Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But. They would have to know who’s medical records to seize
Sorta suggests cooperation on both states
Which I doubt would be given
First things first. First you have to secure legal access.
For what reason would a state want evidence via medical records or any records of a person who engaged in a legal activity in a different state? What possible reason would only republican AGs have to try to block protection of those records.
When Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, did Kentucky, for example, penalize any one of their citizens that may have gone to Colorado to smoke the drug, when they returned? No, as long as any evidence of the marijuana was left in Colorado, being that marijuana was and still is illegal to own in Kentucky.
Is someone, who commits one murder in Virginia, and commits another murder in West Virginia, charged with both murders in Virginia? No. The murderer is separately charged for each murder in the locality for which they were committed.
No, a state, where abortion is heavily restricted, should not prosecute residents for obtaining an abortion in a state where it is legal. And, I view abortion to be as great a sin as slavery was.
Exactly. The key point here is that it is legal in state where it occurred. This would not even apply to the already ability of courts to access medical records of a crime committed in their own state where the same activity is illegal.
Sounds like an excuse, one anecdote doesn’t equal data. Did the 29 states use this in their challenge?
Of course not, because that isn't the reason they are challenging it. If it were they would be broadcasting that noble intention loud and clear. These are after all politicians who are elected to their positions for the most part and the ones who aren't are appointed by other politicians.
All you have to do is follow any of their websites, facebook pages etc. They are very busy these days and it's all about eroding people's rights, especially women. Every action they take with regard to abortion is about controlling women and preventing them from exercising choice.
Voting them out is the only solution to their continuing attempts at overreach.
I suppose it depends on the law and the abortion. If I go to a state where fireworks are legal and buy some and shoot all of them off, I can’t get in trouble for having fireworks in NJ. But, if I bring some back I could get in trouble. So, if a woman goes to NJ and gets an abortion pill, then returns home to her state where abortion is illegal and takes the pill, that would be illegal. Or, let’s say she has the baby vacuumed out in NJ but they miss some and she needs to have it completed emergently in her state. I think that would count as illegal to. I suppose the conservative state could also get cleaver with the law and make it illegal to have the abortion pill compound in your blood. Or make it illegal to have scarring on your uterus indicative of abortion. But those would be hard to enforce.
Actually, in a court case recently, California won the right to demand other states comply with their regulations on pork production, and it was upheld that they have the right to change the way pork is raised in other states and monitor it for regulation and compliance.
Since abortionists don't classify unborn babies as human, wouldn't the same laws apply? why couldn't Tennessee determine the standards that California must meet in providing abortions to Tennessee citizens under the same laws California uses to determine how pork is produced?
I suppose it depends on the law and the abortion. If I go to a state where fireworks are legal and buy some and shoot all of them off, I can’t get in trouble for having fireworks in NJ. But, if I bring some back I could get in trouble. So, if a woman goes to NJ and gets an abortion pill, then returns home to her state where abortion is illegal and takes the pill, that would be illegal. Or, let’s say she has the baby vacuumed out in NJ but they miss some and she needs to have it completed emergently in her state. I think that would count as illegal to. I suppose the conservative state could also get cleaver with the law and make it illegal to have the abortion pill compound in your blood. Or make it illegal to have scarring on your uterus indicative of abortion. But those would be hard to enforce.
There is a lot of gray areas in this and most scenarios are pretty far out there.
I know TN has a lot of crime, there are shootings, we recently had a school shooting, drug problems, fraud, corruption, etc., etc. so there are much more pressing issues for these Attorneys General to be devoting their time to. Just the fact that they are inserting this nonsense into the HIAPP protections, which is actually part of their duty to protect, not block, just chaps my buttocks. Leave it alone and do what the people are paying you to do.
IMO, if these jackholes want to do something, work on the making the use of these LED headlights illegal. They're going to kill somebody.
Or, let’s say she has the baby vacuumed out in NJ but they miss some and she needs to have it completed emergently in her state. I think that would count as illegal to. I suppose the conservative state could also get cleaver with the law and make it illegal to have the abortion pill compound in your blood. Or make it illegal to have scarring on your uterus indicative of abortion. But those would be hard to enforce.
Actually, in a court case recently, California won the right to demand other states comply with their regulations on pork production, and it was upheld that they have the right to change the way pork is raised in other states and monitor it for regulation and compliance.
Since abortionists don't classify unborn babies as human, wouldn't the same laws apply? why couldn't Tennessee determine the standards that California must meet in providing abortions to Tennessee citizens under the same laws California uses to determine how pork is produced?
Apples/oranges.
California regulates the SALE or pork in the state of CA. Other states can house/produce pork in their own state however they like, CA just cant purchase it.
A sale of a product for consumption is not in the same ball park as a medical procedure. The medical procedure is not crossing state lines.
Actually, in a court case recently, California won the right to demand other states comply with their regulations on pork production, and it was upheld that they have the right to change the way pork is raised in other states and monitor it for regulation and compliance.
Since abortionists don't classify unborn babies as human, wouldn't the same laws apply? why couldn't Tennessee determine the standards that California must meet in providing abortions to Tennessee citizens under the same laws California uses to determine how pork is produced?
They don't have to comply, they can choose not to sell it in California. California isn't forcing anything on any state, they're simply saying "if the sows weren't allowed to move freely in humane conditions, we don't want to buy your pork".
I think the better analogy in this case was the poster who asked if non-legal states could prosecute citizens who go to legal states to smoke pot.
Apples/oranges.
California regulates the SALE or pork in the state of CA. Other states can house/produce pork in their own state however they like, CA just cant purchase it.
A sale of a product for consumption is not in the same ball park as a medical procedure. The medical procedure is not crossing state lines.
The procedure isn't crossing state lines, and neither is the way the pork is raised.
However, the results of the raising and the survivor of the abortion procedure, (the egg donor), are crossing state lines.
If California can dictate that their citizens can't buy specific pork, why can't Tennessee dictate that their citizens can't access a type of procedure that normally isn't needed to save a life, but instead takes a life?
So, more like oranges and tangerines. the product is different, but the law wouldn't see that much difference in the application of the logic behind it.
Allowing one state to dictate how another state operates, is a straight-line correlation especially when you consider that you are dealing with a citizen of the first state and that the state the citizen resides in does have in effect the duty to provide for the safety of that citizen.
Plus, if california can dictate how its citizens eat, why can't Tennessee dictate about the protection of its children?
Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't like it when the laws aren't applied equally to all parties. What one state can do, another state can also do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
