No, I meant a cite of a state law forbidding travel to another state to do something that is illegal in the home state but not in the other. For instance, cousin marriage is, or was, legal in some states but not others. Were there any laws forbidding someone to travel to a different state to enter into such a marriage?
Regards,
Shodan
That is exactly what that act is about. “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense”. It was used to prosecute people who took girls who were underage in their home state to other states with a lower age of consent, amongst other things. Not sure why you would think to bring up cousin marriage, when we are talking about abortion here, and there are better and more appropriate examples. If they are transported across state lines for something that can be charged in either state, then they can be charged under the Mann act.
And in the original case that you asked for a cite, which I provided, I was pointing out the potential for a state to enact such an explicit law. As there are no states that allow child euthanasia or FGM, it would be hard to cite a law that makes it illegal to go to those states for those purposes. I instead showed you that there is in fact, historical precedent for such a law, and that there is nothing that prevents such a law from being passed and going into effect.
Since I’ve answered your unprompted questions twice now, I have one for you. What would prevent a state from passing a law to make it specifically a criminal offense to leave that state for the purpose of procuring an abortion? (assuming that roe v wade is no longer in effect, of course).
Maybe sort of.
A similar situation would be interracial marriages before Loving. In 1874, it was illegal for interracial couples to get married in Virginia but it was legalized that year in Washington, DC. A Virginia couple, Andrew Kinney and Mahala Miller, traveled to Washington, got married, and then returned home to Virginia.
Then Virginia enacted a law in 1877 which prohibited illegal cohabitation. This law makes it illegal for an unmarried couple to live together. And, as far as Virginia was concerned, Kinney and Miller were not legally married and they were arrested.
And while this happened back in 1877, it’s not just ancient history. The law was not repealed until 2013 - and the majority in favor of repeal was only sixty-two out of a hundred.
Emphasis aded. You linked to a federal law.
k9bfriender, I think you are entirely wrong that one state could adopt a law prohibiting its residents from seeking an abortion in another state where it is legal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that U.S. citizens have the right to travel freely from state to state. I have never read any suggestion that states have the right to legislate what their citizens do when they are in another state. The Supreme Court has said that states lack that power.
Abortion was once illegal in Virginia but, in 1971, it was legal in New York and New York had no residency requirement. Thus, Virginia residents would travel to New York to obtain abortions. Virginia passed a law prohibiting anyone, anywhere, from advertising abortions in Virginia. The publisher of a newspaper in Charlottesville, VA (home of the University of Virginia) was charged with violating the advertising ban by running an ad from a New York-based organization offering to direct Virginia residents to abortion providers in New York. The publisher objected that the law violated his first amendment rights.
In finding for the publisher, the Supreme Court said:
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 at 824 (1975) (here: Google Scholar).
If they returned to their home state after getting married they could be arrested upon return for cohabitating because said marriage would not be recognized.
Look at the example I gave regarding out-of-state marriages.
Virginia didn’t make it illegal to get married in another state. But they made it illegal to live in Virginia in the condition of having been married in another state.
I think a similarly contrived law would be possible regarding Virginians traveling to another state to get an abortion.
As for the Supreme Court, it’s not 1975. The current court is being filled with Justices who would condone such laws.
State A says that a fetus is a human being and therefore abortion is illegal.
Patient goes to State B to have abortion, then comes back.
State A arrests Patient saying that her child was abandoned and/or killed in another state.
I will trust that the law you cite wasn’t repealed by the legislature until 2013 but it had already been overturned by Loving v. Virginia. It was a dead letter. There is no particular need to repeal such unenforceable laws other than out of sheer embarrassment that they are still on the books.
I can’t guess in which ways some future ideologically bent court will reinterpret our constitution. I can only say that the law today is that states can’t ban you from crossing state lines to procure an abortion. I don’t think the federal government can do so either given that the court has recognized a constitutional right to travel between states.
Which would be an example of arresting someone for doing something - cohabitation - which was illegal in their home state. What I would like is an example of a state law forbidding citizens from traveling into another state to do something that is legal in that state but illegal in the home state. I think Tired and Cranky’s cite says the opposite of what you and others are claiming.
