You think abortion can't be prosecuted just because the woman crosses state lines?

There are many Pro-Choicers in here that argue that women will just cross state lines and "there's no way to stop them from getting an abortion".

One of the latest stories in the news is that the US just arrested Honduran ex-President Juan Orlando Hernández for drug smuggling charges, and had him extradited to the US. This despite all his crimes having occurred in Honduras.

Question: If the US can arrest someone in Honduras for a crime that did not take place in the US, then what would be preventing a woman, who gets pregnant while living in one state, from getting punished for aborting that pregnancy in another state?

The legal principle is already there. The US already prosecutes people for crimes that were not committed on US soil. There are all sorts of examples of this.

You want two more examples?
U.S. coast guard makes suspected drug smugglers suffer for months in international waters
U.S. extending its legal jurisdiction into other countries, apparently

 

Has an American ever been prosecuted for a legal action preformed in another state that is illegal in their home state?

It’s a dangerous agenda evangelical fascists are pushing.

 

Sure ... because for years everyone who traveled to Nevada to gamble were arrested as soon as they crossed back over the border ... get real, dude.

You going to have every woman of child-bering age tested before they cross the border? Then have them forced to undergo a pelvic exam when they come back?
**** that noise, dude.

 

Yes, actually there have been a few cases.

See the Supreme Court case Cleveland v. United States.
It's a case that involved protection of children.
The state of Utah at that time didn't see it as a big deal for a group of girls to be married in a big polygamous family, but those girls were being brought there from an outside state.
One of the girls was 14 years old, but was said to allegedly have the mental capacity of a 7 year old.

So it's not okay to take an underage girl from one state and marry her in another state, if the state where she came from disagrees with that marriage. (Although that wasn't exactly what the court determined; they just said it was "immoral")

 

That was based on a specific provision called the Mann act aka the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910

Which was amended to limit its application to transport for the purpose of prostitution or other illegal sexual acts after being deemed too vague of a religious based law.

Not surprising this is your example.

Have any other ones?

 

Well, there also is the Child Sexual Abuse & Pornography Act of 1986.

There are numerous federal laws in place to protect children if they are brought across state lines.

Why is it so unimaginable that such a law might be made to apply to a fetus?

 

Federal laws can also define jurisdiction and interstate extradition obligations.

 

That simply enhances other penalties from laws already on the books

I am talking about something that is completely legal and performed in state A but illegal in the individuals home state B whereas state B files criminal penalties against said individual.

 

Here's a hypothetical. Imagine one state makes it legal to marry a 14 year old and then afterwards force her to have sex. (Let's say Taliban style laws)

Don't you think another state would have a big problem with that if girls from their state were being brought to the other state?

The federal level of government would probably intervene.

Same thing with controversial medical procedures on children, or on patients in a coma, that one state might approve but another would not be okay with. You can't just transport that minor person across state lines to do something to them.

Say euthenasia on an elderly relative with severe dementia. One state might approve of that. But you can't just start transporting all those people across state lines to euthanize them in the one state that allows it.

 

We could also talk about child custody disputes.
I am aware of one story where an American man married a Japanese woman, they had a child and lived in America, but then they divorced and she took the child back to Japan. He was unable to get the child back, because courts in Japan almost always award custody of the child to the mother.
Obviously something like this would not be allowed to happen within the US if it were just between two different states. An extradition request would be made by one state for the child, and then if the parent and state still was not cooperating, an extradition request would be made for the parent who had the child too, in defiance of the court order from the state where the child was taken from.

 

This is a legal quagmire-Jackpot of epic proportions .. extradition between states .. a nightmare and an anathama to the Rule of law and so many other things.

You would have some states grant extradition .. and others not--- and this "can't" happen .. I mean - I suppose it could - but unfathomable the legal nightmare... You would have a new class of citizen .. fugatives from the law in some states .. completely fine in others.. and the nightmare just gets worse as you delve deeper . How is Ye Old "Equal Justice under the Law" faring ? - Nightmare.

You could literally have someone excape from prison - and make to a "safe state" and be completely fine .. nothing other state can do.

 

I totally disagree. One divorced parent doesn't get to change the venue of the court decision simply by taking the child off to another state.
The decision will come from the state where the child previously lived and was taken from, if the other parent wants it.

It would be a nightmare if one state were able to legalize something very controversial, where children's rights might not be the most protected, and everyone else were allowed to bring children there to escape the child protection laws in other states.
Maybe you don't have a problem if a 40 year old man brings a 14 year old girl to a state where marriage and conjugal relations between the two is allowed? Even if only one state allows that and all of the other states do not.

How about if the age of consent in one state is 16, but 13 in another state, and girls are just brought across state lines to completely bypass that law? That hardly seems fair or reasonable. Seems like that would create a difficult and unreasonable legal situation.

The child is still legally seen as being under the jurisdiction of the state where that child came from.
The family would have to live in another state for at least some time, with no one actively seeking the child's return, before the jurisdiction shifts away to that new state.

Maybe you misunderstand my argument. That is exactly what I am arguing should NOT happen.

Maybe you are not thinking things logically through, because you just seem to be helping my argument here.

 

I’m pretty sure interstate commerce is different than interstate HC. I’m no fan of abortion but I think this is different

 

Must have missed the boat somewhere .. thought we were talking about abortion.

 

It seems you are unable to connect the dots and see the logic.

Maybe it's too "complicated"?

 

Thats hilarious .. from the fellow who constistently engages in fallacy - and refuses to be corrected .. making the same mistake .. over and over .. returning to the same vomit over and over.

 

Those crimes were crimes against the USA. They had a direct and significant negative impact on our nation.

Abortion in my state is clearly NOT a crime against your state.

 

Perhaps because a fetus is not a person (yet) and has no legal standing.

Let's face it: you're nobody in this country until you're issued a Social Security number, and you don't get one of those until you're born and breathing on your own.

I've asked this of many on this forum, with no response, but maybe you're the one who can tell me how any government, state or federal or local, knows when a woman is pregnant. Are doctors required to notify the state? If so, isn't that a violation of a woman's civil rights under the 4th Amendment?

 

Yeah, but there's this pesky issue of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment defining what states can or cannot do in accordance with the federal constitution and our rights as described therein.

 

You want logic on an entirely emotional issue? Good luck with that,

Since you don't seem to grasp the concept of how the laws stated in a federal constitution apply to individual states, allow me to clarify.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Secure in their persons means that the federal government cannot invade our private papers and places, including our medical records. In case you still don't quite grasp it, pregnancy officially qualifies as a medical condition that carries with it grave risk to the health and even the life of the woman.

Amendment 14
Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key part for the context of this thread is bolded.

 

Let's remember that states are required by the constitution to honor the decisions made by other states.

Thus couples have been able to cross state lines in order to get married when state laws prevented such marriages - loving v Virginia, same sex couples getting married, etc.

Before Obergefell, it was pretty clear that states that banned same sex marriages would still be required to recognize the marriages legally performed in states that allowed such marriages.

With these precedents, I don't see how one could form an argument that there could be a law stating that getting a legal abortion under the law of another state could be considered a criminal offense.

That would be a direct refutation of the decision of that other state, declaring the decision of that other state to be a crime.

 

Article IV
Section I

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

(Not in full, but the pertinent portion.)

 

Unless the fetus was under the protective jurisdiction of another state.

Just like you can't take a child across state lines to violate what that state considers to be the child's rights.

 

So one state will have to recognize the laws in another state and that state's laws concerning the jurisdiction over pregnant women who are fleeing to try to kill the unborn child inside them.

When that other state issues an extradition request, the other state will have to respect it.

This seems to work against your side, rather than for it.