Mass. Governor's Non-Cooperation Order as to Enforcement of Other States' Abortion Laws

Just issued yesterday; not sure how much practical significance this will have, but I thought I'd note it:

[1.] No Assistance from Executive Department Agencies. Except as required by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, no executive department agency and no employee, appointee, officer, or other person acting on behalf of any executive department agency may provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any investigation or proceeding initiated in or by another State that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanction upon a person or entity for

[a.] [i.] the provision, securing, or receiving of, or any inquiry concerning reproductive health care services that are legal in this Commonwealth; or

[ii.] any assistance given to any person or entity that relates to the provision, securing, receiving of, or any inquiry concerning reproductive health care services that are legal in this Commonwealth.

This restriction shall not apply to any investigation or proceeding where the conduct that is subject to potential liability under the investigation or proceeding initiated in or by the other State would be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional sanction under the laws of the Commonwealth if committed in this Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the general prohibition of this section, agencies and individuals acting on their behalf may provide information or assistance in connection with such an investigation or proceeding in response to the written request of a person who is the subject of such an investigation or proceeding.

[2.] Protection of Health Care and Other Professionals Licensed in the Commonwealth. The Commissioner of Public Health and the Commissioner of Occupational Licensure are directed to work with the boards of professional licensure operating under their respective supervision to implement policies that will ensure that no person shall be disqualified from licensure or subject to discipline by a Commonwealth board of professional licensure for providing or assisting in the provision of reproductive health care services or as a consequence of any judgment, discipline, or other sanction threatened or imposed under the laws of another State so long as the services as provided would have been lawful and consistent with standards for good professional practice in the Commonwealth.  The Commissioners shall report to me on measures implemented by the boards under their supervision within 45 days of this Order.

[3.] Unavailability of Interstate Extradition. Notwithstanding the provisions of G. L. c. 276, §§ 11-20R, the Office of the Governor shall decline any request received from the executive authority of any other State to issue a warrant for the arrest or surrender of any person charged with a criminal violation of a law of that other State where the violation alleged involves the provision or receipt of or assistance with reproductive health care services unless the acts forming the basis of the prosecution of the crime charged would also constitute a criminal offense under the laws of the Commonwealth. Consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution, this limitation shall not apply in the circumstance where the person who is the subject of the request for arrest or surrender was physically present in the requesting State at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and thereafter fled from that State.

[4.] Definitions. For the purposes of this order, the terms listed below shall have the following meanings:

"Reproductive health care services" includes all medical, surgical, counseling, or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including, but not limited to, services relating to pregnancy, contraception, or the termination of a pregnancy;

"Executive department" includes the office of the Governor, any executive office of the Commonwealth, as defined by section 2 of chapter 6A of the General Laws, and any agency, bureau, department, office, or division of the Commonwealth within or reporting to such an executive office of the Commonwealth.

Thanks to commenter Dr. Ed for the pointer.

Comments

[I Callahan]

It won’t have any practical significance. How are other states going to enforce abortion laws in Massachusetts and vice versa?

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Eugene. Nothing is stupider than the lawyer. You had a soaring IQ, totally destroyed by 1L. You are oblivious to what the people on the bus and in the diner all know. Among lawyers, nothing is stupider than a judge. Among judges, no one is stupider than a Supreme Court Justice, know nothing, bookworm, rent seeking, big government scumbags and all agents of the Democrat Party and of the Chinese Commies.

Explain to me the tone deafness of issuing Bruen today, and not in 6 months or in a year, after the elections.

Not only will we now birth millions of diverse permanent Democrat under performers. The Justices lost the elections for the Republicans.

[Darth Buckeye]

I think that you misunderstand the impact of the ruling. Granted, most people probably do. They probably think that the Supreme Court just made all abortions illegal nationwide. Most people don't want that; but most people don't want elective abortions at all stages of pregnancy either. Once they see that abortions remain legal, albeit with different restrictions depending on what state they are in, they will not see reason to be alarmed or upset.
We are being lied to. We are being led to believe that reversing Roe will make abortions illegal. But the people wanting us to believe this are the same people who want us to believe that the modest voter integrity reforms enacted by many states are "Jim Eagle"...worse than Jim Crow.

