I think that it’s more that Democrats running for federal office, especially president, do not often include it as part of their platform.
Back in 2009, the Dems did control the govt, and didn’t make much moves towards decriminalization then.
No, but they haven’t been very aggressive on the issue either. We’ve made only modest progress here in my very blue state of Maryland.
Nationally, they had an opportunity to advance the issue, briefly in the Obama administration, and didn’t pick up the ball and run with it. I kinda understand that but I want better going forward.
That was a decade ago, now even Biden supports decriminalization, legalization of medical weed, expungement of criminal records and yes- getting it off Sch 1.
Which is fine- each state gets to do what they want.
One more reason to hold on to the Filibuster… And individual states can’t make such rules, thank Ghu.
They could still get you for conspiracy to commit abortion if you planned the trip at home before going across state lines to get it.
Again, this implies the “government” knows you’re pregnant. Unless they’re going to outlaw home pregnancy test kits (fat chance), they can always be kept in the dark.
You could have volunteers hanging out at abortion clinics writing down out-of-state license plate numbers. People do that for men who visit strip clubs, and that’s not “murder”. Report the plates to the authorities in order to harass the women who get abortions. There may not be all that many convictions, but they could certainly bring someone in for questioning and otherwise harass them.
Imagine the state next to yours made it legal to kill people at designated murder clinics. You go over to New Murdershire to kill someone and anti-murder people write down your plate number and report it to the cops in your state – don’t you think the cops would at least question you about your trip and look for ways to hassle you and charge you with something? Maybe you flew to New Murdershire instead of driving – they could subpoena your travel records to try to put together a conspiracy case, since you bought the tickets in your own state.
They may not know you are pregnant, but they will/can know if you get a abortion.
Basically, what’s going to happen is that there will be an Underground Railroad for abortion that’s going to make the one during the Civil War look like a game of Chinese Firedrill. The religious right is trying to legislate toothpaste back into the tube.
Are there any instances now where you can be prosecuted for doing something legal in one state when you are a resident of another where that act is illegal? Sounds ridiculous. Do states without legalized gambling arrest their residents for gambling in Las Vegas on vacation? Or arrest under-21 college students who come back from Quebec where they were drinking legally? Or arrest people who came home after smoking pot in a state where recreational use is legal?
I don’t know of any. In fact, my state’s Penal Law specifically says
- An agreement made within this state to engage in or cause the performance of conduct in another jurisdiction is punishable herein as a conspiracy only when such conduct would constitute a crime both under the laws of this state if performed herein and under the laws of the other jurisdiction if performed therein.
So if I entered into an agreement in NY to gamble in NJ when it was illegal in NY, NY could not have prosecuted me for making an agreement to do something that was perfectly legal in NJ.
I’ve had occasion to look up conspiracy statute in a couple of other states ( I don’t remember which) and they have had something similar to the above statement. I don’t see how State A could prosecute me for going to State B and doing something that was legal in State B. Even in Loving v Virginia, what was criminalized was not just leaving the state to get married and returning to Virginia , but cohabiting as husband and wife in Virginia.
It wasn’t a crime, but I don’t think gay marriages were recognized in states where it wasn’t legalized (before it became legal everywhere), even if you got it done in a state where it was legal.
You are talking about misdemeanors.
And most of the time, felonies that cross state lines are investigated and prosecuted by the federal government.
However, I don’t see anything stopping a state from passing a law that says that if you leave a state to commit a felony in another state, that your state of residence couldn’t charge you.
If you kidnap a child, and go to another state to murder that child, the other state would be responsible for the murder part, but the resident state would be able to prosecute for the kidnapping. If a state declares fetal personhood, then making a law about taking a fetus across state borders in order to kill it could very well fall under that precedent.
Just because there has not been a need for such a law doesn’t mean that one could not be written.
This is my understanding as well. If I live in Texas and spend the summer in California where (for example) I buy myself some recreational marijuana, theoretically Texas could charge me for that crime. They could even ask California to extradite me, for all the good it would do.
This is why I don’t agree that Roe was wrongly decided under the commerce clause. Things could get pretty chaotic if states had a patchwork of different standards and laws for something as fundamental as murder or legal personhood. Red states could harass their own citizens for doing lawful business while in a blue state where the laws are different.
If we agree that free markets are an important tool for our nation to function, then we should give a broad and deferential reading to legal theories that use the commerce clause to encourage consistency on important and impactful issues.
I imagine if you lived in a state with an age of consent of 17 and took a “willing” minor to a state where it was 15 and had sex, the authorities may have something to say about it when you both got back.
They might, but IIRC our friend the Commerce Clause provides some uniform federal law in such matters. “Transporting a minor across state lines for immoral purposes.”
I don’t see why a pro-life administration and congress couldn’t institute a similar rule for abortions, then.
I don’t feel like that situation is likely. But yes, if you don’t want red states getting carried away with federal abortion regulations, you should endeavor to ensure that they never have the votes for it, and likewise appoint sympathetic justices. That’s my personal plan, as little pull as I have.
“transporting a woman across state lines for abortion purposes”
Nope. Kidnapping is always a federal crime for just this kind of cross-jurisdictional issue. Has been since the Lindbergh kidnapping.