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

[Alien]

He wouldn't be able to get criminal charges filed on her, but he might be able to file civil charges, like a wrongful death suit. But if she doesn't have any money, it would be unlikely to be fruitful. And I think someone could file a wrongful death suit for an abortion even now when abortion is legal. You can file a lawsuit for just about anything you want to.

Not without standing. Unless you live in Texas, apparently.

[Teallaura]

He wouldn't be able to get criminal charges filed on her, but he might be able to file civil charges, like a wrongful death suit. But if she doesn't have any money, it would be unlikely to be fruitful. And I think someone could file a wrongful death suit for an abortion even now when abortion is legal. You can file a lawsuit for just about anything you want to.

Depends on the law - if it's illegal to cross the state line with intent then he can report that crime and potentially have the right to press charges. He has an interest as the father - best to write it into the law but many states would probably allow it.

[Teallaura]

Not without standing. Unless you live in Texas, apparently.

As the father, he has standing because he has an interest in the welfare of his child.

You're right not all states would enforce his standing - but that's just a great argument against standing. Courts should have to do their danged jobs.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

One might also make the observation that if any such laws were ever introduced in the USA the last thing any woman contemplating travelling abroad to obtain an abortion would consider doing would be to tell anyone of her intentions.

[CivilDiscourse]

One might also make the observation that if any such laws were ever introduced in the USA the last thing any woman contemplating travelling abroad to obtain an abortion would consider doing would be to tell anyone of her intentions.

One might. But people are stupid, or more importantly, think their activities are less visible than they really are if someone decides to look.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One might. But people are stupid, or more importantly, think their activities are less visible than they really are if someone decides to look.

I take your point but would anyone announce they were about to engage in a criminal activity on social media or elsewhere?

[CivilDiscourse]

I take your point but would anyone announce they were about to engage in a criminal activity on social media or elsewhere?

Oh, support group, they announce they are pregnant, then suddenly are not, etc. There's entire websites out there that deal in illegal activity.

[rogue06]

I take your point but would anyone announce they were about to engage in a criminal activity on social media or elsewhere?

Police routinely arrest criminals because they think recording and posting their criminal activity is cool or something.

And you don't think people might be careless?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh, support group, they announce they are pregnant, then suddenly are not, etc. There's entire websites out there that deal in illegal activity.

First point, at present abortion in the USA per se is not illegal. Second point, what criminal groups advertise their plans on social media? I now have visions of the drug cartels running FB pages complete with photographs and the names of all their friends!

The dark net is of course another matter.

[rogue06]

First point, at present abortion in the USA per se is not illegal. Second point, what criminal groups advertise their plans on social media? I now have visions of the drug cartels running FB pages complete with photographs and the names of all their friends!

The dark net is of course another matter.

Flash mobs that want to engage in smash and grabs pretty much rely on social media to plan and execute their operations.

[Alien]

As the father, he has standing because he has an interest in the welfare of his child.

You're right not all states would enforce his standing - but that's just a great argument against standing. Courts should have to do their danged jobs.

Maybe. It would have to be tested in court I guess. I found this on the definition of Standing.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core...IsStanding.pdf

Here's an extract.

To have standing, a party must show an “injury in fact” to their own legal interests.In other
words, has the party itself “suffered” some sort of actual harm?(In constitutional law, this
generally refers to one’s legally protected rights and freedoms.)If the party cannot show
harm, the party does not have standing and is not the right party to be appearing before the
court. Just because a party has standing does not mean that it will win the case; it just means
that it has alleged a sufficient legal interest and injury to participate in the case.
Not every injury, or even a prospective injury, is an “injury in fact.”“Injuries in fact” must be
real and of some kind that the law recognizes.It’s usually not enough that an injury might
occur, nor is it enough to be a citizen concerned about the case.A party must actually suffer
the injury to have standing.
But even if one has an actual “injury in fact,” the injury must be “redressable”; that is, it must
be an injury for which the court is able by law to provide a remedy.

1. The injury must apply to the plaintiff himself. He can't sue on behalf of the fetus. I doubt simple distress would do, otherwise I could sue you (in theory) because I didn't like something you said.

2. The injury must be something the court recognizes.

3. The injury must be redressable. Can the court do anything about it in this case?

All arguable I would think.

Incidentally, be careful how you casually dismiss Standing. That's what's stopping me from suing you as I said above. Also the "job" of the Courts is to decide cases based on current law. They are not there to enforce your personal morality (nor mine!).

[Alien]

Flash mobs that want to engage in smash and grabs pretty much rely on social media to plan and execute their operations.

Maybe so, and yes, people in general are not noted for common sense.

What I see though is the growth of organizations that guide abortion seekers through the process, making sure they don't cross any lines (legal, not State boundaries!).

[KingsGambit]

There are websites devoted to assisting people interested in public sexual activity (I know you're going to argue there's nothing wrong with that; that's irrelevant to the point that it is illegal) in finding like-minded people.

[Teallaura]

Maybe. It would have to be tested in court I guess. I found this on the definition of Standing.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core...IsStanding.pdf

Here's an extract.

To have standing, a party must show an “injury in fact” to their own legal interests.In other
words, has the party itself “suffered” some sort of actual harm?(In constitutional law, this
generally refers to one’s legally protected rights and freedoms.)If the party cannot show
harm, the party does not have standing and is not the right party to be appearing before the
court. Just because a party has standing does not mean that it will win the case; it just means
that it has alleged a sufficient legal interest and injury to participate in the case.
Not every injury, or even a prospective injury, is an “injury in fact.”“Injuries in fact” must be
real and of some kind that the law recognizes.It’s usually not enough that an injury might
occur, nor is it enough to be a citizen concerned about the case.A party must actually suffer
the injury to have standing.
But even if one has an actual “injury in fact,” the injury must be “redressable”; that is, it must
be an injury for which the court is able by law to provide a remedy.

1. The injury must apply to the plaintiff himself. He can't sue on behalf of the fetus. I doubt simple distress would do, otherwise I could sue you (in theory) because I didn't like something you said.

2. The injury must be something the court recognizes.

3. The injury must be redressable. Can the court do anything about it in this case?

All arguable I would think.

Incidentally, be careful how you casually dismiss Standing. That's what's stopping me from suing you as I said above. Also the "job" of the Courts is to decide cases based on current law. They are not there to enforce your personal morality (nor mine!).

Standing is a dodge courts use to not have to work. Dumping the lazy and not actually codified concept just reverts back to the old fashioned common law. Frivolessness remains a perfectly good reason to dismiss with prejudice.

Almost all laws are based in morality - the others in ethics - so that's a pretty silly comment and has nothing to do with the problem of courts dodging their constitutional responsibilities under the pretense that the appellate isn't aggrieved enough.

Also, the other problem with standing is it is fun place where creative interpretation comes in. Frankly, the case for the father as aggrieved by the loss of his child is pretty danged strong - not to mention that parents routinely bring suit on behalf of their children who lack, ironically enough, standing since they are minors. But let's pretend it didn't - a judge who wants the case will hear it, he just has to be creative with how he interprets standing. FYI- this happens all the time both ways.

Unless I said something defamatory or slanderous, your case would be dismissed on GROUNDS. You can bring a suit for any reason but if it has no merit (no injury or violation of law) it gets dismissed. Of course, that means the judge has to actually do his job and read your case. Which can be itself problematic - judges don't like having their time wasted.