[DaivdBehar]

Here we go again with those suburban females. None understands the distinction.

[DaivdBehar]

As to this post, what is the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution?

[DaivdBehar]

Someone did the Justices a huge favor by leaking a draft of the decision. The explosion about the content was a clear warning of what was going to happen.

These worthless bookworms have no savvy, no social intelligence. They should have seen the reaction. They should have delayed the release of the final decision until after the November election.

[Darth Buckeye]

You are right. It is grand standing. Abortion remains legal in Massachusetts...as it remains legal in every state, even in those with the most restrictions. For 50 years politicians have been lying to us about what Roe v. Wade really meant. Most people will see that things really are not changing that much. Abortion will always be available for women whose health is at risk. Elective abortions will remain available in the liberal states; they will be unavailable in conservative states (where they have been mostly unavailable before Hobbs).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm curious how long it will take you to acknowledge that you are not telling the truth with some of your remarks.

[GKHoffman]

Which ones?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Give it a bit more time, GK.

Let's see if Buckeye has any integrity. If he doesn't admit it, then I'll come back here and point out his false claims.

There's at least one lie, and two statements which are misleading at best.

[Nisiiko]

"[3.] Unavailability of Interstate Extradition. Notwithstanding the provisions of G. L. c. 276, §§ 11-20R, the Office of the Governor shall decline any request received from the executive authority of any other State to issue a warrant for the arrest or surrender of any person charged with a criminal violation of a law of that other State where the violation alleged involves the provision or receipt of or assistance with reproductive health care services unless the acts forming the basis of the prosecution of the crime charged would also constitute a criminal offense under the laws of the Commonwealth. Consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution, this limitation shall not apply in the circumstance where the person who is the subject of the request for arrest or surrender was physically present in the requesting State at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and thereafter fled from that State."

Doesn't this exception gut the rule?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not in regards to assisting an abortion; You could drive somebody to a death state, or provide funding, so long as you made a point of being somewhere else during the crime.

[Don Nico]

"death state"
As obnoxious a sobriquet as "death party" is for the left.

[KHP54]

Obnoxious, and also accurate.

[BillyG]

I'm surprised a more general form of this isn't standard policy. Nations won't extradite for something that isn't a crime in their country. Why would a state extradite for something that isn't a crime in that state?

[Nisiiko]

Because it's explicitly required by the Constitution?

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[BillyG]

Thank you.

In that case, should be interesting to see what happens if this ever gets litigated.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But you can’t be charged in State A for an action that takes place in State B. B has no jurisdiction over there.

[Brett Bellmore]

True. But having committed a crime in state A, then fleeing to state B, it doesn't legally matter that the act wasn't a crime in state B. They can't prosecute you themselves, but they have to hand you over.

[Nisiiko]

Not entirely. There are instances where you can be charged in State A if certain elements of the crime or planning took place there, even if the ultimate "act" took place in State B. But your general point is accurate.

[F.D. Wolf]

Because the Constitution requires it?

A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[Stephen Lathrop]

F.D. Wolf — You missed the point. The point is to frustrate criminal charges from some state where abortion is illegal being enforced against a resident of that state who went to Massachusetts and received a legal abortion there. That situation is not a match for the constitutional language you cite.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There can’t be charges for that because Massachusetts is the only state that has jurisdiction in Massachusetts.

[F.D. Wolf]

A state can pass any statute it wants and charge someone with violating that statute. If the statute is defective constitutionally, jurisdictionally, or otherwise, that argument must be made in the state requesting extradition, not the state receiving the request.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’d bet money that as strong as the feelings are about abortion that if scenarios like this occur a governor of a state that allows abortion will refuse to extradite to a non-abortion state. Then, as you say, the court battle will ensue. But sime situation like that will cause this issue to be resolved fairly early.

[cjcoats]

Tell that to California, with its livestock-keeping requirements that it wants to enforce nation-wide.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are being silly. Is California prosecuting farmers in other states? No. It is regulating what can be sold in California.

