408
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Alabama’s Republican attorney general said in a court filing that he has the right to prosecute people who make travel arrangements for pregnant women to have out-of-state abortions.

In a court filing Monday, attorneys for Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote that providing transportation for women in Alabama to leave the state to get an abortion could amount to a “criminal conspiracy.”

The court filing comes in response to lawsuits against Marshall that was filed in July from two women’s health centers and Yellowhammer Fund, an organization which says it provides “financial and practical support for those who are pregnant and require assistance.” The plaintiffs argue that Marshall violated their constitutional rights by publicly stating that organizations which help pregnant women in Alabama get an abortion out of state could be criminally investigated.

“Alabama can no more regulate out-of-state abortions than another state can deem its laws legalizing abortions to apply to Alabama,” the Yellowhammer Fund lawsuit argues.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 71 points 10 months ago

Don't give the Supreme Court ideas...

[-] [email protected] 64 points 10 months ago

It would literally have to go to SCOTUS because it is simply not legal on the state level to charge people with crimes they didn't commit in that state. Marijuana is not legal in Indiana. You can't prosecute someone for buying and smoking it in Michigan or Illinois.

And I don't think even SCOTUS would mess with that. They're evil but they're not that crazy.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This is why the crime is facilitation, because facilitation takes place in state. It's designed purposefully and fully hypocritically to ignore the rights of other states to set their own law.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There is no crime to facilitate. If something is illegal in one state and you cross the state line to do it, you are explicitly avoiding committing a crime.

The crime (stupid as it is) is getting an abortion in Alabama. No one facilitated that because it didn't happen.

If you drive from a dry country to a wet one to buy beer, no one will be able to charge you with anything. There are exceptions in federal law for leaving the US to commit felonies (like child prostitution), but those are more serious and on the federal level.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

This argument misses the point. For Republicans, states' rights don't exist to ensure a sectioned legal system on a state level. They exist to ensure fascist dictatorships in every state where they can be constructed and then to extend the reach of those dictatorships over as many other states as possible. This has always been the goal. To enforce their will on as many people as possible.

The Defense of Marriage Act did the same thing. It allowed states to ban gay marriage in their state and then allowed them to refuse to acknowledge marriage certificates for gay couples from other states. Effectively allowing red states to supersede the authority of blue states.

Once the Republicans regain control of the legislative and the executive branches, they will ditch states' rights completely in favor of total control at the federal level. They want whatever gives them the most power at any given time.

I think it's important to add, when it comes to abortion, Republicans consider this a moral issue. And as we learned from the American Civil War, which was fought over the moral issue of slavery, people cannot compromise on moral issues.

Ted Ed video on the Middle Ground Fallacy

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Well obviously Republicans are about "power for me, rules for thee". I'm just saying that it's not constitutional, as some people argue.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

You are correct, it's not constitutional. The point is that the people arguing that it is constitutional are arguing that in bad faith. Both of these statements must be pointed out.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Not if the person or persons are not in the state when providing assistance and arranging.

If I send plane tickets to a Hoosier to get high in Colorado, that's just not a crime firstly, and even if Indiana thought it was they couldn't investigate me and bring me to trial.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Would have to prove prior knowledge of the abortion plan. Not a lawyer but that's the angle I'd go for.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

That was the first thing that came to mind. Another example: many states have laws against gambling. If you lived in one of those states and took a trip to Vegas, could your home state prosecute you for gambling in another state? If your neighbor paid for your Vegas trip, could they be prosecuted for engaging in a criminal conspiracy?

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
408 points (97.9% liked)

politics

18138 readers
3528 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS