Alabama’s Republican attorney general said in a court filing that he has the right to prosecute people who make travel arrangements for pregnant women to have out-of-state abortions.
In a court filing Monday, attorneys for Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote that providing transportation for women in Alabama to leave the state to get an abortion could amount to a “criminal conspiracy.”
The court filing comes in response to lawsuits against Marshall that was filed in July from two women’s health centers and Yellowhammer Fund, an organization which says it provides “financial and practical support for those who are pregnant and require assistance.” The plaintiffs argue that Marshall violated their constitutional rights by publicly stating that organizations which help pregnant women in Alabama get an abortion out of state could be criminally investigated.
“Alabama can no more regulate out-of-state abortions than another state can deem its laws legalizing abortions to apply to Alabama,” the Yellowhammer Fund lawsuit argues.
Don’t give the Supreme Court ideas…
It would literally have to go to SCOTUS because it is simply not legal on the state level to charge people with crimes they didn’t commit in that state. Marijuana is not legal in Indiana. You can’t prosecute someone for buying and smoking it in Michigan or Illinois.
And I don’t think even SCOTUS would mess with that. They’re evil but they’re not that crazy.
This is why the crime is facilitation, because facilitation takes place in state. It’s designed purposefully and fully hypocritically to ignore the rights of other states to set their own law.
There is no crime to facilitate. If something is illegal in one state and you cross the state line to do it, you are explicitly avoiding committing a crime.
The crime (stupid as it is) is getting an abortion in Alabama. No one facilitated that because it didn’t happen.
If you drive from a dry country to a wet one to buy beer, no one will be able to charge you with anything. There are exceptions in federal law for leaving the US to commit felonies (like child prostitution), but those are more serious and on the federal level.
This argument misses the point. For Republicans, states’ rights don’t exist to ensure a sectioned legal system on a state level. They exist to ensure fascist dictatorships in every state where they can be constructed and then to extend the reach of those dictatorships over as many other states as possible. This has always been the goal. To enforce their will on as many people as possible.
The Defense of Marriage Act did the same thing. It allowed states to ban gay marriage in their state and then allowed them to refuse to acknowledge marriage certificates for gay couples from other states. Effectively allowing red states to supersede the authority of blue states.
Once the Republicans regain control of the legislative and the executive branches, they will ditch states’ rights completely in favor of total control at the federal level. They want whatever gives them the most power at any given time.
I think it’s important to add, when it comes to abortion, Republicans consider this a moral issue. And as we learned from the American Civil War, which was fought over the moral issue of slavery, people cannot compromise on moral issues.
Ted Ed video on the Middle Ground Fallacy
Well obviously Republicans are about “power for me, rules for thee”. I’m just saying that it’s not constitutional, as some people argue.
You are correct, it’s not constitutional. The point is that the people arguing that it is constitutional are arguing that in bad faith. Both of these statements must be pointed out.
Not if the person or persons are not in the state when providing assistance and arranging.
If I send plane tickets to a Hoosier to get high in Colorado, that’s just not a crime firstly, and even if Indiana thought it was they couldn’t investigate me and bring me to trial.
Would have to prove prior knowledge of the abortion plan. Not a lawyer but that’s the angle I’d go for.
deleted by creator
At that point, we have much, much bigger things to worry about.
Barrett is like the 4th most conservative justice; Alito’s the other crazy one. (I know it’s tempting to Handmaid’s Tale her, and her views on abortion are indeed abominable, but in most other cases she’s the sensible former Notre Dame law professor and tends to occupy the middle third with Kavanaugh and Roberts)
Just the fact that Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts are the middle third is terrifyingly distopian.
Well yes - we’ve still got at least a year of controlling the senate / WH, maybe we’ll get lucky and Thomas or Alito will be visited by 3 ghosts + decide to retire.
deleted by creator
That was the first thing that came to mind. Another example: many states have laws against gambling. If you lived in one of those states and took a trip to Vegas, could your home state prosecute you for gambling in another state? If your neighbor paid for your Vegas trip, could they be prosecuted for engaging in a criminal conspiracy?