But if some state tries to regulate abortion outside its borders (I am dubious that will happen), then you will suddenly see the concept of federalism become popular in circles it was not popular in for a long time.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're arguing this would be unprecedented, but also that opposing it would be a flip-flop?

You don't get to change your scope like that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Huh?

[Sarcastr0]

You can’t change positions on something you never had a position on before.

[Bored Lawyer]

I'll repeat what Noscitur a sociis said. Huh?

The prior poster pointed to California trying to control livestock keeping practices nationwide. Which is silly, since all California is doing is regulating what can be sold in California. If someone raises foie gras in Alabama and sells it in Florida, California has nothing to say on the subject. Nor should it.

As for abortion outside a state's borders, we don't know what states will try, if anything. Some might be legitimate, some not.* But if they do, then many people who never were friends of federalism will suddenly find that concept attractive.

__________
I would think that if a state can ban abortion within its borders, it can also ban the sale of equipment used for abortion, even if manufactured elsewhere. That would be analogous to what California is doing today with foie gras.

[F.D. Wolf]

I was answering the poster's general question, though someone had answered nearly identically, before my response posted.

I have no idea what this order is even purporting to say in the section titled "Unavailability of Interstate Extradition". Extradition is pro forma; it is not optional, subject to very limited, technical defenses, such as the person is not actually the person named in the request or the paperwork is not in order. If the charge is constitutionally or otherwise defective, the place to make that argument is in the requesting state, not the receiving state. If the state refuses extradition, and the request is technically in order, then a federal court WILL grant a mandamus request to force extradition.

If Texas, for example, under a future hypothetical statute, charges Jane Smith, who is in Massachusetts, with procuring an abortion in Massachusetts and the governor of Texas sends an extradition request to Massachusetts, then that request must be honored under the Constitution. If the statute is ultimately unconstitutional, then Smith must make that argument in the Texas courts; the Massachusetts courts cannot entertain that argument in an extradition procedure.

The Massachusetts governor seems to acknowledge this in the "exception" language in the order, an exception which seems to swallow the rule, as I cannot imagine a circumstance that would fall outside the exception. But, as I said in another post, I seriously doubt in such criminal statute will ever exist, so it will never be an actual issue.

[Rossami]

BillyG, your starting premise is incorrect. Nations can and do extradite for something that isn't a crime in their country. Granted, it's not common but it's not exactly uncommon either. Look at all the countries where the US forces extradition of "drug lords" for behavior that is not illegal in their countries. Okay, they're corrupt countries where the drug cartels are virtually synonymous with the government but the legal principle still applies. Extradition compliance has more to do with political power and expediency than it does with the respective laws.

[F.D. Wolf]

I doubt it will have any practical significance, though it is yet another unfortunate attack on comity among states. I note it always seems to be left-wing states and municipalities issuing these non-cooperation statements, boycotts, travel bans, etc., when another state has dared to pass a law that offends their sensibilities.

Despite the fears stoked by some, including some of the bloggers here, I see very little chance any state will try to restrict its residents from leaving the state to procure abortions. In 1970, New York became the second state (after Hawaii) to legalize essentially unrestricted, elective abortion, becoming something of a destination for it. I am unaware of any effort by another state to curb this.

Did a Prohibitionist state ever try to legally restrict its residents from leaving the state to procure alcohol (or, more recently, marijuana)? (Obviously, bringing it back to the state would be another matter.) Did an anti-gambling state ever try to restrict its residents from gambling outside the state? Here in Texas, casino gambling is illegal, but several companies advertise and offer bus trips to and from the Louisiana casinos right across the border, including perks like free drink coupons or casino chips. I am unaware of any effort to restrict this.

I'll note that I agree with Prof. Somin that such efforts would probably be unconstitutional anyway, but even if they are not, I feel there is little (if any) support for any such restrictions.

