No, State Legislators Can't Ban Interstate Abortion Travel
The Constitution's commerce clause guarantees a domestic free trade zone. A state law that bars a resident from traveling to take advantage of another state’s economic activity would be unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, has prompted concerns that Republican-led state legislatures might try to prohibit women from traveling out of state for the procedure. Any such interstate travel ban would be constitutionally defective for at least two reasons.
First, the courts have repeatedly recognized that the Constitution protects the right to travel. During debates before ratification of the 14th Amendment, that right was specifically invoked as one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship that the amendment was designed to protect from state infringement.
Second, an anti-abortion interstate travel ban would run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause. That legal doctrine says the Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution not only allows congressional regulation of economic activity between the states but also forbids states from creating interstate economic barriers.
A primary purpose of the Commerce Clause, James Madison explained in Federalist No. 42, was to clear away the tariffs, monopolies, and other trade barriers that states had erected under the Articles of Confederation. "A very material object of this power," Madison wrote, "was the relief of the States which import and export through other states from the improper contributions levied on them."
Essentially, the Commerce Clause guarantees a domestic free trade zone. Under that principle, a state law that bars a resident from traveling to take advantage of another state's economic activity, such as the provision of abortion services, would be unconstitutional.
There is also case law dealing specifically with extraterritorial application of state abortion restrictions. In the 2007 case Planned Parenthood of Kansas v. Nixon, for example, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed a state law that created a civil cause of action against any person who helped a minor obtain an abortion without parental consent either inside the state or in another state.
"Of course, it is beyond Missouri's authority to regulate conduct that occurs wholly outside of Missouri," the court observed. The law at issue, it said, "cannot constitutionally be read to apply to such wholly out-of-state conduct. Missouri simply does not have the authority to make lawful out-of-state conduct actionable here, for its laws do not have extraterritorial effect."
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Legislators Can't Ban Interstate Abortion Travel."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Free trade zone huh? Like California banning chicken, pork and ,soon, cars it doesn’t approve of from other states?
Free trade isn’t about FORCING a State to purchase things.
Unless you were referring to CA-Citizens themselves.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article.. https://becomeamillionaire99.blogspot.com/
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of (aos-10) greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-14] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://workopportunity23.blogspot.com
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-30) I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://workopportunity23.blogspot.com
Wouldn’t a strict reading of the Commerce Clause mean that the fed.gov was given the power by the states to make trade regular and easy to the benefit of the citizens? I would think any state banning the import/export of goods or services from/to another state would run afoul of this.
That’s pretty much exactly the point of the Commerce Clause as written, “Progressive” interpretation aside.
Nice try… It does NOT say, “to make trade regular and easy to the benefit of the citizens(/people)”
It says, “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and **among** the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
As the article demonstrates.
“A very material object of this power,” Madison wrote, “was the relief of the States which import and export through other states from the improper contributions **levied** on them.”
Or in common-language to prevent Trade-Tariff Battles amongst the States.
That B.S. Power-Grab was done by FDR and gave Congress Nazi-Authority to … “minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every other element of the New Deal legislation that had come before it”
If CA passes legislation that ‘bans’ (i.e. boycotts) chicken, pork and cars from being imported from outside States specifically. (i.e. A ‘among the States’ trade barrier) then and only then would the commerce clause apply and only to the extent of outing that boycott.
Banned from import all together, or banned if the growing conditions do not meet CA growing condition rules for its own producers?
“among the States” – It’s about State-to-State trade policy.
Has nothing to do with Inner-State politics.
The Union of States government was never meant to be concerned with Inner-State politics short of the Bill of Rights and generally specifically stated in the Amendment itself. ‘nor shall any State….’
Democrats are lawless. They should be removed.
California citizens? As one myself it pains me to say this but by and large they’re chickens who vote for pork. So yeah, checks out.
If you feel so moved, you are more than free to drive to Oregon or Nevada or Arizona (or elsewhere, for that matter), buy some bacon, and bring it back.
+1
if that is so, and it is and should be, then I can operate a business selling bacon pork and eggs which are produced in facilities not complaint with California law, and bring them into California freely. California can ONLY mandate production conditions WITHIN their state, they can NOT mandate that such conditions be a requirement for things brought IN to California. THAT is within the intent of the ICC.
