Yup, boarder towns in red states are going to start stopping women as they travel through their towns to make sure they aren’t pregnant.
Yup, boarder towns in red states are going to start stopping women as they travel through their towns to make sure they aren’t pregnant.
I think what the previous poster was attempting to say is that crossing state lines in the commission of a crime can get you charged with additional crimes. That was the similarity to this specific example in relation to traveling for an abortion or reproductive health care. I just don’t think the bank robbery example was very good.
Ok but the better analog here is driving across state lines to smoke weed, you can’t stop someone from doing that, even though it is a crime in the state you live in.
and that is a federal crime, but you still won’t get charged for it.
First, let me say that I agree this is a much better example.
One caveat would be purchasing Cannabis in a state where it is legal, and then transporting the Cannabis back into a state where it is illegal. That could subject a person who made a legal purchase to criminal charges.
That same logic could be used to justify charging a person for seeking an abortion or reproductive health care in a state where it is legal, and then returning to a state where it is illegal.
Again, I am not justifying this whatsoever. I think this is heinous, unethical, and clearly a violation of civil liberties among other things. However, playing devil’s advocate here by pointing out some of the sticky argumentation around the edges that can and will be deployed to allow for this kind of post-hoc justification for criminal charges.