Action of the campaign
That’s right. We are very close to the point where anyone with a uterus, or anyone suspected of possibly having one, may be stripped of their US right to cross state lines. It’s a hell of a thing to wrap your mind around, unless you’re a full-blooded fascist who gets off on those scenes, and one can imagine it’ll take a while for everyone to even grapple with the notion that it Might actually be in our future.
The problem with most coverage, and why the post And other outlets have to write their stories in such a twisted manner that, until recently, both possibilities were, from a legal perspective, completely foreign. It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest, From a legal point of view, That new dystopian governments were going to imprison pregnant Americans in their own states to ensure compliance with childbearing. Courts will never tolerate this! It would be such an anti-American notion that it was, and still is, derided as fantasy — even as Republican anti-abortion zealots and lawmakers write new proposed laws.
The the post A lot of paragraphs could have been saved with a more direct entry: There’s no way to tell what the laws are going to be a year from now, because there’s no body of “law” that the current Supreme Court can only interpret. A hacksaw won’t do. To get the communal decisions they want to see. It honestly doesn’t matter what the current precedents might be.
What outcome does the conservative wing of the Supreme Court want? Ban on abortion. What civil rights stand in the way of that ban? It doesn’t matter. They are gone now.
The Biden administration, which is trying to sell itself as being caught flat-footed by the Alito regime that was infamously leaked long ago as “caught flat-footed,” still has “a certain sense of There’s a better story to tell than “running along”. The Republican is vowing to protect the right of state residents to receive abortion pills by federal mail because federal mail is federal mail, subject to federal jurisdiction. There’s been a lot of back-and-forth about whether this is a viable legal framework, but it’s hard to see this Supreme Court doing anything but laughing at such theories of federal power.
The Supreme Court has declared that Sam Alito, et al., can be denied medical care because of his personal religious beliefs. Republican states are criminalizing medical care under the simple legal doctrine of Because we can. The state-sponsored abortion restrictions that got us to this point, with regulation after regulation, restricted medical providers of abortion procedures in much of the country long before the current Supreme Court made it possible for states to do so. Abortion was originally banned. Formalizing those restrictions, all were based on the state’s ability to impose regulations on medical providers meant to ensure the medical “safety” of patients.
The Supreme Court is likely to uphold the state’s criminalization This Form of interstate commerce without a written decision. A shadow docket will suffice. just how Whether such restrictions would be enforced, as it is unlikely that federal post offices would actually be raided, is an open question—but anyone who obtains such a drug could be expected to be prosecuted, and the possibility A digital record of ordering that drug is all that is needed to prosecute them, and it is likely that the companies that ship those drugs will be targeted by state attorneys general. Collectively.
Medication-assisted abortion will not be available in every state with abortion bans. You can say goodbye to that method of resistance at this point, unless you have an out-of-state friend or relative willing to smuggle across state lines at their own risk.
The right to interstate travel seems too fundamental to be emphasized It seemsAnd the vision of law enforcement checkpoints across state lines is still laughed at by those who don’t understand that Republicanism is, say it again with me, honestly a fascist Movement The notion of forcibly incarcerating women, children or anyone else in their own state if they are suspected of being pregnant is absurd; of course, of course Even the anti-Federalist, pro-religion Supreme Court would never allow such a thing.
Let me ask this, then. Did women have an absolute right to travel in the 17th century? They didn’t. You might expect Samuel Alito to ignore any part of the Constitution and any other law derived from it in favor of a short snippet explaining the circumstances in which English women were given the right to vote in the 1600s. In the 19th century, church bell-towers could be legally imprisoned. The personal writings of a particularly famous witch hunter who harbored a 20-year grudge against a certain woman who once responded to his advances with great cruelty.
The the post Again mentions the contemporary opponentcry Justice Bear Cavanaugh’s opinion to suggest that interstate travel rights are likely to be better protected than abortion rights, but Cavanaugh That note was forced to be inserted into a separate concurrence because he could not get his court colleagues to insert it into the original judgment.. Cavanaugh is revealing external Take, suggesting that the court probably won’t as a matter of fact Imprison pregnant people in their home states until they either give birth or die. He clearly did not find Alito’s agreement on that particular principle.
It’s unlikely that Republicans will force state residents to take pregnancy tests at the newly established border checkpoints if they want to leave the state, but that’s only because there are more efficient ways to police citizens. Those better aligned to the Republicans. As many want to continue to have “recreational abortions” while criminalizing everyone’s care. Missouri has already tried a bill modeled on the Texas “bounty hunter” abortion law. It likely won’t close borders to pregnant women. This will do Imposing “civil liability” on any person helped A pregnant Missourian travels out of state for an abortion.
This is the more likely scenario we will see. No border checkpoints, but vigilante enforcement provisions in which anti-abortion zealots and for-profit allies purchase smartphone-tracking data sets to determine who has recently traveled to the state and, among them, at what time. who were In the area near an abortion clinic. From there, all it takes is a little work to file a lawsuit seeking money from whoever may be involved; Neither do you, for laws truly modeled on the Texas bounty-hunter version need A lot of work to do. There is no penalty for falsely accusing someone you want to accuse. Do you want to claim that your Republican governor is driving buses to out-of-state abortion clinics during the holidays? Go for it! The worst that can happen is nothing.
All this discussion of legal uncertainties is, for the most part, wheel-spinning. We can argue about what the legal consequences would be in the days when the Supreme Court wrote precedents and lower courts interpreted those precedents so that the general body of American law remained consistent and generally known— But these are not the days when the Supreme Court easily rolls over its most recent precedents to reach any result favored by a conservative majority; Lower courts that attempt to use new or old Supreme Court precedents in their decisions are told, through unfounded shadow docket orders, that as a matter of fact, the reverse applies, for uncertain reasons, when their results have not supported the conservative stance. We live in a time of pseudo-legal obscenity written by Fox News addicts who make little effort to get the basic facts right before raising yet another civil rights group in the service of the church headed by Sam Alito. .
It doesn’t matter what rights citizens had six months ago. That was then, this is now, and the Supreme Court justice who wrote the scathing opinion declaring that the beliefs of one religious sect would now result in the criminalization of all opposing religious beliefs mocked his detractors to an international audience. has been You can pretty much trust that the current Supreme Court will rule that states can potentially limit the travel rights of pregnant women or imprison them if they’ve had an abortion. Elsewhere. The entire premise of the Dobbs decision was that the state had an interest in prioritizing the “life” of fetuses over that of their civilian hosts, an interest that could trump whatever rights citizens normally have.
It will happen. All arguments are over when.
Abortion rights, climate change, and gun safety are on the ballot this fall, and there are literally thousands of ways to get involved in turning out our voters. Plug into a federal, state or local campaign from our GOTV feed on Mobilize and help Democrats and progressives win in November.
Doctor who made 10-year-old victim’s abortion go viral, sues Indiana AG for defamation
Court of Appeals Rules County Prosecutors Can File Charges Under Michigan’s 1931 Abortion Ban
Alito’s first public speech since overturning Roe v. Wade makes clear that he is just getting started
If you look like you have ‘childbearing potential,’ some prescriptions are harder to fill.
It’s a wake-up call for the country: 195 House Republicans want to end the right to birth control