135
Texas highways are the next anti-abortion target. One town is resisting.
(www.texastribune.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
135 points (97.9% liked)
News
23275 readers
1338 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[Edit: Sorry, I was in a hurry and slaughtered this answer. I wanted to just give a reply in case no one else did, but bungled it. There's detailed replies to the above answer the better spell out that they can't regulate what someone does in a different state. I suggest reading the other responses to better understand this, and ignoring this one. I'll leave it just so you can see how not to respond in a hurry.]
In general, it's not illegal and is the basis behind the states rights movement.
It's been an ongoing thing in the US, probably forever. I think Louisiana still had a legal drinking age of 18 until the mid-80s when they finally changed it to 21 -- only because Reagan was going to withhold federal money from the state. People still have to drive to wet counties/states if they live in a dry one (eg. no alcohol can be sold).
There are some things where crossing the border and doing something can get you in trouble, like trafficking or reselling certain things.
The pro-slavery movement?
I might be confused about what you’re saying.
In general, at the state level, you cannot prevent someone from going to another state even if you suspect they’re going to do something there that’s illegal in your state. Once you cross state lines, you’re subject to the laws of the state you’ve entered, and to federal law. Interstate crimes, like trafficking, fall under federal law, and that’s when the FBI gets involved. In addition, the drinking age policy was enforced, not by state law and not even by federal criminal law, but by the federal government passing a policy that restricts highway funding. Oklahoma could not criminalize traveling to Louisiana to drink “under age,” the feds had to get Louisiana to change their state law.
Texas can’t arrest you for flying to California to legally smoke weed. They can’t arrest you for going to Las Vegas to gamble. What they’re trying to do is make traveling while pregnant a trafficking type of crime such that existing the state while pregnant is a suspicious act.
The current SCOTUS has made some ridiculous rulings, so I wouldn’t want to gamble on this, but I honestly don’t think that it’s going to be more than political virtue signaling on an obviously unconstitutional law until the republicans take power at the federal level and pass a national anti-abortion law that permits federal agents to arrest patients and physicians in New York and California as well as having the sheriff do it in texas.
That's effectively what I was trying to say, but in a hurry and with much less detail. Re-reading it, I guess I focused more that it's legal for states to make their own laws (like this one) which wasn't really the question the person was asking. But you're right, they can't punish you for things done in a different state, which I tried to touch on with the dry county & Louisiana topics and just dropped the ball.
Thanks for adding to this.