopped dead for hours and hours, just to cross a state border.

[Texaswitchy]

21. I do not think the Republicans would care.

Look at what happened in Texas at the border.

The trucks were backed up for miles.

[LuckyCharms]

22. Doesn't matter what they want in this case.

Something like that would impact the economy. I really can't see that happening, but I get your point.

[Texaswitchy]

25. I hope so.

Look at who we are dealing with.

I put nothing past them.

[LuckyCharms]

28. I hear you.

This ruling is going to set off a terrible chain reaction of unintended consequences for the Supreme Court.

Their goal was is to eliminate the right of women to have an abortion. That's it. They didn't consider the national shit storm that is about to ensue because of that ruling.

[Texaswitchy]

36. Pandora's box

Yeah.

I will not be surprised at nothing coming from the Republicans.

[2naSalit]

78. Those check stations are permanent.

They are still there.

[Angleae]

84. But they weren't manned last time I went through (March)

[2naSalit]

85. That's interesting.

I have never seen them not manned. I used to travel through them regularly.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. To see if you were bringing in any fruits or vegetables.

California didn't want any insect infestations.

[LuckyCharms]

13. thank you.

[Texaswitchy]

14. Yes.

Exactly.

We didn't bring any.

[Samrob]

51. Or guns!

[Retrograde]

33. CA still does - agricultural inspections

California is the major food-growing state, and being surrounded by ocean, mountains, and desert it's biologically an island. They're trying to keep insects and other pests out before they become a big problem for crops: I remember the days of the Mediterranean fruit fly invasion, when some counties resorted to aerial spraying of large inhabited areas. For similar reasons, many plant companies won't ship certain plants to customers in California

They're usually pretty reasonable: I've declared fruit coming back from Oregon a few times, and they just wanted to see it or know where I got it.

[Texaswitchy]

39. I was a little teenager at the time.

Just excited about the vacation.

Disney Land and all that.

Makes a lot of sense to check.

It didn't take long.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. It will absolutely get tested in court

And then SCOTUS will be forced to take a stand on completely erasing any shred of the states’ right to regulate abortion.

[Scrivener7]

11. And they will choose against those rights.

[Novara]

57. Yep. The next step is an outright nationwide ban.

The next time an abortion case lands in their docket they will grab it to say THEY DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH and they will create a national ban, no questions asked.

EXPAND THE COURT NOW. (I know, it doesn't have a chance.)

[Moostache]

6. Let them try...

I will willingly donate my name to a future lawsuit demanding equal protection for he right of free travel within these Unied States. I do not have to disclose where I am going, I do not need to provide a reason to any authority, I do not have to accept prying into my motives or actions by religious zealots and freaks looking to control others.

Fuck them all.

I live in the St. Louis region. Abortions will be illegal here post haste. I also am within easy drivign distance to Illinois, where abortion rights will NOT be curtailed.

I pledge to assist any woman in need of a way station or rest or support full access to my home, my kitchen and my food supplies to facilitate their travel through or out of Missouri and into a free-state where women are full citizens and granted bodily autonomy.

To any of the tight-ass morons in the Missouri religious nutbag party, go fuck yourselves.
I do not consent.
I do not obey.
I do not recognize the subjugation of women to second class status.

[modrepub]

9. Interstate Commerce

If abortion is healthcare, then it's interstate commerce. Theoretically only the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce.

If states can't regulate waste crossing their borders because it's considered interstate commerce then I can't see why a woman choosing to cross state borders to get healthcare (an abortion) isn't the same thing. But with this SC, who knows.

[woodsprite]

16. Because waste would be considered to have a higher value than a woman. nt

[Mad_Machine76]

17. They will find

some obscure 16th or 17th century precedent to allow it I'm sure.

[roamer65]

32. If they restrict abortion clinic traffic, then we can tell those shitbag states to shove their waste

[modrepub]

43. States Like NY and NJ

Ship a lot of their municipal waste out of state. In many cases more prosperous areas send their (waste) problems to less economically prosperous areas. That's the concept of Environmental Justice. In general, poorer communities are where pollutant intense economic activities are concentrated where the resources to NIMBY are less likely to occur.

It would be somewhat interesting to see where unintended pregnancies that could end in abortion are more concentrated. In economic prosperous or depressed areas.

[roamer65]

44. TX?

[Mad_Machine76]

15. Just for the record

Abortion will not be protected in Ohio and forget about Indiana as well. Michigan *may* still protect it but Republicans control the legislature there.

[LuckyCharms]

19. Thanks. I assumed that, but I just used those states as an example because

they are neighboring states, and I typed it out quickly. Didn't take the time to research the states where abortion rights are threatened.

I appreciate the info though, thank you.

[roamer65]

34. The Michigan Court of Claims blocked enforcement of the 1931 abortion ban.

We control the MSSC. 4-3.

We are also cueing up a ballot proposal to enshrine Roe into our state constitution.

[Irish_Dem]

18. They won't be able to stop travel, but they can charge a woman after the fact.

[LuckyCharms]

20. How though? The abortion was a legal act in the state in which

she had it performed.

[Irish_Dem]

40. Red states are working on a way to make this illegal for their state residents.

A way to prevent their residents from committing what they consider to be illegal acts outside their own states.

I am not an attorney so cannot provide details, but I have read the red state legislatures are working on this.

And with the current SC, I am sure it will be upheld.

[LisaL]

41. I don't think they can punish someone for something done in another state where it was

legal.

[Cosmocat]

56. Doesn't matter

what they can or can't do by law ...

They are making shit up as they go now.

[LuckyCharms]

64. Who is "they"? Who is going to fund the enforcement and prosecution of this?

[Cosmocat]

71. They don't care

They being Republicans.

The SC will just bound from on extremist clusterfuck to another, the zombie base will raveously cheer on owning the libs.

The media will babble about how Biden can't do this or that.

[LuckyCharms]

73. Feds have washed their hands of the abortion issue.

And red states can't control blue states.

[Novara]

69. One would think

But who knew that Texass could pass a vigilante law where someone can report someone else for even providing counseling regarding ending a pregnancy? And that law would STAND?

That case made me think any restriction of people's rights (other than guns) will skate through the SCOTUS like it was on a greased track.

[LuckyCharms]

47. I know what you are saying, but by my way of thinking...

What they then would be doing is putting women in cages. Enslaving them. Prohibiting the right to travel.

I don't see how anyone can be prosecuted for performing a legal act in a state where something is legal. No federal charges can be brought against a woman for traveling to another state to have an abortion. That's a consequence of the feds throwing abortion rights to the states. They can't have it both ways. They now have to leave everything up to the states. That means no federal charges will be brought for having an abortion in another state, and a "no-abortion rights" state can't enforce laws in an "abortion rights" state.

I've stated in another response, the supreme court made this decision in a complete vacuum, which I guess is standard practice when it comes to deciding the constitutionality of something.

But by doing so, they opened up a can of worms that is going to spiral out of control with unintended consequences.

[Irish_Dem]

53. The GOP is doing a lot of things which others say cannot be done.

And they are being hypocritical and having it both ways.

All they have to do is pass a law saying it is illegal for a resident of their state to travel out of state to commit a crime. And the SC will back them up.

I think the problem for many of us is that we cannot wrap our heads around what is happening, and will happen.

We are guilty of thinking logically, following the law, and doing the right thing.

We just do not understand what ruthless sociopaths are capable of.

[LuckyCharms]

58. They can't restrict travel unles they go full and complete fascist, and

"All they have to do is pass a law saying it is illegal for a resident of their state to travel out of state to commit a crime. And the SC will back them up".

Who is "they"?

The only ones who can do something like that is the feds. But they can't do that because they handed everything to the states, and one state cannot make a state law for another state. The feds are out of it. The supreme court won't hear any cases about this, it has to be dealt with state by state now.

"pass a law saying it is illegal"

If it's not illegal in the state where the act is performed, and the feds have no say now, then it's not illegal.

[2naSalit]

81. Well...

What they then would be doing is putting women in cages. Enslaving them. Prohibiting the right to travel.

That's what they were doing before we were allowed to have rights that we didn't already have.

[LuckyCharms]

82. Two thoughts on this:

1) Abortion has been legal for about 50 years? I generally think that when something as old as 50 years is established and enjoyed as a right, and then an entity snaps their fingers and takes that right away from you, then some bad stuff is going to happen. And it will cascade. Unintended Consequences. Domino effect. Punishing punches to the economy. National anger. Unrest.

2) We have advanced immensely since the 1960's. The vast majority of the country will not abide this decision.

The ruling will not stop abortions. If a woman wants an abortion, she will find a way to get one, and it has always been like this.

Only this time, we are far more advanced than pre-1960's. We have the internet now. We have mobile phones that are mini-computers. We have internet forums. Instant communication. Increased knowledge. All of this means that the women who want abortions will be more likely to find ways to get a safe abortion without necessarily having to resort to the horrors of the pre-1960's.

They will have access to women and men who will support them with logistics and funds, who they can communicate with easily. Even now, before draconian state laws are even in effect yet, people are already discussing how to reach out to help women who want abortions. Combine this better technology, instant communication, and righteous anger and motivation from millions and millions of pissed off people, both men and women, then whatever heinous laws are established will be more easily skirted and dealt with than they otherwise would have been dealt with pre-1960's.

