https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/
Some advocacy groups and their allies are crafting legislative language that could be adopted in Republican-led state capitals.
The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation.
The subject was much discussed at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, with several lawmakers interested in introducing these kinds of bills in their own states.
The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council.
“Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.”
The Biden Justice Department has already warned states that it would fight such laws, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce.
In relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than attempting to impose a state-enforced ban on receiving abortions across state lines, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups don’t have a clear person to sue.
Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a chilling effect, where doctors in surrounding states stop performing abortions before courts have an opportunity to intervene, worried that they may face lawsuits if they violate the law.
Not every antiabortion group is on board with the idea.
Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, noted that people access medical procedures across state lines all the time.
“I don’t think you can prevent that,” she said.
While some antiabortion groups aspire to push Congress to pass a national abortion ban, restricting movement across state lines would represent another step in limiting the number of abortions performed in the United States.
These kinds of bills could be proposed even before state legislatures reconvene for their regular 2023 legislative sessions, said Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert (R). His home state, he said, may soon address this issue in an already planned special session. Another Arkansas senator, he said, has expressed interest in introducing that legislation.
“Many of us have supported legislation to stop human trafficking,” said Rapert, president of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. “So why is there a pass on people trafficking women in order to make money off of aborting their babies?”
In a television interview over the weekend, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R) left the door open to restricting out-of-state abortions in her state, where a trigger ban took effect as soon as Roe was overturned. The governor, who has called a special session to discuss abortion legislation, said the topic may be debated in South Dakota in the future.
Dale Bartscher, the executive director of South Dakota Right to Life, the leading antiabortion organization in South Dakota, said he was “very interested” in stopping South Dakota residents from accessing abortion in other states.
“I’ve heard that bantered about across the state of South Dakota,” he said, though he would not discuss the goal of the upcoming special session.
The idea to restrict out-of-state abortions surfaced earlier this year, when Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R), who is special counsel at the Thomas More Society, proposed legislation that relied on the Texas-style enforcement mechanism. While Coleman’s bill failed to pass in the 2022 legislative session, Coleman said she has heard from multiple lawmakers and antiabortion advocates in other states who are eager to pursue similar legislation.
The issue is particularly pertinent in Coleman’s home state of Missouri, which outlawed abortion with a trigger ban that took effect within an hour of the Supreme Court’s decision. As many as 14,000 people are expected to flood into southern Illinois this year, including thousands of Missouri residents, according to Planned Parenthood.
Several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that try to restrict movement across state lines.
Connecticut passed a law in April that offers broad protections from antiabortion laws that try to reach into other states. The measure would shield people from out-of-state summonses or subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in Connecticut. And it would prevent Connecticut authorities from adhering to another state’s request to investigate or punish anyone involved in facilitating a legal abortion in Connecticut.
“Legislators in [antiabortion] states have made clear that their intent is not only to ban abortion within their own state’s borders, but to ban it in states where it is expressly permitted,” Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal (D) said in an interview in April.
California passed a similar law Thursday, aiming to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/2d8ca348-1118-4fdb-8954-cbd31dad9115
The Justice Department has already signaled its intention to fight against these kinds of laws in court.
In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe “does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.”
That declaration suggests that if a particular state did pass a law seeking to prevent women from traveling across state lines to receive an abortion, the Justice Department might file court papers opposing such a law. That strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in the Justice Department’s opposition to the Texas law limiting many abortions, but any new state law that involved interstate travel could raise additional legal questions for the courts.
Garland argued that the Constitution was unequivocal on the legality of crossing state lines for medical treatment.
“We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal,” Garland said, adding that the First Amendment safeguards anyone who offers information or counseling about “reproductive care that is available in other states.”
A Justice Department spokesman did not elaborate on the attorney general’s statement.
David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor who has studied these kinds of proposals, noted that Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh addressed interstate travel in a separate concurring opinion he wrote along with the ruling to overturn Roe, where he specified that people could not be prosecuted for out-of-state abortions.
But Kavanaugh’s concurrence does not address the civil enforcement strategy that is gaining traction among antiabortion groups, Cohen said.
“This is going to create state-against-state and state-against-federal chaos that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time.”
