Luckily we have a pro choice President-Elect.
Who wants to punish women who have abortions.
I suspect the most likely outcome would be nothing changes in CA and NY, and abortions are illegal in KS and UT except perhaps in some rare circumstances. I was going to say that I’m “OK” with this arrangement, but then I read all the Commerce Clause posts and concluded a ban on interstate abortions would be just as valid as the rest of the Commerce Clause bullshit the federal.gov has pulled over the years, and so i’d be ok with that too, but I don’t expect that any such law would survive the next change of party control, and probably couldn’t make it through Congress even now.
If some pro-choice Dems want to join me in amending the Commerce Clause out of existence to prevent this, I’ll happily work with them to accomplish this.
In my opinion, the Mann Act was an instance of Congressional overreach.
But that’s not the law, which is why I said, “In my opinion.”
The Hatch Act was never subject to a constitutional challenge, was it?
Noodling around the wiki articles, I got the impression that Lawrence would mean that the Hatch Act would have to be read down to exclude consensual sexual activities, but the Lawrence analysis wouldn’t have struck down transporting for prostitution?
There’s also the Lindbergh law, where Congress made it a federal offence to kidnap across a state line. And wire fraud that crosses a state line.
I guess it just seems to me that there are precedents for Congress criminalising conduct which occurs across a state line, which could provide support for an offence of crossing a state line to obtain an abortion, if abortion is no longer constitutionally protected.
Oops - getting late. Meant to say the “Mann Act” in the last post, not the “Hatch Act”.
That was one day. The next day he didn’t. Seriously, though, of all things that scare me about Trump, the idea that he will somehow cause women to be prosecuted for abortion is way down on the list. Ain’t gonna happen.
Bell bottoms are not coming back. That’s just about the only thing on my “ain’t gonna happen” list.
and Nehru jackets, of course. 
Congress would have to pass a law. Congress is not going to do that, even if Trump wants it (which I don’t believe he does). Trump is going to concentrate on enriching himself. Punishing women for abortions doesn’t put any money in his pockets.
Of all the positions Trump pretended to support, believing in God and being anti-choice are the ones I’m most certain he was off by 180 degrees. He’s an ass for saying those things, but as John Mace says, he has no reason to ever revisit the issue. One the other hand, ee will (probably) put very conservative Justices on the Court, so Roe v. Wade might be going down in the next 5 to 10 years. On the other hand, there are some libertarian-type conservatives who think the government shouldn’t have the power to require or prohibit medical treatment that a woman might seek out.
Thomas would, no doubt, overturn it if he could. Alito, maybe. Kennedy, for sure not. Roberts, I doubt would overturn it. There will need to be at least 2 and probably 3 new justices ready to overturn it. That’s possible, but it’s quite a long shot.