California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law on Wednesday that aims to stop other states from prosecuting doctors and pharmacists who mail abortion pills to patients in places where the procedure is banned.

California already has a law protecting doctors who provide abortions from out-of-state judgements. But that law was designed to protect doctors who treat patients from other states who travel to California.

The new law goes further by forbidding authorities from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into doctors who mail abortion pills to patients in other states. It also bans bounty hunters or bail agents from apprehending doctors, pharmacists and patients in California and transporting them to another state to stand trial for providing an abortion.

Other states, including New York and Massachusetts, have similar laws. But California’s law also bars state-based social media companies — like Facebook — from complying with out-of-state subpoenas, warrants or other requests for records to discover the identity of patients seeking abortion pills.

  • PatFusty
    link
    fedilink
    -71 year ago

    Im pretty sure this is federally illegal/unconstitutional. You cant undermine a states law ex post facto as per section 10.

    Feel free to correct me if im wrong

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      Well the offense is being committed outside of the state where the law is. You could also argue that the states banning abortions are the ones infringing on federal law and constitutional rights, because they’re trying to enforce their laws on doctors living outside their jurisdiction.

      • PatFusty
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        Can you get in trouble for sending a small amount of methamphetamine through the mail for someone in California to consume if you live in Oregon? Its legal in Oregon. Why should Oregon lawmakers punish the person sending the meth if its only illegal in California?

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            -11 year ago

            I shouldnt have used a fedrally illegal substance as an example 😀

            I suppose if this is not seen as illegal then they should also make buying prescription drugs from out of country legal. This ends war on drugs right? Right?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              This is still a bad example due to how state and federal law works. A better example would be me buying an old school steel jerry can from say Idaho and having it shipped to where I live here in California. Even though the sale of such jerry cans are illegal in California ownership isnt, and I didnt buy it from an instate vendor.

              Also I dont know if old school steel jerry cans are illegal in Idaho I was just using it as an example, they are illegal to sell in California.

              • TWeaK
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Yes but the example here would be someone in Cali ordering a jerry can from Idaho and the company in Idaho mailing it to Cali. Travelling to Idaho to buy a jerry can and bring it back would be fine, but in this case getting it to Cali is a part of the purchase. The purchase is being made across state lines for something that is legal in the state the transaction is made (Idaho) but illegal in the state it’s sent to (Cali). It basically boils down to whether the act of mailing is illegal, I think.

                I’m sure there must be an established precedent or something already.

            • @pqdinfo
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              deleted by creator

                • @pqdinfo
                  link
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  deleted by creator

                  • PatFusty
                    link
                    fedilink
                    3
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The main problem that i see on Lemmy is that its all bubbles and echo chambers for the hard left. You cant disagree with people without people going down your throat which sucks.

                    I apologize if me saying that you are spineless offended you, all I meant was that there needs to be more opposition or else there isnt any discourse. I think most of the shit I post on Lemmy is downvoted on but I feel like its necessary. When i see people leave I assume its because they are afraid of being in some sort of opposition but that not always be the case. Sorry if I drove you out as it was not intended, you take care.

        • TWeaK
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I get what your saying. Obviously your example doesn’t quite work, because meth is illegal in both states and federally. What we’re looking for is something legal federally and in one state, but not the other. I’m sure there must be some established precedent for this kind of thing.

    • BOMBS
      link
      English
      131 year ago

      This law reminds me of a similar issue before the civil war. From what I remember, the issue was that northern states were forced to send people that escaped enslavement back to the south. The north was sick of that crap, stopped, and the south got upset and formed their failed cessation.

      • @jaybone
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        They should try it again. Only this time we should let them go.

      • PatFusty
        link
        fedilink
        -8
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sending people as a human right violation that they saw breaking the rules set by declaration of independence. Yes the underground railroad was breaking constitutional habeas corpus rules but they were also breaking rules of common man.

        Agin may be wrong but i remember that the north used this as the justification for harboring fugitives. This doesnt hold for this case , though, as its breaking interstate ex post facto laws. Its also breaking full faith and credit as stipulated by article IV in the constitution.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/full_faith_and_credit#:~:text=Full faith and credit is,of judgments across the country.