Chris Rowland contributed to this report.
The Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal non-profit, has sued to overturn election results in multiple states and has filed numerous lawsuits against LGBT rights laws and protections of all kinds. They recently appeared on JMG when they won an $800,000 settlement for an anti-lockdown California megachurch. The SPLC lists them as an anti-Muslim hate group.
And just for clarity, it’s because of bullshit like this that I refer to places where women can get the care they need as Free States and places where abortion has been banned as Slave States.
Hornbori Adam Schmidt • 14 hours ago
This is just the start. I’m waiting for the Slave States to enact legislation similar to the Fugitive Slave Act,
olandp Hornbori • 14 hours ago
That’s exactly what this is.
Hey, if those laws are still on the books, it’s just a matter of time before *this* SCOTUS says… 👍
amandagirl15701 Adam Schmidt • 10 hours ago
It’s remarkable that people are buying into DeSantis’ Free Florida slogan after all of the restrictive laws have passed in that state recently. It’s as if freedom is only for people like him and everyone else must be regulated.
Adam Schmidt • 14 hours ago • edited
On what fucking grounds? I’m her neighbor and was scandalized by her trip to a Free State? Or are we watching in real-time the return of “slave catchers”?
stretchdad Adam Schmidt • 14 hours ago
“Slave catchers” is a good analogy! What I can’t fathom is what damages some unrelated third party could possibly claim. Not that that will stop them from trying…
I truly cannot fathom how the “Texas-style” obscenity of civil ligation to restrict basic rights is allowed to continue.
Posthumously BobSF_94117 • 14 hours ago
Republicans control the federal courts. That’s how.
another_steve BobSF_94117 • 14 hours ago
Texas and Florida are currently “Ground Zero” for the theofascists’ attempt to turn the United States of America into a theocracy.
I predict Virginia will soon be joining that club.
tomcor another_steve • 14 hours ago
You are absolutely right….Youngkin is right on board with all of this nonsense because he’s auditioning for VP with DeSantis and the idiot Loudoun County women who elected him will go right along and support the Fascist.
another_steve tomcor • 13 hours ago
Youngkin played it just right during his campaign for the governorship. He avoided the harsh far-right MAGAt rhetoric that he knew would turn off Virginian Independents and wishy-washy asshole Democratic voters.
Virginia brethren reading here can comment on my belief:
Youngkin is a through-and-through, dyed-in-the-wool Christofascist.
The real thing.
stuckinthewoods another_steve • 14 hours ago
Yeah. VA Lt.Gov. Sears just said, “Why are we having these (sic) many abortions?…the mother is not having a lizard,…”
Darreth BobSF_94117 • 12 hours ago • edited
Dems are still mostly oblivious about what’s happening to them. This is what happened in Germany as their liberal republic was dismantled. It’s been so long since the History channel actually showed documentaries about the 3rd Reich that people can’t see it happening.
KnownDonorDad Rebecca Gardner • 14 hours ago
I see it more as akin to the Reconstruction, and with state governments at odds because of lack of federal codification of civil rights and regulatory authority. The series Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War highlights how violent things were after the war was technically over, highly recommended.
Posthumously • 15 hours ago • edited
Yes this is horrifying. But if Republicans pick up a few more state legislatures this fall, they’ll be able to amend the US Constitution unilaterally. That will be even worse.
Yet Democrats persist in focusing on the presidency to the exclusion of down-ballot races.
amy cuscuriae DmR • 15 hours ago
The whole point of Roman Catholicism is foisting its belief on others.
I believe Baptist is really the problem in our country right now.
Rebecca Gardner Tomcat • 15 hours ago • edited
Religion, all religion, is a terminal illness for all mankind.
Silverwynde 🌻🇺🇦🌻 Rebecca Gardner • 14 hours ago
We should go full Klingon and kill our gods. They are more trouble than they are worth.
Fascinating how a tax-exempt religious organization gets to craft public policy that the rest of us will have to follow…
…in The Land Of The Free™.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/bc9fd95e277ba07b7e49d0e45206bccf/Cactus%20Elementary%20MG%20TT%2004.jpg)