Murder is a state crime (in general). Do you have any examples of someone being arrested in state X for a homicide committed in state Y, where the homicide did not fit the definition of murder in Y? If I Stand My Ground and kill an attacker in Florida, can New York arrest me?
Regards,
Shodan
Even without an arrest for homicide, there would still be a matter of child abandonment, which would be ongoing in State A if she returns without her “child”.
Actually the law repealed in 2013 had nothing to do with miscegenation - it was a law banning cohabitation and sexual relations between unmarried adults.
Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law was repealed earlier (can’t find a cite, ut many cites for Alabama being the last state to repeal such a law in 2000).
Doesn’t matter - State B has no jurisdiction over any alleged crime that happened entirely in State A .If I take my 5 year old from NY to NJ ,abandon her on the road and then return to NY, only NJ can prosecute me for abandonment.* The only possibility of State A getting jurisdiction would be if more than one person conspired to get the woman to State B to obtain an abortion and State A can prove that an act to further that conspiracy happened in State A and State A’s law do not require that to punish an agreement made in State A to perform an act in State B , the act must be prohibited in both State A and State B ( which I am guessing most states have, otherwise until recently NY could have prosecuted people who agreed in NY to travel to Las Vegas to place sports bets). As a practical matter , even if the laws allow such a prosecution, it’s not going to happen unless one of the conspirators confesses to someone.
Here’s a recent NBC news article that claims that Roe v. Wade is not in grave danger after all.
Another point - how would you tell? How would you prove it?
Jane Doe leaves A to visit B, has an abortion there, and then stays there. A year later she comes back to visit her sick aunt. can she be charged? Sounds suspiciously like an attempt to limit free travel or migration between states, which IIRC is not allowed by the constitution. What if she heard there was a warrant out for her arrest n A and decided therefore to remain in B? Can she be extradited? can she be arrested if she steps one foot into A?
Then what does it have to do with a discussion about whether states can punish people who leave their state to engage in conduct that is legal in some second state?
That article is unduly sanguine. If we’re going to engage in uninformed speculation when we don’t even know who the new justice is, I would say that Roe may die by a thousand cuts even if it is never explicitly overruled.
Right, you might get other than political talking point answers (or not) but even non-political speculating is not exactly ‘factual’ and it would have to be speculating.
I don’t see a basis for this though. Roe v Wade struck down a state (TX) statute banning abortion. Likewise, further decisions extending that precedent dealt with the constitutionality of state laws restricting abortion. Overturning those decisions would not automatically legislate a national ban (or any particular restrictions) on abortion.
Congress would have to pass such laws. It’s possible (as opposed to literally impossible) the right to life movement could a) gain more support in Congress after b) changing its tune of the last 40+ yrs that has said abortion should be a state issue. But that’s a relatively much bigger stretch IMO than speculating that the USSC would overturn Roe if Trump gets his second pick (I don’t think that’s a sure thing either, but a lot more realistic relatively speaking).
On states making it illegal for their citizens to do things in other states that are legal in other states, that’s never been endorsed by courts. The case of recognizing marriage (or divorces was an issue in the past) is clearly different. Take another case that left leaning posters would be more in favor of. If I have residence in FL and NJ, get a gun concealed carry permit in FL, then get arrested in NJ on a weapons charge for carrying the gun in NJ, I’m not being arrested for getting the FL gun permit. I’m being arrested for carrying a gun without a permit (that NJ recognizes) in NJ. There’s no honest analogy between cases like that and punishing somebody directly for an act they committed in another state that was legal in that other state.
The jurisdictional hook would be your mens rea which was born in State B. If you were in State B and formed an intent to commit a crime (illegal in state B, but legal in State A) by travelling to State A to commit the legal act there, but the illegal one in state B, then there is a sufficient connection with State B for it to punish you.
If State B’s law allows it - in which case State B could have prosecuted someone for making a plan with someone in that state to go to Nevada to bet on a football game until recently.
See #2
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-105-25.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.