Further, California may NOT dictate which vehicles, made and used in other states, may or may not be brought into the State by residents, or used to bring in commercial goods from other states, or come from other states and operate on California’s roads. They do ALL of the above and more. Nor can they prohibit firearms being brought in commercially then sold into that market when they don’t comply with California’s “spayshull” requirements.
Nor can they prohibit the bringing in of gsoline powered implements (generators, chain saws, lawnmowers, air compressors, outboard engines, etc) from other states as they now are mandating.
They mandate against all these tnings, then demand Fed laws relating to use of certain ‘contrlled substances” not be enforced in their state. Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too.
I used to be not so concerned about this sort of thing, but ever since Science™ has shown that men can indeed become pregnant it has concerned me a great deal since I’ve never been through menopause.
It’s coming. Some guy is going to ask for an explanation on the actual mechanics of this from some Democratic “scientist”. I suppose I can get some pregnancy tests to put next to my COVID tests. Not sure exactly how I risk pregnancy but better be prepared I suppose
Just remember that only free tests from the government can be trusted.
PeakNearest local maximum insanity: “With testicles or of testicles?”Just because they can’t doesn’t mean they won’t.
Considering that there is ample precedent for this, most notably crossing state lines in order to avoid state laws about age of consent is considered trafficking.
What is this in response to? Has anyone been talking about banning people from crossing state lines? Anyone who is not a crazed internet gremlin shouting nonsense into the void and nowhere near any levers of actual power?
You could say that same thing before Individual Rights (Roe v Wade) got tossed into State Gov-Guns hands.
The Pro-Life mob might be “crazed internet gremlins shouting nonsense into the void” but the effects were eventually backed with Gov-Guns.
^ Here’s the crazed internet gremlin shouting nonsense into the void, right on cue.
Are you stipulating that no legislator nor pressure group is advocating for such legislation?
You have to understand the Reason Comment Board rules here.
If a left-wing group proposes something outrageous and extreme, we ought to all take it seriously as the harbinger of totalitarian misery.
If a right-wing group proposes something outrageous and extreme, we should dismiss it as a nothingburger and the ravings of idiots and why are you talking about what that right-winger said when left-wingers are proposing outrageous and extreme things that portend totalitarian doom? Huh?
Except n00b wasn’t stipulating anything, they literally asked a question.
Also, you might have a point, if nOOb was one of your right-wing gremlins….
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/red-states-eye-restrictions-on-interstate-travel-for-abortion-services
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539
https://thehill.com/regulation/3558330-battle-lines-emerge-over-out-of-state-abortion/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/01/metro/will-roe-decision-lead-interstate-travel-bans/
No state is. This an another made up fantasy of the left, to instill fear. The left uses fear to gain power.
Ya know like how the Pro-Life mob pretended the U.S. Constitution’s Individual Rights Protections were ‘federal’ legislation to instill fear and gain power?
Yet another great Reason article:
“First, the courts have repeatedly recognized that the Constitution protects the right to travel.”
I give you lockdowns based on the Communist Chinese Virus.
“That legal doctrine says the Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution not only allows congressional regulation of economic activity between the states but also forbids states from creating interstate economic barriers.”
I give you damn near every law in California, particularly those regulating food and automobiles.
“A state law that bars a resident from traveling to take advantage of another state’s economic activity would be unconstitutional.”
I give you gun control laws.
I give you asset forfeiture.
Constitution? What constitution?
Remember, remember, the eighth of November.
Let’s also not forget that the courts have not recognized a right to travel involving *vehicles*. Hence why the No Fly list and various mandatory security checkpoints are allowed.
So you can walk to your abortion appointment.
Regulars here know I’ve been making this exact point for about 20 years (ever since the Total Sexual Assault started groping granny and cutting open teddy bears), and I’ll make it again:
Whereas a right to peacefully assemble implies a right to get to the point of assembly, and given the distances involved in travel in a country this large, then from a “least restrictive test” point of view, not being able to get on a plane without presenting an internal passport (“government issued photo ID”) is a prohibition on travel from a practical standpoint.
It’s all about control, not D vs. R. They’ll have a reason you shouldn’t travel, but it doesn’t matter if it’s to get to a rally on Jan 6 in DC, or to get an abortion, it’s about control and getting off on telling other people how to live so that the controller can be happy that he’s working to create his narrow image of the perfect world.
Legislators can’t ban interstate travel. Sending illegal immigrants from TX to MV, Chicago, and NYC is less of a stunt and more of just a business decision.