[Magister]

It is unlikely that a state would succeed at preventing citizens from leaving the state; and also unlikely that they will try ... yet. Transporting a "minor" (that is, the fetus, embryo or zygote) across state lines for purposes of a miscarriage? Downplay now, but make it a crime later.

and plenty of conservative states did refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Magister — It is not merely likely, but seems certain that some state where abortion is illegal will set up a bounty-hunter scheme, enforced by civil actions by private citizens, to persecute women who receive abortions legally in other states.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of the anti-abortion "bounty-hunter schemes".

[bevis the lumberjack]

I pointed out the other day that if you wanted to be consistent and take this to the extreme, every flight arriving from Vegas would be met with a paddy wagon. Think of the fine income!!!!

[Drewski]

"Did a Prohibitionist state ever try to legally restrict its residents from leaving the state to procure alcohol (or, more recently, marijuana)?"

Bootlegging? Yeah, a lot of people have gone to jail for that, and it's still illegal. My sister once went to jail for bootlegging whiskey into South Carolina. The movie "Smokey and the Bandit" was about bootlegging beer to Atlanta. It was kind of a big thing.

Also let's recall the time Nebraska sued Colorado for selling pot, based on the harm of Nebraskans going over the border to buy it.

[F.D. Wolf]

Bootlegging? Sigh. If only you had read the very next sentence after the one you excerpted, in which I wrote:

"Obviously, bringing it back to the state would be another matter."

[F.D. Wolf]

plenty of conservative states did refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.

But they didn't try to stop people from leaving the state to enter a gay marriage. No state criminalized gay marriage.

Many states do not recognize out-of-state acts that are contrary to their public policy. For example, a state might declare that it will not enforce out-of-state gambling debts as contrary to the state's policy against gambling, even if the debt is enforceable where it was incurred. I don't see how a state could not "recognize" an out-of-state abortion. I suppose it could, for example, refuse to enforce a debt owed to the abortionist by the woman who procured an abortion.

[Magister]

They did refuse to recognize such marriages, to the detriment of people in such marriages when in those states.

And certainly conservative states have gone to great lengths opposing federal laws.

The asymmetry stems mostly from liberals wanting to expand individual rights for everybody while conservatives want to control people different from themselves. Weird that conservative values are so popular at a libertarian website.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, at least you can console yourself with the liberal victory over those rights-hating conservatives in Bruen.

[Roman Moroni]

What if someone gets, or performs, an illegal abortion in Mississippi and then flees to Mass. in order to avoid prosecution? Does this mean Mass. will not extradite? Is that constitutional?

[Bored Lawyer]

" Consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution, this limitation shall not apply in the circumstance where the person who is the subject of the request for arrest or surrender was physically present in the requesting State at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and thereafter fled from that State."

So, yes, he gets extradited. As someone pointed out, this pretty much guts the whole thing. It will be a rare case where Mississippi tries to extradite someone and he or she does not fit within this exception.

The whole thing is empty posturing by the governor. Good to know Massachusetts has no other problems.

[Michael P]

I don't think it guts the whole scheme. This order protects people in Massachusetts who get, provide, or assist an abortion performed in MA -- even if another state charges them for it.

Likewise, it facially protects for someone providing abortion drugs from Massachusetts, although it would be interesting to see how courts apply the Constitution's extradition clause to that kind of jurisdiction. Normally, that kind of exchange would render the MA resident subject to the other state's jurisdiction.

But the exception does put some bounds on the non-support scheme.

[santamonica811]

Who knows how this all will shake out. But it's gonna be a legal clusterf*ck for a number of years. And, in conservative states (ie, full legislature and governor are Republicans), I expect that anti-choice laws will ratchet towards more and more restrictions. After all, if Mississippi passes a super-duper restrictive law, and the courts uphold it; why on earth shouldn't, Idaho pass the same law...or one even a bit more restrictive.

I guess that, at some point, it will be so burdensome that enough female voters will revolt. But I'd be surprised if that happens within the next 10 years or so.

[Bored Lawyer]

"if Mississippi passes a super-duper restrictive law, and the courts uphold it;"

Do you even know what the Mississippi law provides?