[2naSalit]

83. I agree with you...

I just feel that this is yet another push toward the kind of civil unrest that could lead to a civil war since that's what the antagonists want and will push until they get it.

Violence is the only way to get what they want in their minds. Whether it's psychological or physical, it's violence.

[LuckyCharms]

87. I agree 100%.

In fact, I think it's likely. That is what I was referring to in my first paragraph "bad things are going to happen".

The court knows what they have done. It's all by design. They know what this is going to cause.

I think the abortion issue is going to be the flame that ignites the gasoline.

[2naSalit]

88. Sadly, yes.

[allegorical oracle]

49. There ARE still medical privacy laws in this country...until Thomas/Alito decide to trash 'em. nt

[Irish_Dem]

54. There is no privacy when you are committing a crime.

The GOP are ruthless sociopaths who will make their insanity the law of the land.

[LuckyCharms]

66. Excellent point.

They can take those laws away. Then they will open yet another can of worms that spirals out of control.

I'm not kidding. As I've said in a few of my replies, this could destroy the US.

Unintended consequences.

Domino effect.

[DonCoquixote]

23. wake up

If Kyle Rittenhouse can become a hero for killing liberals, cops will be heroes for doing things to women that make Stalin blush.

[LuckyCharms]

24. I'm wide awake. What are they going to do? keep tabs on every single woman

at every single state border for perpetuity?

[DonCoquixote]

26. yes

if they have to put dog collars to them, they WILL, because the economy the billionaires live in does not involve actual commerce..that is for the midddle class and millionaires who THINK they are not disposables.

There is NO, repeat NO limit to what the Christians and Billionaires will do, period. The only thign that will stop them if if they get bloody noses and thin wallets.

[DonCoquixote]

27. at this rate

I fully expect Walmart will be installing Slave Kennels, because you know that the Rich good ol boys in the South wants that back too.

[LuckyCharms]

35. Who will be performing the enforcement (for the rest of time, going forward)?

Exactly how will the enforcement be effectively carried out as a practical matter, every day?

How to you address that this is not the 1960's or the 1930's? We have computers on mobile phones now. We have the internet. Communication is as easy as tapping your phone screen. This means that people will be easily able to thwart any draconian efforts to cross state lines. This means that in order to effectively enforce the draconian measures, more resources will be needed. Who is paying for these resources?

The funds to pay for the human beings that would be required to enforce state draconian measures like this would have to come from state budgets. Many states are already in the red. So are they going to increase state taxes to pay for all of this? Remember, the Court threw abortion rights back to the states. There will be no federal funds available to support an effort like that. The feds will be hands off when it comes providing enforcement resources. Because they threw everything back to the states.

Are you assuming that states that are in the red will increase state taxes to provide the law enforcement necessary to support the draconian measures that will be required? Then how will that state deal with their slow and steady financial ruin as residents, over time, leave the state for another, more financially flexible state that provides abortion rights?

[DonCoquixote]

37. easy,. the same way texas did it's bounty hutner sytem

you think churches will not pack the borders will armed VOLUNTEERS who will gladly stop people.?

[LuckyCharms]

55. Who will train and coordinate the volunteers?

Or are each of these volunteers going to just do their own thing?

What you are predicting is complete and total chaos, anarchy, and wild west, anything goes law enforcement, state by state, every state. Some states will require "volunteers" to enforce, and some will require volunteers to prevent enforcement.

I guess it's possible for something to deconstruct so badly that it comes to that. But if that happens, literally everything in this country is fucked, and we are done for. The economy, the rule of law, everything would be totally fucked. New laws would have to be written constantly for each unintended consequence that pops up.

Also remember that the public is not going to go down willingly. There's going to be state resources required by each state to deal with that as well.

[BadgerKid]

30. Wouldn't equating abortion as murder make it illegal?

[LuckyCharms]

42. But the court has not done that.

They threw it back to the states.

This means that the state assemblies would have to declare abortion to be murder, and pass legislation as such.

Ok, let's say they do indeed do that.

Can you imagine the legal shit storm that would ensue in each state? Can you imagine the tie up in the courts? It wouldn't be a federal charge, because as of today, abortion has not been declared to be murder on the federal level.

Since the court threw abortion rights back to the states, that means that the feds will not be providing law enforcement to the states when it comes to murder charges as the state relates these charges to abortions. There's probably many thousands of abortions that occur in a populous state every year. They are still going to get performed in that state too, even though it has been declared to be murder. How is a small (when compared to the fed) state legal system going to handle the enforcement and prosecution of all of this?

I think the point I am trying to make is that the feds have to stay out of this now that they threw it back to the states. The states can now make any law they want concerning abortion. But also, they have to actually fund and provide that enforcement now, for an activity that is not going to decrease, no matter what the law is.

[LisaL]

38. OH is a republican controlled state.

It already moved to ban abortions, as soon as the ruling came out.
I don't know how states like OH could enforce people not going to other states. But maybe we will find out soon enough.

[Miguelito Loveless]

45. They will outlaw it,

make reporting of pregnancy mandatory (including the purchase of pregnancy tests), then surveil women who are pregnant, or are suspected of being pregnant, then subpoena your phone for menstrual data, data searches and to show where you went in Ohio.

Boom! You're in prison.

[LuckyCharms]

59. Who pays for all of this?

The feds won't.

It's up to the states.

Where are they getting the funds to do all of this?

[Miguelito Loveless]

90. I am sure they have lots of programs for the poor

they can steal from.

But, since this will now be a police matter, every police force will be pressed into service. They have plenty of time on their hands seeing as how they cannot be bothered to stop gunmen in schools.

Your pharmacy will report you bought a pregnancy test, the police will make a visit to see "how things are going". Based on how you act they may then have probable cause to get a search warrant for your phone, computers, and medical records. They will question/interrogate you, family members, boy friends/spouses/partners, friends and co-workers.

I expect everything up to and including fishing used menstrual products out of your trash to determine your "motherhood status".

[allegorical oracle]

46. Mebbe checkpoints where all females 12 to 47 must pass a pregnancy test...

[LuckyCharms]

61. So they will pull the women over and make them wait in a holding area.

I'm not a woman, but I can imagine what I would do.

I would hold it in for as many hours as I could as the holding area slowly fills to capacity and then overflows.

Then I would just piss myself, instead of pissing on a pregnancy tester.

Maybe the "enforcers" could hold the test against a woman's clothing to try to soak some urine onto the test stick!

[Texaswitchy]

79. Especially white women and girls.

More white babies.

[bluestarone]

48. This SC probably would rule AGAINST any decision that a future Democratic congress passes.

THEN it's fucking civil war!

[Vinca]

50. What's next? Pregnancy prison camps? This country has so gone to hell.

[LuckyCharms]

63. The court either does not know, or does not care about

the can of worms they opened up today.

Something like this can literally destroy the country. It would be like dominoes falling slowly, one by one.

Have a legal right for 50 years, and then take it away? Some bad shit's gonna happen.

[ck4829]

52. Sounds like those things cost money

[LuckyCharms]

62. For the traveler you mean?

[ck4829]

74. For the state. For the police.

[LuckyCharms]

75. Yes, you bet!

[mackdaddy]

65. Traffic Stop...

Chilling.

[Zeitghost]

67. I understand why some are scared

But this will not happen.

[LuckyCharms]

68. I don't think it will either.

I don't see how it can be done unless everything is just thrown out the window and we go full fascist.

[Zeitghost]

80. Exactly

You would have to throw out our entire system of government and legal system for a State to criminally charge a person for an action committed in another state where that act was legal.

If that was possible California and NY could prosecute people for shooting and/or possessing a firearm in Texas.

[Meowmee]

72. I guess you would

Need people reporting that? Maybe question people leaving a state? Women have already been charged with manslaughter for still births, miscarriages etc. A woman in Pa was jailed for giving her daughter, a minor, the ma pill. They went to an er and someone at the hospital reported her.

[LuckyCharms]

77. They can either have random snitches do it, which will cause

massive legal tie ups at the state level, or they will have to find the funds for proper enforcement.

OK, you non-abortion rights states.

You'll get your abortion ban for your state.

Now, you're going to have to pay for it.

Feds ain't gonna fund ya.

[Meowmee]

91. Yes that would make it harder maybe

[Marthe48]

76. Abortion rights are under threat in Ohio

that a**hole pos withered mf that is governor will revive a heartbeat bill.

The nightmare you describe ignores the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in the Constitution. But what the hell, the r.w.n.j on scotus just enslaved women, so they won't observe that part of our laws either. f**k them too.

[Dysfunctional]

86. I remember when people in MA went to NH to buy cigarettes.

Cars coming back from NH were stopped by state police in MA. Courts ruled that MA residents could buy anything in NH that wasn't illegal to have in MA and brought it back to MA. It seems to me a woman can have an abortion in a blue state but can't start an abortion in a blue state and finish it in a red state. Does that sentence make any sense, I didn't know exactly how to phrase it.

[LuckyCharms]

89. Yes, I think you're right.

People are free to travel.

Get an abortion in an abortion friendly state. Then it's legal.

I'm no lawyer though, so who knows.

I catch your drift here!