IF any wonder: Freedom of movement under United States law

[elleng]

is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law?

[PortTack]

1. Thx..the red states can go pound salt. A person pregnant or not is NOT a citizen of a state

[elleng]

2. Zacly!

[BidenRocks]

12. Same thought,

My version is Pound Sand!
Close enough, same thought!

[Shermann]

13. They can kick rocks even! nt

[rubbersole]

25. Well, I want to take this straight into the gutter...

The red states may go fuck themselves. Respectfully.

[Hortensis]

28. Yup. There was no danger that TRAVEL could be made illegal. Silly stuff. nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. Yabut, we now have the Subversive 6 on the Extreme Court

Robber "thy corporate will be done" Roberts, Uncle Clarence, Mockalito, Beer Bong Weenie Waver Kavanaugh, Amy Coathanger Barrett, and Awshucks Gorsuch

[PortTack]

4. Kavanaugh has said restriction of movement could not be supported

[Ray Bruns]

5. He also said Roe v Wade was settled law.

I think anything Kavanaugh says is pretty useless.

[Shermann]

15. It depends on your definition of "settled"

A settled stomach can become unsettled after just a few keg stands.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. Just-us Beer Bong Weenie Waver lies.

[FSogol]

7. So, in his opinion, restriction of movement is settled law?

[PortTack]

10. I get what you are saying. It has to do with interstate commerce, not just abortion

[Lonestarblue]

8. Red states probably can't stop women from traveling to another state for an abortion, but

they might be able to punish them or anyone who helped them. Red states would obviously need to establish a police state tracking everything women do so they know who is pregnant. If all records of positive pregnancy test results are sent to the state, it’s an easy matter to follow up a few months later to see who has a baby and who doesn’t.

I don’t think many people have thought about just how invasive red states would need to be to enforce the laws they passing.

[PortTack]

11. ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

[LiberalFighter]

17. Do they have jurisdiction over actions taken in another state?

Last I know they don't.

[paleotn]

24. "Conspiracy" to travel and commit a "crime" in another state possibly...

but not the "crime" itself committed in another state. They'll try to criminalize even planning to travel to another state for reproductive services. Evilgelicals will have their way no matter how many of us they have to burn. That's how they roll.

[calimary]

19. I suspect that's what inflamed the Kansas voters.

Or part of what did.

Lots of appeal to the knee-jerk crowd, who often jump without looking, OR thinking. They’re triggered, and BOOM! Especially when new territory is being claimed. Nobody stops to think how this might play out, several steps or more beyond just taking a vote on something.

[getagrip_already]

21. I'm a 64 y.o. white male.....

I'm going to become pregnant in every red state with tracking database. I'll wait 13 weeks and then mark myself as not pregnant. I'll wait a month and repeat.

[wnylib]

26. Why would records of positive pregnancy tests

be sent to "the state"? (Where in the state? To whomm specifically?)

For decades now, women have been able to do home pregnancy tests. No need to go to a doctor for pregnancy confirmation. So, nobody would know except people that a woman would confide in. No official state records anywhere of a pregnancy.

[Lonestarblue]

29. If women go to a crisis pregnancy center for a test, the staff can (and will) report the pregnancy

to whichever state health service is put in charge of preventing abortions. Crisis pregnancy centers are not medical facilities—they are extremist Christian organizations whose sole purpose is preventing a woman from having an abortion. The only tests they can are the pregnancy test and an ultrasound to determine how far along the pregnancy is. Since they are not a medical facility, they are not bound by HIPAA requirements for privacy.

Crisis pregnancy centers share the name, address, and contact information (along with pregnancy information) with antiabortion groups and even state legislators. They are known for calling young women to harass them to demand whether they have had an abortion.

Bit even those women who do a home pregnancy test will likely consult with a doctor or a women’s healthcare clinic soon thereafter. For those who do not want the pregnancy, they will want to know how far along they are to find out whether they can have a medication abortion.

I’m not saying that states currently have the ability to track pregnancy tests or to track pregnant women, but these are religious zealots in red states determined to force women to have babies. They cannot enforce some of the laws they’re trying to pass unless they set up snitches like the crisis pregnancy center staff or encourage vigilantes as Texas has done to report anyone suspected of having an abortion, along with anyone who helped the woman.

[wnylib]

34. Women who do not want to be pregnant

are likely to do a home test as soon as they suspect that they are pregnant, which is usually within a week or two of a missed period.

If I were in a red state, suspected that I was pregnant, and did not want to be, I would do a home test and find a place out of state for an abortion. I know that it is a hard thing to face alone and the temptation to confide in someone is strong, but women are aware now of what they are up against and the need for secrecy.

I have no doubt that the anti choice religious zealots will try to control women's lives and decisions, but women can get around that in the early weeks. It's the later weeks, past the first trimester, and especially in health emergencies, that the greatest control will be harmful.

[liberalla]

9. Thank you! I love when our legal eagles 'splain things so clearly.

[Purrfessor]

14. Never underestimate the lengths these radical forced-birthers...

will go to, especially with the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court, to seek a 100% blockage of abortion within their states.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Dinner and bowel movements are not in the Constitution

When will Republlicans start railing against them?

[Volaris]

18. Judicially recognized...so was Roe.

[hvn_nbr_2]

20. There was once an Iron Curtain that locked its people inside its borders

In the former Soviet/Russian (AKA "Reds" ) empire, their citizens could not leave from behind the Iron Curtain. If Red Coathanger states try to lock some of their citizens inside their borders or punish travel outside their borders, I think we should adopt the term "Red Coathanger Curtain."

[Warpy]

22. There is also freedom from involuntary servitude

and the master is not specified, whether church, state, or some man. If it's involuntary, it is banned.

Funny how they never bring that one up.

[duckworth969]

23. Feds can't protect freedom of movement from state to state

“However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement.”

Quote is from Wiki.

Not sure how this plays into abortion travel and DOJ statements.

[bronxiteforever]

27. But Federal statutes do. Section 1983 actions

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable is states try to take away those constitutional rights all actors are subject to 1983 actions
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

[duckworth969]

31. Ok, thanks for that info

[bronxiteforever]

33. You are welcome! But

it is a civil suit that will take years to get a resolution. Great statute but not a perfect solution unlike a constitutional right that has now been taken away.

[intheflow]

30. So I went to this wiki page and you've chosen a quote based on pre-Civil War case law.

Most of the rest of the Wikipedia page lists how the Federal Government has supported and strengthened interstate travel rights. Here are some other quotes from further down the page:

"The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler. 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler... was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9] The Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler's reasoning within a few years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.[2][3][10]"

and

"The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:

(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation)..."

and

"A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit abortion rights, ban or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and enact anti-crime or consumer protection laws. It may even undermine current court-fashioned concepts of federalism.[15][16][17][18][19]"

----

All emphasis is mine, and God knows this SCOTUS wants to bring the country back to a pre-Civil War society. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a boatload of historical Constitutional and SCOTUS support FOR free and unfettered freedom of movement.

*Edited for dumb typos.

[duckworth969]

32. Ah, ok

Appreciate your thoroughness