[bevis the lumberjack]

This Mississippi law wasn’t super restrictive. It was more permissive than almost all of cooler-than-us Europe.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

"No slave hunt in our borders--
No pirate on our strand!
No fetters in the Bay State--
No slave upon our land!"
--John Greenleaf Whittier

[John F. Carr]

This order mirrors a provision in the annual budget bill, which also aims to ban enforcement of foreign judgments related to laws Democrats don't like. Withdrawl from the Union is very popular among local politicians as long as Texas remains a state.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It might not seem important to you,, but it has a great deal of importance to a woman from a state where abortion is now illegal.

Her home state can prosecute her for out of state crimes. See, e.g, People v. Betts (Cal. 2005). Having the assurance that the non-crime state will not cooperate in the prosecution (for example, by refusing to provide evidence of the “crime”) can be the difference between life and death, particularly if her home state, like most “pro-life” states, has the death penalty.

[Mr. Bumble]

In which state is abortion now illegal?

[Brett Bellmore]

None if them, if you mean when medically necessary. But the pro-death movement (It's a bit late to deny it, with Jane's Revenge going around firebombing outfits that just help women not abort.) is pretty determined to lie about that.

[bernard11]

But the pro-death movement (It's a bit late to deny it, with Jane's Revenge going around firebombing outfits that just help women not abort.)

This is wildly dishonest, even for you.

First you label everyone who is pro-choice as an arsonist based on the actions of a few lunatics.

Secondly, you mischaracterize these "pregnancy crisis centers," which are more like indoctrination centers designed to look like health clinics.

[Mr. Bumble]

"First you label everyone who is pro-choice as an arsonist based on the actions of a few lunatics.

Secondly, you mischaracterize these "pregnancy crisis centers," which are more like indoctrination centers designed to look like health clinics."

Look in a mirror before you accuse someone of being wildly dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, that's what they do. They put them next to abortion clinics with purposefully ambiguous offers of counseling and support.

They're not hiding this fact - there's even a Court case on it!

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/606427673/supreme-court-sides-with-california-anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers

[Longtobefree]

First you say he said "everyone", when he specifically stated "Janes Revenge" - - - - - - -

I assume you sold all your mirrors years ago.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, by the pro-death movement he just meant that one group.

At best, your reading is tautological - condemning violent people as violent people.

Naw, he's speaking more broadly than that. We can read, even if you can't.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I mean, you kinda just did what you pointed out (correctly) that he did.

“Which are more like indoctrination centers” is hellaciously broad. Sure, some are. But a lot of them genuinely want to try to help women in a tough time.

[Stephen Lathrop]

". . . outfits that just help women not abort."

Bellmore, is there any lie you will not countenance to flatter your preferences? Do you think there is anyone reading this who does not understand you are talking about scammers? They operate using a blueprint to deceive women who are looking for abortions, which these so-called, "clinics," will never provide. Critics who have reported on them say they mostly will not even supply contraception.

[Sarcastr0]

Jane's Revenge is nutpicking, Brett. Just as if I said all pro-lifers were basically abortion clinic bombers.

It's pretty dangerous to just haul off and call your political opposition basically pro-violence. Because guess what that justifies from your side?

[Mr. Bumble]

Just a bunch of Harpies mostly "peacefully" demonstrating.

[Sarcastr0]

Harpies? What the fuck 1920s sexism is this?

[Mr. Bumble]

Sex is just a construct. Anyone can be a Harpy.

[Sarcastr0]

OK hep-cat.

The right's been trying to gin up a night of rage narrative, but so far I've only seen violence from people trying to run over protesters.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10953669/Protests-resume-nationwide-second-day-following-end-Roe-v-Wade.html

[Sarcastr0]

Same old playbook.

Protests are not really peaceful.

You've got nothing if this is the best the dailymail can come up with: In Greenville, South Carolina, a protest that was scheduled to hold 100 people and last for only an hour saw more than 400 people participate as they pushed back against officers trying to disband the group.

I'm sure a molehill better than this will present itself and you can turn it into a a mountain to justify your 'protests are riots' narrative.

[Don Nico]

Hey, Bumble just learned an old word. Bully for him. Pathetic to the rest of us.

