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

[Alien]

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

I keep seeing this. According to current law, not some "wish it was" situation, can a fetus be considered a "resident" of anywhere? They are not asked to pay local taxes or lots of other things that are controlled by residency.

[Thoughtful Monk]

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.

We've had too many Presidents and AGs from both parties that have picked which laws that they are enforcing. It's probably one of the reasons respect for the law has dropped.

Feds will legalize marijuana some day because the pain of enforcing the law has become too great.

[CivilDiscourse]

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

I have no idea, I am just saying that the US has already declared that they can do so, so it's not unimaginable that they'd do so for something like abortion.

[Ronson]

I keep seeing this. According to current law, not some "wish it was" situation, can a fetus be considered a "resident" of anywhere? They are not asked to pay local taxes or lots of other things that are controlled by residency.

That should have said "potentially." I thought I wrote that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have no idea, I am just saying that the US has already declared that they can do so, so it's not unimaginable that they'd do so for something like abortion.

It might not be unimaginable but I suspect it would be nigh on impossible. Unless every single female US citizen of reproductive age had to undergo a mandatory medical examination prior to being allowed to leave the country. And that would give the lawyers a field-day!.

[Alien]

I have no idea, I am just saying that the US has already declared that they can do so, so it's not unimaginable that they'd do so for something like abortion.

Right. Obviously it could not stopped before the person had left this country. I assume he would be charged on return, once evidence for the crime was available.

[Alien]

It might not be unimaginable but I suspect it would be nigh on impossible. Unless every single female US citizen of reproductive age had to undergo a mandatory medical examination prior to being allowed to leave the country. And that would give the lawyers a field-day!.

Not just for travel. What might be necessary to prove an abortion had taken place (to charge an individual woman) would bump up against medical privacy laws at the very least.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not just for travel. What might be necessary to prove an abortion had taken place (to charge an individual woman) would bump up against medical privacy laws at the very least.

On her return to the USA? Yes I take your point.

[tabibito]

Not just for travel. What might be necessary to prove an abortion had taken place (to charge an individual woman) would bump up against medical privacy laws at the very least.

So they could very easily ban it, but the ban would be nigh on unenforceable.

[Sparko]

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.

Montana would get you extradited to them for prosecution. Or it might be that by crossing state lines to commit murder, it becomes a federal case (there is a federal law against murder too. Remember how they wanted to charge Rittenhouse with federal charges after he was found not guilty by the state)

[Sparko]

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.

But that is FEDERAL law. They could pass a federal law making abortion legal in all 50 states too if they wanted too and had the votes.

[CivilDiscourse]

Not just for travel. What might be necessary to prove an abortion had taken place (to charge an individual woman) would bump up against medical privacy laws at the very least.

Here's a scenario:
Woman is pregnant, Tells the boyfriend, she decides to abort he does not. She travels, comes back without a kid. He is likely able to file a report, and it might be enough to start an investigation. In today's social media world, there likely IS a trail to be found, as if the law was written like the other one, "Travel with intent", and that could be easy enough to prove with web searches.

[Alien]

Here's a scenario:
Woman is pregnant, Tells the boyfriend, she decides to abort he does not. She travels, comes back without a kid. He is likely able to file a report, and it might be enough to start an investigation. In today's social media world, there likely IS a trail to be found, as if the law was written like the other one, "Travel with intent", and that could be easy enough to prove with web searches.

Maybe. This is supposition to some extent, but to continue the story. They find a text where she claims that she planned to travel out of state to get an abortion. The case comes to court, and the defense challenges it on some basis, maybe lack of evidence that she wrote it herself. She testifies that she left the state but had no intention of getting an abortion. The Prosecution claims she had an abortion, the Defense asks for it to be ignored (wrong term, whatever) for lack of evidence, The Prosecution tries to get medical records. The docs refuse on terms of privacy.

OK, that's a mess, I have to go out in minute. The point is that it's a lot more difficult to prove things in court than to simply discover them.

[CivilDiscourse]

Maybe. This is supposition to some extent, but to continue the story. They find a text where she claims that she planned to travel out of state to get an abortion. The case comes to court, and the defense challenges it on some basis, maybe lack of evidence that she wrote it herself. She testifies that she left the state but had no intention of getting an abortion. The Prosecution claims she had an abortion, the Defense asks for it to be ignored (wrong term, whatever) for lack of evidence, The Prosecution tries to get medical records. The docs refuse on terms of privacy.

OK, that's a mess, I have to go out in minute. The point is that it's a lot more difficult to prove things in court than to simply discover them.

For the precedential law cited earlier, Traveling with Intent to do X is a separate crime from Doing X there. The same could be here as well. And, based on the level of social media evidence that was able to be found, her denial that she planned isn't convincing, and whether or not she carried through is immaterial to the crime of Travel with Intent.

[rogue06]

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

Don't sweat it. Maybe it's just me.