1101
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dx1@lemmy.world 169 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 92 points 1 year ago

Except this time, the postal service is involved and it's illegal to interfere with the mail. It's a federal offense. State laws do not affect that. So any woman in, say, Texas who gets these pills will be doing so without risk to herself. And now there's no risk to the doctor either if she gets it from one in California.

[-] qooqie@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

They can’t interfere with them getting it, but can prohibit usage right?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago
[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

"Friend" or family member tipping off police and/or subpoenas for electronic messages are two ways that spring to mind, but those can be prevented if people are vigilant

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 21 points 1 year ago

People need to learn not to allow conservatives in their lives, including family members.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Exactly, and if you have a fundamentalist Christian friend who seems like a nice person (if you volunteer in animal shelters or food banks or the like you run into a lot of these), know that they will get you arrested without a moment's doubt and just pray extra hard for you while you're sitting in a jail cell

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

True. If people aren't careful, they could get caught. But you could say that about weed in Texas too.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Exactly, it's a complete disgrace that people will have to be mindful of this crap just to get the reproductive healthcare they need, but if the government can't stop a people from transporting big old stinky plants on a regular basis good luck stopping people from delivering a few pills on the occasions when they're needed

[-] pau_hana@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Polish government developed a way using tandem mass spectrometry article

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I guess theoretically they could do that, but I doubt deep-cut Republican Texas could afford it.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

Amazingly, there’s always no funds for relief, plenty for oppression.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

There's still the wrinkle of sending prescription drugs through the mail is heavily regulated, the average doctor or pharmacist isn't allowed to just put the pill in an envelope without committing mail fraud.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago

It's all about State's Rights.

...To deny your freedoms.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

A good move from Gavin Newsom.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

"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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ChaosCharlie@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago
[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bbsm3678@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That covers people who commit a crime in state A and then flee to state B. It's not clear whether it's even possible for a citizen of state B to commit a crime in state A without entering state A.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] obscura_max@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

It's not at all clear that this would violate the Extradition Clause or Extradition Act which implements it. The offense in question isn't illegal in California and doctors practicing in California won't have fled from the States that may seek to bring charges.

This law will give California governors another reason to ignore requests from other States, requiring them to try their luck with a writ of Mandamus from federal courts.

[-] Otkaz@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Could you explain this further? I'm genuinely curious to know more.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pj55555@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

it should be strictly a ~~federal~~ personal matter

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

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

Interesting times we live in.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 year ago

Idk about getting struck down, but it seems like laws inside your jurisdiction are going to stand in a way laws outside don't really. Where it gets tricky is going to be swaths of the country where certain people can't go for fear of being arrested. Feels like a loosening of federalism to me and more like different countries in a way.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

yeah imagine if your flying from new york to california and your plane has to divert to texas due to an emergency

[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
1101 points (98.7% liked)

News

23268 readers
2065 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