We're just doing the whole routine with the underground railroad and civil war all over again, aren't we. This country is so stupid.

I assume the doctor is still not able to visit those states (or another state without this law) without the fear of being arrested? Such a shitty country we live in.

The California Catholic Conference opposed the law, arguing the state is “engaging in ideological colonization against states and citizens that do not want abortion.”

Fucking bring it. California is one of the largest economies in the world. I'd like to see states like Louisiana and Alabama try to fuck with us. Texas might be able to go toe-to-toe, but they're about the only abortion-banning state that'd even stand a chance.

FUCK THE PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR THESE MONSTERS.

A good move from Gavin Newsom.

"Gavin is a Republican! Corporate bro!"

But he's our corporate shill.. still progressive AF for the big leagues. That's the game. He's better at it than most Dems on the national stage.

It’s very literally interstate commerce when presented in that fashion.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution specifically empowers Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes” (emphasis mine).

If that doesn’t satisfy someone’s definition of “Constitutional Originalism”, then I don’t know what will.

Suffice to say: all of these regressive laws around trying to prosecute abortion-related travel and transport of goods that are coming from the legislatures of those states are absolutely unenforceable and categorically bullshit.

Good, states have no business removing abortion rights it should strictly be a federal matter.

While this is great postering; this is a law that will undoubtedly be ignored due to the rendition clause of the US Constitution.

Edit: after looking into this some more there is an argument that if someone has conclusively never been in the requesting during the offense, another state cannot request rendition, see Hyatt v People (1903). It was reaffirmed in Michigan v. Doran (1978).

Based on precedent there has to be no evidence whatsoever that a person was present in the state. It cannot be a question of fact or alibi for the crime itself. Ie., if a state asserts the person was present in the state and the person asserts they were not as an alibi defense, the person would still need to be extradited and can assert the alibi defense in their trial.

I think based on this reading my initial take was wrong, but I am not so sure how true this is with some more modern enactments like the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.

Here is a law review article that discusses related issues in more depth: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=clr#:~:text=Without%20intervention%2C%20anti%2Dabortion%20states,the%20people%20that%20support%20them.

They send us their illegal immigrants. We send them abortion pills.

Interesting times we live in.

I wonder which laws are going to get struck down first, the ones trying to criminalize things outside their state or the ones decriminalizing things.