[Mr. Bumble]

harpy
noun

A fabulous winged monster, ravenous and filthy, having the face of a woman and the body of a vulture.
A shrewish woman.
One who is rapacious or ravenous; an extortioner.

Sounds perfectly appropriate to me.

[Michael P]

Resolved: January 6th concerns are also just nutpicking.

Just like the pro-abortion protesters trying their own insurrection at the Arizona statehouse. And the commie front group continuing to try to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland. Nuts, nuts everywhere on the left. One can't throw a stick in this country without hitting a leftist nut.

[Sarcastr0]

If the GOP hadn't rallied around Jan 06 as legitimate discourse, and if Trump weren't actively courting another one, that argument might have some validity.

The argument of 'the left is just as bad they *tried* to do this bad thing' runs pretty thin when up against an actual incursion into the Capitol.
FFS those Idaho Proud Boys morons were more of a risk than some protesters pounding on the doors of the Capitol.

You've got nothing, and how hard you're trying to make it into 'the left are all violent' itself could be read as a troubling rationalization for another Rittenhouse.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html

[Sarcastr0]

Not a great example of protests as riot.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/01/20/searching-metaphor-reporters-flock-burning-dc-garbage-can/

[Michael P]

This country could use more Kyle Rittenhouses. The left IS consistently violent. Remember the nuts who attacked a bunch of women protesting in California for being transphobic because they didn't want an anatomically male person in the local women's spa? (The preceding sentence might be confusing if you're not a biologist.)

[Sarcastr0]

You are the kind of the kind of awful person rationalizing political violence that Brett is courting with his nutpicking. Congrats, Brett!

'Remember this one thing that most have forgotten because it didn't actually include any deaths? That's why we should kill more liberals.'

YOU are the one being a dangerous asshole here. And a coward, since I don't see you picking up arms to hunt the lib.

[Michael P]

Well, at least you implicitly acknowledged you were lying when you claimed I have nothing. The people Kyle Rittenhouse shot earned what they got. The guy who put Steve Scalise in a wheelchair was incited by leftist calls to violence. The women who attacked Wisconsin Sen. Tim Carpenter (D, 3rd District) for taking pictures at a protest thought they were justified by leftist ideology.

You can call people names, but it doesn't change the fact that you are lying to excuse leftist violence and trying to blame everything on people like Kyle Rittenhouse who are defending themselves from predators.

[Don Nico]

S0,
That is because if you go to the barricades, you might get killed

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone who claims deaths like that are cool and good, I don't want them in my republic till they learn to live in a society.

[Sarcastr0]

The people Kyle Rittenhouse shot earned what they got

Fuck off.

The guy who put Steve Scalise in a wheelchair was incited by leftist calls to violence.
Unproven. No one is saying what he did was cool and good like you are with Rittenhouse, you utter psycho.

The women who attacked Wisconsin Sen. Tim Carpenter (D, 3rd District) for taking pictures at a protest thought they were justified by leftist ideology.
Again, unproven.

You're working very hard to rationalize killing liberals. Stop it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Two posts ago you said, or implied, that all counseling centers were frauds. And proved it with a court case related to, we’ll, one such case.

Probably not fair to criticize someone for painting with a broad brush while you yourself are holding a broad brush.

[Sarcastr0]

I did not say they were all frauds.
A lot of them are open about trying to trick women (do you deny this?)
I don't love that, but it's also free speech and from their point of view entirely justified.

[bevis the lumberjack]

When I read it my brain interpreted it as all. Or at least very common practice.

All of the pro-life people I know (not that many, mostly at church) are women, and some of them volunteer in crisis centers. Their objective is to legitimately help other women in a straightforward way. Generalizing sucks and is intellectually lazy.

[Sarcastr0]

I wouldn't imaging it is purely about helping the woman. Almost definitionally.

Which, as I said, under their worldview is as expected.

They use a bit of tacit courting of confusion to do so. Which I can't get too bent out of shape in the grant scheme of pro life tactics.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Generalizing behavior of extremists to an entire huge group is part of the reason our political discourse is so fucked up.