No one is looking to ban abortion interstate travel. It’s a red herring made up by the left.
But wow, is it making the left crazy!
No one is looking to ban abortion interstate travel.
Sure, but plenty of people in MV, Chicago, and NYC are making an awful stink about people they don’t like crossing *some* borders.
You mean barriers to commerce like taxing the things you buy elsewhere? Or barring people from conferences in states with policies you disagree with? How about applying a Wickard analogue and the source of harm since the child would drive economic activity in the state and the has a vested interest in that.
Funny how none of that matters until you imagined a threat to your sacrament to moloch.
Free the child!!!
“Or barring people from conferences in states with policies you disagree with?”
That falls under decisions which can rightfully be made by employers. My company says my job role doesn’t entitle me to use company vehicles. That employer says their employees can’t go to a conference in State X. Same thing.
OMG… So the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause was all about preventing State-to-State trade battles? Someone needs to tell this to the Supreme Court. I haven’t heard anyone mutter it’s actual meaning since before NLRB v. Jones(1937), US v. Darby(1941), and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) … the FDR Nazi take-over of the USA.
So here’s a bit of reality.. If today’s Supreme Court doesn’t recognize the 4th Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons” and the 13th Amendment “Involuntary Servitude” or basically any right for a pregnant person to OWN themselves..
Why in the world would anyone have any belief the U.S. Constitution is going to protect them now?
The pregnant WOMAN, there can be no other pregnant humans, may OWN herself, but she doesn’t own the baby growing inside her any more that someone could claim to OWN a slave.
But you ghouls have used, and are using, the same excuse to do so – it’s not really a person.
If you really believed she OWNED herself; you’d believe she has every right to eject a growth inside herself.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
Interstate travel is interstate commerce and thus can be regulated.
In state travel affects interstate commerce and thus can be regulated.
That’s not a person!!! That’s commerce!!!
The argument from Pro-Life Whack-Jobs never cease to amaze me.
Helpful hint while debating:
Referring to your opponent as a “whack-job” is not going to strengthen your argument.
Its got nothing to do with Pro-life.
Go read the Wicard vs Filburn decision to see how the SC has claimed that in state use of a product effects interstate commerce.
Awe the famous leftard SC ruling that conquered the USA for National Socialism (syn; Nazism). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again Pro-Life is the mentality of leftards.
This is the abortion equivalent of the fugitive slave laws, that is, the Constitution protected the slave owner’s property rights across state lines to where human property was illegal.
Humorously it is a form of slavery..
The ‘unborn’ OWN the ‘living’.. There’s no other sensible way to look at it.
If one cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
They are supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction / human slavery.
…And since the ‘unborn’ are but figments of one’s own imagination the essential summary is [WE] puritan mobs packing Gov-Guns OWN every pregnant wife, daughter and mother.
Never underestimate the amount of B.S. some people will spout to enslave others.. The Pro-Life mob was created by Democrats favorite religion (catholic) and it’s well fitting to their party of slavery ideals. Funny how the right picked up this one.
Only the magical thinking of the libertine hedonist can dismiss something with physical reality which can be observed as a “figment of imagination” because it inconveniences their base desires. Incredible sophistry.
Set if free and put your “figment of imagination” into reality.
If every fetus is a person then every miscarriage is child abuse.
By that logic, every death is foul play?
Who murdered Queen Elizabeth then?
I see you’ve identified why the premise is ridiculous. Congratulations.
How is the logic faulty? The conference of “personhood” is subjective (for libertarians I think this is where the great divide occurs). But the fetus is biologically a human being.
Comparing a biological process the woman has no control over to external actions taken by, usually, a third party is specious at best.
(Incidentally, this argument is why I fall on the side of caution and think it should be allowed to a certain point: there are too many people who would then try to argue that every miscarriage needed to be investigated.)
a biological process the woman has no control over
You’re reaching too far with one. While it’s true that many factors that can end a pregnancy are truly random (aneuploidy being the biggest one, but not the only one by any means), many are not such as taking certain medications or performing certain activities. Many things are considered “risky” because while they don’t always result in maternal complications or miscarriages, they have the potential to like eating raw fish or drinking a glass of wine. So is every woman who drinks a beer and later miscarries a murderer? Is it any excuse if she doesn’t know that she’s pregnant? Do we need every woman between the age of 13 and 50 to submit a negative pregnancy test before entering a sushi restaurant?
These questions are rhetorical. I don’t think you or anyone truly believes those are good ideas, but I pose them to illustrate a point. The radical pro-life position that every decidual cast which slides out of a woman’s vagina is morally equivalent to a dead toddler has real consequences that can’t simply be hand-waved away because its proponents really just want to fight a culture war against the evil profligates who love sex and hate babies.
Regardless of technical fact that an embryo is a distinct set of human DNA from its mother, most normal people, including pregnant women, do not regard a fetus as a fully fledged person. That’s not to say they don’t care about them at all. This isn’t a binary either/or thing, but it’s not a full person. Most normal people gradually come to assign more and more personhood to a fetus as it develops. Speaking from my own experience here, when going through IVF and you lose an embryo due to failure to implant you feel frustrated, but you don’t cry. When you lose an implanted embryo after a few days, you cry a little bit, but mostly you’re frustrated. When you lose an embryo to an ectopic pregnancy, you cry a good bit, even as they stick the methotrexate in. You know in your mind it’s not a viable pregnancy and what you’re doing is for the best, but it’s still your baby that’s being killed there. It still hurts. When you go for the ultrasound at ten weeks and see the growing fetus and hear the actual heartbeat… and then the next day have a miscarriage, you cry for days even weeks, but it’s not the same as losing a fully grown baby.
Personhood is a gradual process, and our mourning increases as that personhood grows, and the extent to which impinging on a mother’s liberty is socially acceptable is directly tied to that level of perceived personhood, not to the biological fact that an embryo has a distinctive DNA sequence. Don’t believe me? Try killing an identical twin and arguing to the judge that the “person” is only half dead.
“You’re reaching too far with one. While it’s true that many factors that can end a pregnancy are truly random (aneuploidy being the biggest one, but not the only one by any means), many are not such as taking certain medications or performing certain activities.”
I see your point.
“I see you’ve identified why the premise is ridiculous. Congratulations.”
Your premise IS ridiculous. You do not seem to realize that.
Hey, that wasn’t a murder, that was putting down a lich! Do you have any idea how long it took me to find that bitch’s phylactery?!
Abuse requires intent.
Only those women, who want to have unprotected sex, and be able to trash any unwanted results, or men, who want to be able to fuck anything they can, and be able to similarly avoid any consequences, make such a ridiculous claim, that a tragic and unintended event, is in any way comparable to an intentional murder.
If a “choice” is to be made, it should be before putting oneself into a position of creating a new life. Not after having done so.
summary, “Gov-GUNS should hang the dirty whores!”
[WE] mobs RULE! /s
The logic of unresticted abortion assumes the developing human being is nothing more than property which can be destroyed at will.
Who’s development? Yours?
Because if it’s but it’s own it doesn’t need you or anyone else.
Set it free!
What did you get into over the weekend? Your wits are addled today.
Not really. My wits just aren’t partisanship controlled.
LIMITED Government still means LIMITED government when it comes to people’s PERSONAL life pregnancies. I’m still pushing for Individualism over [WE] mob (democratic tyranny) dictates.
I’ll even be silent about legislation that forbids doctors from dismantling the ‘development’ during ejection but there’s nothing LIMITED government about it ‘banning’ PERSONAL medical procedures because other people are on a religious Power-Trip using excuses they can’t even validate outside of fairy tail land.
People can disagree about abortion without it being related to partisanship, you know that right?
Perhaps the solution you seek is Individual Liberty.
Instead of [WE] mob Rules! with Gov-GUNS..
The unborn individual has their own, unique DNA. Your argument is invalid.
Well good… Maybe they can ‘have their own’ body too…..
Without being a PART of someone else’s…
If one cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
They are supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction
Ironically; the very dictionary definition of individual.
[noun] a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
But hey; don’t let word definitions get in the way of a holy crusade.
If there is an almost universal way, in which government should not be limited, is in its ability to protect LIFE.
You inhuman bastards want killing of the unborn – “setting them free” – to be as blameless as masters killing their slaves.
Another thing to make your party something that needs to be kept from the reins of power as much as possible.
Leftards = It’s the Governments job to protect people.
USA Patriots = It’s the Governments job to ensure Liberty and Justice.
There you have it; How Pro-Life is by every stance actually a leftard movement.
