Federalization of Abortion

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Federalization of Abortion

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This is something I'm curious about. Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned. That won't make abortion illegal; it will just make its legality a matter for the States. So suppose it becomes illegal in a Red state (say, Indiana), but remains legal in a nearby Blue state (say, Illinois). Would it be possible that an Indiana woman who has an abortion in Illinois would be breaking Indiana law?

No. Look at alcohol.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

such as the gay marriage stuff

No it doesn't. A contract recognised by one state must be recognised by all others. If Massachussets allows full gay marriage, one partner divorces the other and alimony is ordered by a Massachussets court then it doesn't matter where the partner moves in the US; the courts there have to enforce the alimony agreement.

That is true, since alimony is a monetary judgement. However, if the gay couple moves to another state, the new state doesn't have to recognize that marriage based on the public policy exception (as stated above, monetary judgments aren't subject to the public policy exception... what public policy does the new state have against collecting alimony decreed in another state, they do it all the time for straight folks after all).

[Bill3000]

What about the "Defense of Marriage" acts that had been passed, saying that the state would not recongize same-sex marriages that had been done in another state?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Bill3000
What about the "Defense of Marriage" acts that had been passed, saying that the state would not recongize same-sex marriages that had been done in another state?

It's probably superfluous because there is the public policy exception. However, there is a debate on whether DOMA is Constitutional or not (even though it may be worth nothing). Some say that the language dealing with Congress in the FFC clause says they can do it. Others say that doesn't mean Congress can monkey around in there and thus DOMA is unconstitutional (what else are they going to justify it on, commerce?!)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(what else are they going to justify it on, commerce?!)

Isn't that a catch-all for governmental power already?

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Full faith and credit wouldn't apply. It mostly applies to judgments between parties. There is also a public policy exception.

Mostly, but it also applies to laws. Take the common-law marriage doctrine as an example. If a couple establishes a common law marriage in one state, aren't other states required to recognize the marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

No they aren't. One state is not obligated to recognise the marriage definition changes of another state. The same with the abortion laws. The big question is if a state has the responsibility to protect the unborn child, how does the state protect that child from mothers who go to another state to have an abortion?

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at it this way Imran. If someone abducted a black man from Missouri and brought him to Arkansas, whipped and killed him on a plantation, would the state of Missouri be able to charge that person? The situation is the same as the hypothetical listed here.

[Bill3000]

Unless they actively enforce it through something akin to the South's backlash of the underground railroad prior to the American Civil War, I doubt that it is possible.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Ah, but what about full faith and credit? If Indiana declares that a fetus is a person, is Illinois, under the full faith and credit clause, required to honor that definition?

Just for everyone's reference, here's the text:

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't that a catch-all for governmental power already?

No, not really. Not since the late 90s anyway.

[q=Ben Kenobi]Look at it this way Imran. If someone abducted a black man from Missouri and brought him to Arkansas, whipped and killed him on a plantation, would the state of Missouri be able to charge that person? The situation is the same as the hypothetical listed here.[/q]

The abduction happened IN Missouri, so they would be able to charge him based on that. If the guy was a Missouri resident who was in another state visiting and abducted from that state, Missouri would not have jurisdiction to charge the abductor.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No they aren't. One state is not obligated to recognise the marriage definition changes of another state.

That's interesting. It raises some questions in my mind about full faith and credit in the domestic arena, but I'm going to leave those alone in the interest of not threadjacking.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The big question is if a state has the responsibility to protect the unborn child, how does the state protect that child from mothers who go to another state to have an abortion?

And if a state makes abortion (either providing or obtaining) a crime, isn't there also an exception to FFC for penal laws?

[Whoha]

The worst case for the woman that wants to have an abortion would be that she'd have to move to another state before getting that abortion.

[KrazyHorse]

Not a chance. States cannot legislate their residents' behaviour while they're in another state. The only government in the US that gets to write extraterritorial laws is the Federal Government.