        I have a feeling supreme court will come into play here pretty soon.

        • @dragonflyteaparty
          link
          61 year ago

          So do you likewise feel it’s illegal for Texas to punish women who cross state lines to get an abortion?

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            -51 year ago

            No because you are free to move between states asvyou wish. Whatever you do in a state is privy to the states laws of which they are in. Its kinda like how you can go to utah, get a polygamist marriage and if you go back to any other state you will go to jail.

            • @dragonflyteaparty
              link
              21 year ago

              Wow, that’s so messed up. To say a person who has a residence in one state committed a crime in another state and can never go back lest they go to jail.

              • PatFusty
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                Im pretty sure marriage is binding so in this case if you did something that is considered illegal in another state then you get the penalty. Then again, i may be wrong. Dont downvote me just because you dont like the outcome… if I am wrong then prove me wrong.

    • Melllvar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      I disagree and here’s why.

      The 10th amendment does not constrain the state governments, and this is not an ex post facto law.

      States are not required to enforce the laws of other states, and generally do not have any legal standing to challenge other states’ laws.

      It is generally not legal for a state to prosecute someone for actions that took place outside of their jurisdiction.

      • PatFusty
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        The problem is this is akin to aiding and abetting on interstate level as an after the fact.

        Article four section two states that judges are not allowed to overrule interstate law.

        • Melllvar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          Article four section two states that judges are not allowed to overrule interstate law.

          I don’t see that.

          The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sorry I meant section 1 with full faith and credit. NAL so idunno wtf im talking about but section 2 seems that this only applies to people fleeing

            Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

    • @pqdinfo
      link
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

    • @NatakuNox
      link
      21 year ago

      How exactly does it undermine another states law. And do those state laws count only for residents of the state? Is a pregnant woman passing through a probirth state have the same legal responsibility? What if the fetus was consived in the state? What if I mail a pill to a man in a state and he misplaced the pill?

    • BraveSirZaphod
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      It’s probably fine, as I understand it. The law only concerns what parties under state jurisdiction may do. Federal authorities, which would be involved in an inter-state arrest like this, would not be affected.

      It’s similar to sanctuary city laws, which simply state that city and state officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. They don’t make it illegal for those workers to operate; they simply make those officials do all the work themselves.

      • PatFusty
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        You see, sanctuary cities works because thats for human bodies not pills. This is why Texas is allowed to ship undocumented people to different states without reprecussion. However, protecting people for illegal actions done in other states is not OK. If its illegal to take the medication in Utah after 18 weeks, California needs to respect that.

        • @dragonflyteaparty
          link
          61 year ago

          No, California doesn’t. This line of thinking allowed and tried to enforce slavery.

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            As i have said in another comment, the wau I understand it is laws pertaining to housing bodies is not the same as laws of actions. Much like how owning a slave is one form of illegal and human trafficing is another. Even though they might mean the same thing, they are treated differently.

        • BraveSirZaphod
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          The fundamental point is that it is not the responsibility of California to enforce the laws of Utah. If Utah wants enforcement, they can do it themselves through the appropriate channels, namely federal law enforcement and by dealing with people who actually fall under its jurisdiction, which California doctors do not.

          • PatFusty
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I just think those doctors might get hit with a federal crime to go around state laws. Its like saying its ok for a company to sell interstate without taxes as long as the state doesnt find out wink wink

            Edit: also, it is a crime to break the law in another state. A california judge would need to abide by laws made in another. If you get caught speeding in Nevada you would still be able to see a judge about it in New York.

            • @halferect
              link
              31 year ago

              A judge in New York would not see you about anything that isn’t a crime not committed in new York. Crimes have to be tried in the state where they took place. Law enforcement from different states may work together to bring you to that state where the crime happened but if the law enforcement in the state you are in doesn’t recognize the laws from that state then they can’t basically go fuck themselves and as long as you stay outta that state you’re good to go

      • PatFusty
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        After thinking about it, yeah you are right i think it would fall there. Am i wrong though like is this not applicable?

        Edit: didnt realize i linked to the same thing