No one is looking to ban abortion interstate travel. Its a none issue made up by the left to scare people.
Baby-killing as commerce? Democrats defended owning other people as “commerce” too — the more things change…
Set the ?baby? FREE!!!!!!!!!
Set the toddler free!!!!!
Yep… Then no-one will be able to argue about their ‘imaginations’ of 1 actually being 2. 1+0 = 1 and 1+1=2. And they won’t have an excuse to use Gov-GUNS insisting their 1+0=2 has to be correct.
No, State Legislators Can’t Ban Interstate Abortion Travel
The feds could.
Every hypocritical Pro-Lifers utopia.
National Puritan dictation!! /s
She’s not a pregnant women – She’s a ‘witch’!!!
“Hang the Witch! Hang the Witch!”.
She’s not an Individual with rights to own herself.
It’s funny how concerned Pro-Life pretends to be about ‘killing’ anything but are too stupid/ignorant to pass legislation making baby-murder by doctors illegal in their State (by procedure) making fetal ejection a perfect option.. (free the ?baby?) Course actually addressing their concern with common-sense might make their unicorn fairy tales look like the pure B.S. it really is.
Do you offer any dressing with your word salad? If so I’d like Italian. Please and thank you.
No one is looking to ban interstate travel. Its an entirely made up red herring, to instill fear and hate. And you fell for it.
The “red-herring” was pretending it was about State over Federal instead of Individual Liberty versus Gov-GUNS…
And don’t kid yourself.. Pro-Lifers now want Federal Gov-GUNS.
https://reason.com/2022/09/15/marco-rubio-who-last-month-said-abortion-regulation-should-be-left-to-the-states-endorses-a-federal-ban/
To pretend that writing wasn’t on the wall all along is about as ridiculous as pretending government tyranny is all-well and good because people can escape if they have to. Hey man; Don’t like our [WE] mobs RULES move to a deserted island.. smirk, smirk…
No, he wanted a limit on when a woman could treat her baby like a piece of trash, you lying sack of shit.
That’s only a “ban” in the weak inhuman minds of unlimited abortion ghouls.
Set the ?baby? FREE!!!!
> Essentially, the Commerce Clause guarantees a domestic free trade zone.
This is the big secret to America’s properity. Even back when we were a podunk republic with a podunk navy, we were still an economic powerhouse. Because we’re a big giant free trade zone. No tariffs between Oregon and Idaho. Etc.
Europe finally woke up with the Common Market (before they fucked it up by turning it into the EU and suffocating it with endless regulations). That wasn’t a real free trade zone, but more of a relaxation of all the rules. But any movement towards economic freedom is good for an economy.
The problem with NAFTA was that it was not free trade but more managed trade. A true free trade agreement would be one page in total, which would include space for the signatures.
Why is free trade the road to prosperity inside the country, but when the same principle is applied to nations it becomes the road to poverty?
(hint, free trade is always beneficial to the consumer, even if it’s unilateral)
International free trade is good too. Just because a bunch of neanderthals don’t like competition does not make it otherwise.
Trade is good. Trade creates wealth. Protectionism creates poverty. If protectionism worked why aren’t we imposing tariffs between each county? Of the naysayers were correct than that should be prosperous. But it’s silly just thinking about it.
Trade. Is. Good.
Not to Lincoln this thread, but I’m not sure that unilateral free trade between the North and the South would have benefited the slaves, or the people in the North who would have tried to compete with slave labor in the South.
(This gives me an idea for a steampunk dystopian novel though.)
I was thinking similar, public accommodations, or laws against free protectionism, is the double-negative of free trade.
Why not? It would soon become obvious that motivated employees are much more productive than human chattel, and slavery would have gone away simply because it’s not economical in an industrial age.
The typical response to sneeringly cry “China! China! Whatabout China!?”
To which I say “You win. People left subsistence farming to a crappy life in the city because they’re slaves. Judge people by your life and lifestyle, not theirs.”
I guess it would probably depend on the other actors willingness to maintain that slave system.
Free trade would defeat slavery. And by ‘free trade’ we mean every private business owner would be subject to litigation on everything from who can use the bathroom to which cake toppers cannot be refused.
If the parties are playing from generally the same rule book, then yes, prosperity grows in free trade environments.
But if one party (China for example) is using quasi-slave labor (Uhigurs for example), then the moral stench might cause the other trading partners to reconsider unlimited free trade.
