Question: if it becomes illegal in one state and a person travels to another state to legally have an abortion, can they still be penalized when they return to their home state?

Countries have extended their laws beyond their borders and I wonder if there is any precedent for states imposing their laws beyond their borders?

A particularly dogmatic state could, for example, imprison somebody for murder even if they live in another state and legally had an abortion there if they get hold of them transiting their state.

Such a state could try to impose a ban on the entire country potentially with the ability to enforce if it is an airport transport hub. Flyover states could take on a particularly frightening meaning. Imagine a scenario trying to cross the flyover states only to be forced to land due to technical difficulties, on landing, passengers are interrogated, searches are made to social media sites to see if any searches for abortion and people arrested.

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

Oklahome was filled with the kindest most generous people I have lived with in the USA. ( I lived there for 20 months)

Exactly this. We’ve got folks who’ve never experienced the US, let alone lived in the so called heartland or Bible Belt, telling us what does and doesn’t exist.
The biggest problem for so much of the US is that schools are predominantly funded at the local level, and most of the curriculum is decided on the local level. There’s a lot of money and power to be made by keeping your electorate undereducated, scared of outsiders and bogeymen, and pushing an agenda that convinces folks that restrictions are for their own good.

This is more or less part of what was in the Fugitive Slave Act…

It’s not something that is at all usual…..I can’t think of any real examples. Even for marijuana and guns, if people violated their state laws in another…..the state where you live has no jurisdiction to investigate the crime

Any state that enacted such a law today would have a cicuit court block it before the ink dried. The supreme court would strike it down anyways

If someone who is charged with murder had crossed a state line to do it then it could become a federal case.

Usually, crimes are prosecuted in the state where the crime was committed so the state where the abortion took place would be the prosecutor but if abortion is allowed there then there was no crime to prosecute.

You have no way of proving that... on the other hand, the Supreme Court has upheld some pretty questionable policies. The Dred Scott decision is a fairly clear example of this and just happens to be on this very subject.

Edited to add: On March 6, 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Black people were not American citizens and could not sue in courts of law. The Court ruled against Dred Scott, an enslaved Black man who tried to sue for his freedom.

In 1855, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover's recapture.

The US Supreme Court, on the other hand sided with the Fugitive Slave Act, which required that all escaped slaves, upon capture, be returned to the slaver and that officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate.

You should have paid more attention in history class.

Some countries pass interesting laws about such things... an easy example, it is illegal for Japanese citizens to use recreational marijuana and other drugs. Anywhere. Doesn't matter if they are in Canada where pot is legal, it is absolutely illegal for them to use. If they get drug tested on returning to Japan, they are subject to penalty under Japanese law.

Yes, but the US is one of the few countries that claims jurisdiction over its citizens abroad or anyone doing something to their citizens, most famously in murder cases. Now given that we defined life to start basically the moment you have sex… at what moment does the egg become a US citizen?

I mean ...

And sure, there's nothing racial about this new ruling either... because, Rueters, such a biased tabloid... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/roe...ay-2022-06-27/

Original purpose of Planned parenthood was to control the black population so this would have quite the opposite effect….thanks god

Don’t think so…..see this…

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...=1656362400287

It’s an easy read, but here’s the salient point.

"That Sanger was enamored and supported some eugenicists' ideas is certainly true," said Susan Reverby, a health care historian and professor at Wellesley College. But, Reverby added, Sanger's main argument was not eugenics — it was that "Sanger thought people should have the children they wanted."

It was a radical idea for the time.

Sanger wrote about this mission herself in 1921: "The almost universal demand for practical education in Birth Control is one of the most hopeful signs that the masses themselves today possess the divine spark of regeneration."

Was Sanger "not particularly enamored with black people"?

Sanger's birth control movement did have support in black neighborhoods, beginning in the '20s when there were leagues in Harlem started by African-Americans. Sanger also worked closely with NAACP founder W.E.B. DuBois on a "Negro Project," which she viewed as a way to get safe contraception to African-Americans.

In 1946, Sanger wrote about the importance of giving "Negro" parents a choice in how many children they would have.

It would seem that you really do fall for any BS that conservative sites pump out. Here's something different from a non biased news source. No one is saying that Margaret Sanger was perfect, but you are misrepresenting Planned Parenthood.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL2N2X11YN

Louisiana’s three remaining abortion clinics will be able to continue to provide services under a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of the state’s pre-existing “trigger” laws.

The 2006 Louisiana law would have outlawed and criminalized both the practice, procurement, sale, and administration of abortion services from the moment of fertilization, save for circumstances in which the life of the pregnant person was at risk

The trigger law isn’t the only indication that the Louisiana legislature is itching the crack down on a woman’s right to choose. Republicans last month introduced a bill aimed at qualifying the abortion as homicide.

Louisiana has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the United States, and advocates believe that the end of comprehensive reproductive health services in the state will negatively impact maternal health and increase the number of pregnancy-related adverse medical events.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...r-ban-1375032/

Hmmm... homicide...

__________________
“one of the good guys”

The Republicans will not be rejected in state elections. This has been a constitutional matter, meaning that the right to abortion is not in any way contained within the constitution, hence the matter has been returned to the people and the states. The main concern of 'the people' however will remain cost of living, fuel and job security, war in Ukraine, etc. The Democrats are going to be wiped out in November. Raging about the SCOTUS abortion ruling will not focus minds, it will bore them in apathy.

I see the real danger if (when?) states decide that not only are the providers of abortion guilty of a capital crime, but the mother and possibly father are too. Meaning in states with the death penalty a woman could be put to death for having an abortion.

This is a bit of a fairytale. It's not like SCOTUS has given back an unsettled matter to be decided by the states. They knew there are 13 "trigger laws" and others on the wait, so their decision would automatically lead to bans.

Chief Justice Roberts - who obviously after the Barrett nomination TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION has no power anymore - apparently wanted to fix the originally questionable Roe decision (don't know exactly what the constitutional argument is) but leave the right to abortion in place.

I do not necessarily disagree with your political argument though. It will be very tough for the Dems.