A Tennessee Republican hopes to establish an “abortion trafficking” felony for adults who help pregnant minors get an out-of-state abortion without parental permission, an effort reproductive health advocates argue will run afoul of constitutional rights such as interstate travel.

Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, filed House Bill 1895 on Monday. The legislation would establish a new Class C felony, which could carry three to 15 years in prison, for an adult that “recruits, harbors or transports” a pregnant minor for the purposes of receiving an out-of-state abortion or for getting abortion medication.

  • BillDaCatt@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    10 months ago

    American citizens who reside in one state are not the property of that state and cannot be prohibited from traveling to other states. Case closed.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      With the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I am not holding my breath that the free commerce clause will apply to abortion.

  • PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Illinois just enacted a law that prevents alpr companies from sharing data outside of the state in order to protect people coming into the state for abortion.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not being allowed to get your RAPED DAUGHTER life saving medical procedures is called FREEDOM and SAVING THE CHILDREN!

  • Bone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    May all the mothers and daughters of these Republicans be the first to suffer these new laws.

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s ot about logic, it’s about hiving police a reason to pull you over and search you without a warrant. Half the cars on the roads have at least one woman in them, which is now probable cause since you could be taking that woman to get an abortion.

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        As the laws catch up with the times and we see the gradual legalization of marijuana, “do i smell weed?” is getting replaced by “is that a pregnant minor you’re trafficking across state lines for an abortion?” Cops gotta continue to make their $ and harass innocent citizens somehow

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    interstate travel has been a problem between states before roe fell

    there are border like police agents at some borders already and have been for years

    terry stops fully allowed with no need for suspicion of cause and some state borders are constansty watched for people crossing between states and this also applies to backroads

    some of those backroads between states have been shut down since cannabis becoming legal in certain states became a thing

    surprised there have not been more articles about this over the years

  • SpiceDealer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is my home state, sadly. A bunch of backward religious zealots that were it not for secular institutions America would a mirror image of Saudi Arabia but Christian.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Reminder that the Civil War wasn’t because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.

    He repeatedly said he had no desire to do that.

    The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn’t force another state to follow their state laws.

    And we’re still having the same argument apparently.

    Conservative states have always wanted to force their laws on liberal states. Because they see their state residents as property/serfs that the ruling conservatives control.

    • kimjongunderdog@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, there was only one right that was in question. The average confederate soldier was there because he wanted to protect the white mans ability to own slaves because he thought he was going to get rich doing it once the war was over.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nope.

        The majority of soldiers for the south were lied to and genuinely believed they were fighting for states rights.

        They didn’t know they were fighting for a more powerful federal government that would have the ability to force some states to follow the laws of other states.

        Ironically the civil war was the final push that made the feds do what the south wanted to begin with. It’s just the feds sided with northern states not southern states.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Morale_and_motivations

            Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one’s home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.

            Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters…

            Only the wealthiest southerners could read and write, and if you were from the South and wealthy, it’s a pretty safe bet your family owned slaves.

            But the vast amount of southerners were too poor to ever afford slaves. So that greatly skews the sample.

            But even the ones who explicitly stated they were fighting to keep slavery legal, the feds and Lincoln were adamant they weren’t going to outlaw slavery on a federal level.

            So those traitors who said they fought to keep slavery legal, were fighting to prevent something that wasn’t going to happen. They just thought it would because the leaders of the Confederacy lied to them about it.

            Just like the 1/6 traitors believed the reason they were attempting to overthrow the American government, was because they thought Biden stole an election.

            Just because a conservative believes something, doesn’t mean it’s true.

            • kimjongunderdog@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              “Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters…”

              You’re really handwaving away what’s called a primary source of information. Those letters are actually really important for understanding what was going on in the heads of the soldiers at that time. The fact that they were explicitly writing about the right to own slaves shows that they were aware of what explicit right they were fighting for.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Clearly, the cons in these states think they OWN the people in them.

    Remember just how much gaslighting the cons (and their tone-policing defenders in the “liberal media”) did when it came to talking about the Gilead states and how that’s not really a thing, don’t worry, even the reddest of states will have freedoms.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Actually, from a legal standpoint, I think that they’re on solid legal footing. I know that people may not want to hear that, but it is the truth.

    You cannot take a minor across state lines to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, even if it is legal in the state they travel to. A 20 year old guy cannot, for example, take a 15 year old girl to a state where the age of consent is 14 in order to have sex with her. The same line of reasoning would apply here.

    Now I’m not saying it’s right by any stretch of the imagination. Applying this law under similar reasoning will do exponentially more harm than good for teenage girls in the state. But looking at it from a strictly legal standpoint, this law would be valid. Immoral, but valid.

    • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m gonna need a legal citation for this claim.

      You cannot take a minor across state lines to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, even if it is legal in the state they travel to.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2002-transportation-minors-18-usc-2423

        Section 2423(a) of Title 18 prohibits anyone from transporting any individual under the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity. It imposes a maximum 15 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine under Title 18.

        That’s the most on-point that discusses the issue. But try bringing a minor out drinking across state lines, or gambling, or any other illegal activity and see how quickly charges get tacked on for the involvement of a minor. Sex is one of the few cases where laws vary so greatly from state to state, and abortion is probably the next biggest thing now.

        If anyone has an example of where it’s currently perfectly legal to bring a minor across state lines without parental consent to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, I’d love to hear it.

        • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          This only seems to specify, “…with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity.” So I would be lead to believe this law only covers “prostitution or any criminal sexual activity”. I don’t believe one could expand this law to cover any activity that is illegal under the original state’s laws as your original comment stated.

          • VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Criminal sexual activity such as getting an abortion after they got pregnant from rape and need lifesaving abortion wich is illegal in their own state.

          • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            You conveniently ignored the part where I also said that engaging in other activity with a minor such as drinking, gambling, etc. are also illegal and will result in charges for involving a minor as well.

            And for all the downvotes I get, I have yet to see anyone cite an example of where it’s perfectly legal to actually bring a minor across state lines to engage in activity that is illegal in the home state, especially without a parent’s permission. Because it seems that the downvotes are less about the validity of the statement and more because it’s something people just don’t want to hear. Try bringing a minor across state lines for any activity that is not legal for them in their home state. When you get released from prison, remember to let me know how that worked out for you.