How about just taxing it? If my state can force amazon to pay it taxes why not an abortion provider?
“Texas hereby passes a $100,000 excise tax on all abortion services rendered in or out of state.”
Seems legit.
Gov-GUN theft will save us…
Why if I didn’t know the subject I’d put place bets on you all being leftards.
When you challenge the tax increase in court for being unconstitutional and win – they will institute a 100k “fee” and you will have to challenge it in court all over again.
Sorry if it wasn’t obvious, but I’m being totally unserious.
“Money isn’t abortion!”
MassHoles and NH Liquor Stores thank you.
The Constitution’s commerce clause guarantees a domestic free trade zone.
If only Democrats saw it that way.
Them: “the constitution will protect you”
Me: “Have you read ANY american history?”
Unfortunately for the writer who goes off half cocked on a non issue; no one is trying to ban travel; they are outlawing anyone inside the State of MO facilitating or becomes an an accessory to the illegal act of abortion. If outside doctors and businesses establish a legal nexus to the State of MO and solicit abortions from inside the State of MO there is ample legal precedent that will make them subject to the jurisdiction of MO. Product liability has had this for decades. ‘….There’s no clear precedent saying that states can’t try to regulate out-of-state conduct if it has some effect in-state or if it [involves] one of their citizens,” said David Cohen, a professor of law….’
Summary, “It’s not about Individual Liberty or Justice …… It’s all about State’s OWNING people…” /s
If a Pro-Lifers ever wondered how leftards can make such retarded arguments all they need to do is say ‘abortion’ and watch their own repeat every single leftard-retarded argument themselves.
But, but; The science…
But, but; Save my unicorn…
But, but; [WE] need MORE Gov-GUNS…
It’s about State’s having a legal right to protect their citizens (like that baby you want to kill) from criminal actions
Ever heard of civil rights laws? Hint: killing a baby violates his or her civil rights
Protect their ?baby?-citizens from ‘mothers’ forcing them to be locked up in cages (uterus) so small they’d suffocate-to-death in if they were *actually* a baby?
Gosh; Maybe they better make fetal ejection mandatory… Civil rights ya know.. /s
UR shit smells from miles away.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction..
^THAT is reality 101.
Straw Man?
Trafficking in unborn persons.
Republicans are going to fuck up the momentum that has been earned by going nuclear on abortion. Wait for it.
I’ve been watching it for months. It’s appallingly retarded.
They aren’t called the stupid party for nothing.
So, the guy who repeatedly lied about abortion being legal at the founding (it wasn’t. It was always illegal, as Alito clearly showed), is now giving us new BS
It is legal to take a 16 year old from Florida to Georgia.
But if you take that 16 year old to GA and then screw her in GA, where the age of consent is 16 (as opposed to FL where it’s 18), that’s a crime, and you most definitely can be punished for it.
If you take a 20 week old baby / fetus from a State where she has a legally protected right to life, and take her to a different State, that’s legal.
But if you kill her in that different State, that can be and should be a crime.
Because States must give full faith and credit to other State’s laws.
Apparently you missed that part of the US Constitution
Just like you missed Alito pointing out that Blackstone stated explicitly that abortion was always illegal
Yeah; “full faith and credit” means all State’s make National Law…/s
What’ll be next from you? Removing cancer is murder? Every sperm is sacred?
Why is murder illegal?
Murdering someone’s imaginary unicorn isn’t.
OMG… I just murdered my fingernail… Quick; go call a cop freak-job.
Menstruation is murder. Life begins at ovulation.
That only covers COMMERCE. Abortion isn’t COMMERCE, it is MURDER.
So yes, states CAN ban it!
Don’t murder my unicorn!!! /s
That’s right; It’s only murder in your fantasy-land of an imagination.
Or better said; *You* have religious ‘faith’ it is but ZERO REALITY.
The USA wasn’t structured to PUNISH other people because of *Your* religious ‘faith’. Try a mid-eastern nation.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
^THAT is reality.
Yet this is the very root of the warmongering of Biden, the hatred between Left and Right — that people do NOT subscribe anymore to any common code whatsoever and yet want full citizenship privileges immunities, and civil rights. I would put that law on the books just to show that what you want to do is not the rule of socieity. Putin has the same attitude to ‘norms’ as someone living in a state that prohibits abortion does in flaunting those laws.