It’s a corollary to “every trump voter is a racist Nazi”. You just did that in the other direction.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Just to clarify because the responses here are hard to track, the first post here is a response to Sarcastro and the second is a response to Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

No, there's not going to be a fugitive slave act, but for abortion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The giant wave of reaction to the Dobbs decision, however warranted in most respects, risks a bypass of yet larger and more pressing political emergencies. I get that there are some who would deny that anything larger or more pressing could even exist. I sympathize with them.

But the nation will shortly find itself in dire straits if Democrats let response to Dobbs, or gun issues, or climate change, or even Trumpism taken as a whole, become their most important agenda items. Those issues, however alarming, are but symptoms of a larger, decades-long radical effort now approaching fruition.

The nation's most important agenda item now—which the Democrats should adopt as their own—is to deal with and reverse oligarchical radicalism which seeks an end to American democracy. This week's Supreme Court decisions, by casting aside any pretense of legitimate process, signaled that America's anti-democratic radicals suppose they have achieved security. They reckon themselves secure enough to begin their stretch run, and lunge toward the finish line on the basis of brute power.

For that reason, what lies ahead must become a contest of power, fought out without much resort to institutional norms, which right-wing radicals have already cast aside. Languishing pro-democracy Democrats must at least notice by now that they no longer have a Supreme Court to save the nation—and with that gone, so are the norms and institutions in which Democrats habitually (and increasingly fecklessly) place reliance.

So Democrats better get busy and figure out instead how to save the nation by mobilizing countervailing political force which they control—if they can control it. Possibly, that force, in the form of overwhelming generational change, is already on its way, and will control the Democrats. I suggest that is the likeliest method to frustrate and stop short the right-wing radical takeover now in process.

[Don Nico]

SL,
The NY gun decision was clearly consistent with Heller. You might not like the decision but it was in keeping with stare decisis.
As for Dobbs, the result was an end run of the normal requirements for cert. Unfortunately the leak seems to have gotten the 5 Overturn" justices to dig in their heels, and Roberts was rebuffed.

But tell us precisely what you want done. A bill can be introduced in both houses making 1) birth a necessary requirement for legal status as a person and 2) making elective abortions legal throughout the US. That could be passes and signed before the election if Democrats have the will to do it.

[KHP54]

Such a bill, if passed, would be quickly challenged and overturned. The federal government simply has no authority in this area.

[Mr. Bumble]

To SarcastroO:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rioting-abortion-threatened-arizona-senate-criminal-damage

[Sarcastr0]

"Troopers exercised patience and application of tactics in Wesley Bolin Plaza as some people unwisely brought children to the protest turned unlawful assembly," DPS said. "After multiple warnings, and notifications of trespass and unlawful assembly, state troopers deployed gas and strategically moved to clear the plaza. After the plaza was cleared, additional state buildings in the area sustained criminal damage."

No arrests were made at the State Capitol on Friday night, according to a 12 News reporter, citing a DPS spokesman. However, the DPS statement on Saturday said the "incident status" remains active.

Criminal damage!

One clue nothing happened is that the Dems continued business as usual. On Jan 06, the Republicans were *terrified*.

This angry door pounding won't cut it. You really really want some violence from the left. That's pretty fucked up, dude.

[Frank Drackman]

Not as fucked up as soliciting murder of out of state babies (Pretty sure I remember a "Perry Mason" episode with that plot, oh wait, that was out of state MARRIAGES, never mind)
Can imagine some 21st Century "Freedom Riders" driving up north to impose their version of Morality (Killing Babies Bad!) on you Yankees, like Y'all did to us (Let Blacks in Schools, You First!)
"Violence from the Left" you mean like Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremer, The Nut who shot up the Congressional Baseball Practice, the other Nut who tried to kill Kavanaugh??
and you've got as much right saying "Dude" as Sleepy Joe has saying "Man",

Frank "I knew the "Dude", the "Dude" was a friend of mine, and You, Suh, are No "Dude"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (C'mon (Man!) you loved it when Floyd Benson said that to D. Quale)