Can states ban residents from traveling out of state to get an abortion?

[Sparko]

Foremost, a state government would have no reason to know why any citizen is travelling anywhere. I can drive to either Arkansas, Kansas or Oklahoma from my home is less than 2 hours. My state government wouldn't even know I made the trip.

What would be interesting is if state A designated 2nd-trimester abortions as "manslaughter" (or something), and a person from there travelled to state B to have the procedure performed. Upon return, could they be arrested under state A's laws (if discovered)?

I doubt they could even do that. The action occured in another state where the action was legal and the home state has no jurisdiction over. It would be like saying buying marijuana is outlawed in your state, so you went to another state bought some marijuana (to smoke while there), and was arrested for buying marijuana when you got home.

[Ronson]

I doubt they could even do that. The action occured in another state where the action was legal and the home state has no jurisdiction over. It would be like saying buying marijuana is outlawed in your state, so you went to another state bought some marijuana (to smoke while there), and was arrested for buying marijuana when you got home.

Interesting. So if according to North Dakota law I commit manslaughter (or murder) in Montana, and then go to North Dakota, ND is powerless to do anything about it because it isn't outlawed in Montana.

Reminds me of the case of Charles Ng, who committed murder in California but was arrested in Canada for shoplifting. IIRC, Canada refused to extradite him because of California's capital punishment, so California essentially said "OK, you can have him. Good luck when he's released." And Canada then made an exception.

[rogue06]

Interesting. So if according to North Dakota law I commit manslaughter (or murder) in Montana, and then go to North Dakota, ND is powerless to do anything about it because it isn't outlawed in Montana.

Reminds me of the case of Charles Ng, who committed murder in California but was arrested in Canada for shoplifting. IIRC, Canada refused to extradite him because of California's capital punishment, so California essentially said "OK, you can have him. Good luck when he's released." And Canada then made an exception.

They can detain and extradite you to Montana which would have jurisdiction to prosecute you, but North Dakota would have no grounds to prosecute you for the murder you did in Montana.

But this is a bit of a red herring.

In your case you leave your state and break the law in another state then return home. What is being discussed is leaving your state in order to engage in an activity that is perfectly legal in another state (i.e., gambling, prostitution, drugs or what have you) but illegal in your home state, and then return to where it isn't allowed.

[Machinist]

The problem is how extreme the charge is. In Louisiana for instance, a homicide charge could result from an abortion (if the bill passes), but just across the border of the state, it will be all legal.

Morality, at the level of murder, being defined by state lines does seem like it would cause a lot of problems.

[Machinist]

They can detain and extradite you to Montana which would have jurisdiction to prosecute you, but North Dakota would have no grounds to prosecute you for the murder you did in Montana.

But this is a bit of a red herring.

In your case you leave your state and break the law in another state then return home. What is being discussed is leaving your state in order to engage in an activity that is perfectly legal in another state (i.e., gambling, prostitution, drugs or what have you) but illegal in your home state, and then return to where it isn't allowed.

You can do this in other countries easy enough I would think. Outa sight, outa mind. The problem is magnified and made obvious though, when it's just 30 minutes up the interstate across state lines.

[rogue06]

The problem is how extreme the charge is. In Louisiana for instance, a homicide charge could result from an abortion (if the bill passes), but just across the border of the state, it will be all legal.

Morality, at the level of murder, being defined by state lines does seem like it would cause a lot of problems.

Kind of like if you shoot a pregnant mother, excuse me, "birthing person," killing her and the unborn baby you can be charged with a double homicide in something like 38 states -- yet in those same states killing the baby via abortion isn't even an ordinance violation.

[rogue06]

You can do this in other countries easy enough I would think. Outa sight, outa mind. The problem is magnified and made obvious though, when it's just 30 minutes up the interstate across state lines.

That would be true for anyone living near any jurisdictional boundary including those of countries. Do we have a different set of laws for those that can travel to another state or country within 30 minutes?

[Machinist]

That would be true for anyone living near any jurisdictional boundary including those of countries. Do we have a different set of laws for those that can travel to another state or country within 30 minutes?

Yeah. if you start tampering around with the definition of life relative to such close geographic borders (state lines) , I would think the moral decay of the entire country would collapse. It's just all too close, with such extremely different definitions.

[rogue06]

Yeah. if you start tampering around with the definition of life relative to such close geographic borders (state lines) , I would think the moral decay of the entire country would collapse. It's just all too close, with such extremely different definitions.

This is one of those cases where it is hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere.

[Machinist]

This is one of those cases where it is hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere.

Do I often come across as sarcastic? I don't mean to. I'm quite sincere about this one though.

[Ronson]

They can detain and extradite you to Montana which would have jurisdiction to prosecute you, but North Dakota would have no grounds to prosecute you for the murder you did in Montana.

But this is a bit of a red herring.

In your case you leave your state and break the law in another state then return home. What is being discussed is leaving your state in order to engage in an activity that is perfectly legal in another state (i.e., gambling, prostitution, drugs or what have you) but illegal in your home state, and then return to where it isn't allowed.

I suppose the only difference is that the person being aborted was a viable resident of the original state.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A few states have discussed such legislation. Libertarian blogger Ilya Somin argues that there are two likely reasons this would not fly. One is that this likely violates interstate commerce laws; he does note that at least two Supreme Court justices are on record disagreeing with the Dormant Commerce Clause, but not five. The second reason given is that states simply lack jurisdiction over occurrences in other states. The third reason given is that it would require the Supreme Court to reinterpret its longstanding view on a right to travel.

I suspect that laws crafted like this would target organized travel providers (likely Planned Parenthood, or maybe more broadly, companies like Amazon offering money to allow employees to travel out of state for this purpose) more so than individual people traveling for their own abortions. I'm not sure if that changes Volokh's calculus at all as that distinction wasn't made in the article.

Somin acknowledges he may be wrong about what courts would actually do. He also says what may be obvious; that Congress could pass a law banning such travel, though this is a moot point as it is difficult to imagine Congress would be willing to do this but not ban abortion altogether.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/10...is-overturned/

(I know this is written from a pro-choice perspective, but few seem to be talking about it, and it's written in a largely objective manner until the activism near the end.)

Would that also apply to wealthier clients going abroad to obtain an abortion in a country where it is legal?

Or perhaps the USA will start seeing Women on Waves ships anchored just outside its territorial waters.

.

[CivilDiscourse]

Would that also apply to wealthier clients going abroad to obtain an abortion in a country where it is legal?

Or perhaps the USA will start seeing Women on Waves ships anchored just outside its territorial waters.

.

There is precedent for enforcement for going abroad for certain illegal activities.

Federal Laws Define the Crime of Sex Tourism
Section 2423(b): Travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct – U.S. citizens and residents are prohibited from traveling to a foreign country with the intent of engaging in sexual activities with a child. This is punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

And before you say that I'm comparing abortion to child sexual abuse...I'm not. I'm showing that the US has already shown a willingness to create laws that ban people from traveling to do things that the US might consider illegal, and abortion could also end up being one of those things down the road.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There is precedent for enforcement for going abroad for certain illegal activities.

Federal Laws Define the Crime of Sex Tourism
Section 2423(b): Travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct – U.S. citizens and residents are prohibited from traveling to a foreign country with the intent of engaging in sexual activities with a child. This is punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

And before you say that I'm comparing abortion to child sexual abuse...I'm not. I'm showing that the US has already shown a willingness to create laws that ban people from traveling to do things that the US might consider illegal, and abortion could also end up being one of those things down the road.

How would the US authorities know a US citizen was going abroad for any [potential] illegal activities?

[Alien]

Marijuana isn't actually legal anywhere as federal law supersedes state law; it's not being strictly enforced right now, but anyone who partakes in a "legal" state is still very much violating the law. So this shouldn't be a cause for confusion.

That's true. It still seems strange that Federal law is enforced in one way and not another. No doubt this will all be sorted out eventually, with Federal legalization being the likely outcome. Something else, marijuana businesses can't (mostly?) get bank accounts in "legal" states because the banks are cautious about breaking Federal laws.