# Impact of a potential Roe v. Wade reversal **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 28, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961 "2018-06-28T23:54:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/61 "2018-07-06T17:45:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Or those enforcing the law could decide to prioritize the pursuit of those seeking abortion out-of-state over those who like to place bets out-of-state, to appease the louder Body Politic. Of course they can prioritize any way they like - if the law allows it. See the law I quoted- NY cannot prosecute someone for conspiracy who makes an agreement in NY to engage in conduct in Nevada that is legal in Nevada even if that same conduct would be illegal in NY. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/62 "2018-07-06T19:15:47Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Of course they can prioritize any way they like - if the law allows it. See the law I quoted- NY cannot prosecute someone for conspiracy who makes an agreement in NY to engage in conduct in Nevada that is legal in Nevada even if that same conduct would be illegal in NY. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk But that is only because NY has chosen not to prosecute conspiracies when the act is legal in the other jurisdiction. There is nothing that requires NY to limit itself in this way, which was the point of the question. Alabama, for example, might pass a law saying that it is illegal to leave the state for the purposes of procuring an abortion. The Feds may pass a law saying it is illegal to cross a state line for the purpose of procuring an abortion. Frankly, I am against all types of extraterritorial application of laws, but they are permissible. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2018, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/63 "2018-07-06T19:46:37Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But that is only because NY has chosen not to prosecute conspiracies when the act is legal in the other jurisdiction. There is nothing that requires NY to limit itself in this way, which was the point of the question. Alabama, for example, might pass a law saying that it is illegal to leave the state for the purposes of procuring an abortion. The Feds may pass a law saying it is illegal to cross a state line for the purpose of procuring an abortion. > > Frankly, I am against all types of extraterritorial application of laws, but they are permissible. Please provide me a citation for the proposition that New York can prosecute people for conspiring to commit an act in another state that is legal in that other state. Let me ask it another way. When I was a kid, I lived in a state where casino gambling was illegal. While in that state, my parents regularly planned trips to Las Vegas and Atlantic City to gamble at casinos. Could my state have passed a law outlawing their behavior and thrown them in jail for it? Here is what the Supreme Court said about extra-territorial application of state laws in State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003): > [@](#): > > A State cannot punish a defendant for conduct that may have been lawful where it occurred. [BMW of North America v.] Gore, supra, at 572; Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809, 824 (1975) (“A State does not acquire power or supervision over the internal affairs of another State merely because the welfare and health of its own citizens may be affected when they travel to that State”); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U. S. 149, 161 (1914) (“\*t would be impossible to permit the statutes of Missouri to operate beyond the jurisdiction of that State … without throwing down the constitutional barriers by which all the States are restricted within the orbits of their lawful authority and upon the preservation of which the Government under the Constitution depends. This is so obviously the necessary result of the Constitution that it has rarely been called in question and hence authorities directly dealing with it do not abound”); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 669 (1892) (“Laws have no force of themselves beyond the jurisdiction of the State which enacts them, and can have extra-territorial effect only by the comity of other States”). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2018, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/64 "2018-07-06T20:00:29Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > Please provide me a citation for the proposition that New York can prosecute people for conspiring to commit an act in another state that is legal in that other state. > > Let me ask it another way. When I was a kid, I lived in a state where casino gambling was illegal. While in that state, my parents regularly planned trips to Las Vegas and Atlantic City to gamble at casinos. Could my state have passed a law outlawing their behavior and thrown them in jail for it? > > Here is what the Supreme Court said about extra-territorial application of state laws in State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003): The state would not be punishing your parents for gambling in Las Vegas. It would be punishing them for the agreement, done entirely within your home state, to leave the state for the purposes of gambling. AFAIK, no state ever passed such a law because the evil which it dealt with (the gambling) occurred out of state and did not harm those people in state. Just Socrates this for a minute. If New York cannot extend its laws to another state, then why does it matter if the activity is illegal in the other state? Shouldn’t it be exclusively the province of the other state to prosecute? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/65 "2018-07-06T20:15:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The state would not be punishing your parents for gambling in Las Vegas. It would be punishing them for the agreement, done entirely within your home state, to leave the state for the purposes of gambling. > > AFAIK, no state ever passed such a law because the evil which it dealt with (the gambling) occurred out of state and did not harm those people in state. > > Just Socrates this for a minute. If New York cannot extend its laws to another state, then why does it matter if the activity is illegal in the other state? Shouldn’t it be exclusively the province of the other state to prosecute? NY can only prosecute if the agreement (part of the conspiracy) happened in NY and the act is illegal in both NY and the state where it occurred. But lets get off NY- according to this Supreme Court decision [SAENZ V. ROE](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZS.html), there is a Constitutional right to travel between states. Now, I’m sure there are a number of compelling reasons why a state might be permitted to violate this right - but do you have a cite for the idea that a State A could prohibit me from going to State B to do something that is legal in State B but illegal in State A? ---
**Author:** ![Sdowiat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Sdowiat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sdowiat)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2020, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/66 "2020-04-17T22:05:53Z")
> [@Mallard](#): > > I would suspect the biggest implication would be the increased numbers of abused and neglected children. Just about as many of course are just as convinced of the opposite and contend that there would be LESS as the object of this discussion IS child abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/67 "2020-04-18T03:09:46Z")
> [@Sdowiat](#): > > Just about as many of course are just as convinced of the opposite and contend that there would be LESS as the object of this discussion IS child abuse. Since we’re in GQ, I’ll confine myself to asking for a cite that abortion is legally child abuse in any jurisdiction in America. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/68 "2020-04-18T03:48:42Z")
There are enough strict constructionists on the Court that my bet is they wont vacate or overturn it. They will simply allow states to nibble it to death. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/69 "2020-04-18T05:05:25Z")
IIRC the feds can prosecute growing Marijuana in Colorado because they have (as with many cases) twisted the interstate commerce clause completely out of shape. They argue that any pot grown in a state has a good chance of showing up in the interstate illegal traffic so therefore they of necessity must be allowed to ban growing pot, or cooking meth, or any other number of activities which by proper reading of the constitution are the exclusive jurisdiction of a state. IIRC the same principle was applied to regulate “commerce” in order to for example, declare which drugs are illegal or restricted. It kind of makes sense, the last thing you want is 50-plus areas with their own set of not-coordinated laws when it comes to consumer safety, for example. Not sure what constitutional principle other than “moral outrage” logic allows them to ban the interstate transport of underage girls, but obviously it’s one that has not been pushed back on. (BTW, last I heard Canada does not allow for-profit abortion clinics. There’s this thing called the Canada Health Act, which prevents us from getting an abomination like the private health services available in Britain that have nibbled away at the NHS. The CHA states a doctor cannot be a recipient of medicare funds if they charge money to provide a service that is available in a hospital. Abortions are available in hospitals, without significant impediment, paid for by health care. Therefore, anyone setting up a private abortion clinic would have to make all their money from those not covered by health care - all their income, not part of it. For now, not enough American customers. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/70 "2020-04-18T10:36:35Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > (BTW, last I heard Canada does not allow for-profit abortion clinics. There’s this thing called the Canada Health Act, which prevents us from getting an abomination like the private health services available in Britain that have nibbled away at the NHS. The CHA states a doctor cannot be a recipient of medicare funds if they charge money to provide a service that is available in a hospital. Abortions are available in hospitals, without significant impediment, paid for by health care. Therefore, anyone setting up a private abortion clinic would have to make all their money from those not covered by health care - all their income, not part of it. For now, not enough American customers. Can an American show up at a Canadian public hospital, ask for an abortion, and expect to receive one? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/71 "2020-04-18T12:44:01Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > Can an American show up at a Canadian public hospital, ask for an abortion, and expect to receive one? I don’t see why not, but they’d pay full fare since they are not covered. I don’t know what the bill would be, but certainly even without the $100 aspirin BS the price of a hospital stay would be more than a US clinic. OTOH, presumably they could visit a Canadian doctor’s office and get a prescription for a pill (within the appropriate time window) and buy it in Canada with no hassles. Probably need to take it before returning to the US, depending on border restrictions on importing pharmaceuticals. And yes, I would imagine a doctor should be able to run a clinic treating exclusively American patients without putting themselves outside of medicare. The rule is simply that a doctor cannot perform the same services and charge a fee greater than the fee schedule for anything that would otherwise be covered by the system. If he did so, he would not be able to do any billing in the system for anything and the patients also do not get reimbursed for anything the doctor did. As a result, nobody except the super-rich can afford that sort of service, and for now they can simply fly to the US for the same or better treatment. No companies offer insurance to cover that, since the existing system is more than adequate. The only private doctors AFAIK tend to be for exclusive boutiques or organizations like pro sports teams. So we don’t have the UK’s NHS dilemma - “I can do this operation for you in 6 months in the NHS hospital, or you can pay me a thousand pounds extra and we’ll do it next week in the private hospital.” You can see how a system like that drives really poor service in the “free” system. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/72 "2020-04-18T12:54:19Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Since we’re in GQ, I’ll confine myself to asking for a cite that abortion is legally child abuse in any jurisdiction in America. Bravo. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/73 "2020-04-18T13:44:51Z")
Presumably, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, there would be many jurisdictions in America where it would be legally regarded as child abuse or some other crime. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/74 "2020-04-20T01:15:40Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > I don’t see why not, but they’d pay full fare since they are not covered. I don’t know what the bill would be, but certainly even without the $100 aspirin BS the price of a hospital stay would be more than a US clinic. OTOH, presumably they could visit a Canadian doctor’s office and get a prescription for a pill (within the appropriate time window) and buy it in Canada with no hassles. Probably need to take it before returning to the US, depending on border restrictions on importing pharmaceuticals. > > And yes, I would imagine a doctor should be able to run a clinic treating exclusively American patients without putting themselves outside of medicare. The rule is simply that a doctor cannot perform the same services and charge a fee greater than the fee schedule for anything that would otherwise be covered by the system. If he did so, he would not be able to do any billing in the system for anything and the patients also do not get reimbursed for anything the doctor did. > > As a result, nobody except the super-rich can afford that sort of service, and for now they can simply fly to the US for the same or better treatment. No companies offer insurance to cover that, since the existing system is more than adequate. The only private doctors AFAIK tend to be for exclusive boutiques or organizations like pro sports teams. > > So we don’t have the UK’s NHS dilemma - “I can do this operation for you in 6 months in the NHS hospital, or you can pay me a thousand pounds extra and we’ll do it next week in the private hospital.” You can see how a system like that drives really poor service in the “free” system. I am pretty sure a doctor in the (as nearly all are) can treat a foreign for fee. There is one other exception, although not relevant in this case. If a private doctor comes on an accident and administers emergency services, medicare will pay the normal fee for whatever service he renders. But they ban a partially public, partially private practice seeing how badly that worked in Britain. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/75 "2020-04-20T13:29:10Z")
You can go to Las Vegas from states where gambling is illegal. Don’t expect to be arrested when you return. ---
**Author:** ![Sdowiat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Sdowiat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sdowiat)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/76 "2020-04-20T14:45:16Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Since we’re in GQ, I’ll confine myself to asking for a cite that abortion is legally child abuse in any jurisdiction in America. Slavery was PERFECTLY LEGAL too… Does that make IT less egregious? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/77 "2020-04-20T15:14:15Z")
> [@Sdowiat](#): > > Slavery was PERFECTLY LEGAL too… Does that make IT less egregious? I do find it interesting that you cannot seem to get yourself to use the actual word abortion. Abolitionists used the word slavery at every possible opportunity. They were fascinating people. You might want to study them. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/78 "2020-04-20T18:43:57Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Presumably, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, there would be many jurisdictions in America where it would be legally regarded as child abuse or some other crime. I expect Murder. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2020, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/79 "2020-04-20T23:12:51Z")
[Moderating] And, may I remind everyone, this is General Questions. This is not the place to debate the merits of abortion: That would be Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2020, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/80 "2020-04-21T02:58:12Z")
I doubt abortion will be banned in the US. One major party would lose a dominant campaign plank and anti-choice faithful would see little reason to continue supporting that party. The coathanger-maker lobby will not step into the breech. A ban is a hopeless goal, a pot of gold at rainbow’s end that must always elude attainment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961.md?page=5)