A contentious issue of jurisdiction

New Jersey has passed a law to prohibit women from being extradited to other states for seeking "reproductive healthcare". The governor has issued a directive to state law enforcement not to cooperate with out of state requests relating to abortion, when that abortion is legal in New Jersey.

This issue could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether one state has the right to seek extradition over a person who has now fled to another state.
There are plenty of precedents for this. (Unfortunately most originate from the days of Slavery)

The question is, can one state be seen as having a legal claim to jurisdiction over one of its former residents who committed a crime in another state and is now in that other state?

Framing it that way, this issue might sound bizarre and absurd, but there is also another way of looking at this. Does one state have legal jurisdiction over one of its own citizens, who is too young to consent to anything, if a crime takes place against that person in another state, and the other state refuses to do anything about it?

There is some precedent related to this about sexual consent laws. And indeed, using some common sense, we could imagine various hypothetical scenarios involving children, exploitation, and sexual consent, that would seem to obviously justify such a concept. (So this concept of extra-territorial jurisdiction is not completely absurd)

I think we can expect to see states pass laws making it a crime to "move an unborn child out of state jurisdiction with the intent of...", which will seek to tie the crime (which actually takes place in another state) into the state where the woman is a resident of. This is kind of a disingenuous tactic, in my view, but very likely may succeed at helping to win the jurisdiction argument.

In the meantime, I think we can expect to see states resort to other unprecedented tactics. Where the nation will be divided into Pro-Life and Pro-Choice states, and certain women might be in danger of setting foot into a Pro-Life state if a warrant exists against her. We also might see states sending out spies in other states to gather evidence. I think numerous Constitutional issues will be raised.

 

???

If a woman has an abortion in my state in accordance with the laws in my state, that was not an illegal act.

Beyond that, these states that are instituting draconian abortion laws are causing serious problems for healthcare of pregnant women.

These laws are causing doctors to have to consult lawyers, legislators, prosecutors, and others to determine whether an abortion is warranted due to the health risks of the pregnant woman.

If a pregnant woman has a health concern, it could well be important for her to go to a state where the DOCTOR has a say in the care of the woman.

And, for some other state to find fault with that decision is just plain unconscionable.

I wouldn't be surprised if some states go the Texas route of putting a bounty on the heads of pregnant women. I really can not imagine anything more disgusting, but that's Republicanism today.

 

Ok. Well good for them.

 

Another case precedent, from 1946, was Cleveland v. United States.
It was a case that involved protection of children. The state of Utah at that time didn't see it as a big deal for a group of girls to be married in a big polygamous family. But the issue in this case was that the girl in question had been brought there from an outside state, which was not happy with the situation. The girl was 14 years old, but said to allegedly have had the mental capacity of a 7 year old.
The court's ruling meant that it's not okay to take an underage girl from one state and marry her in another state, if the state where she came from disagrees with that marriage. Although that wasn't exactly what the court determined, they mostly just said it was "immoral", and thus fell afoul of a federal law (the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 ).

There are three jurisdictions to consider. The woman's home state, the state where the alleged act took place in, and the federal level.

Sometimes a legal jurisdiction will still arrest even if the alleged crime is not against the law in that jurisdiction.
Here is one example of that: Arrest of Huawei financial officer demonstrates U.S. willingness to impose its laws abroad
(In that case, a Canadian court arrested and ordered the detention under house arrest of an international Chinese businesswoman for violating international sanctions, at the behest of the U.S., even though it was not a crime in Canada and the Canadian government politically opposed the policy of those sanctions, for which the woman was being held for)

I have countless more examples of this I could provide links to. Simply ask and I will provide more examples.

 

This is why locally elected LE is so important. In my state each county elects their Sheriff, the 'chief law enforcement official' of that jurisdiction. Their legal authority thus supercedes both state and federal agencies. Abortion isnt really a strongly held value around here, but gun rights certainly are, and 3/4 of our elected Sheriff's have publicly stated refusals to enforce Seattles unconstitutional gun regulations over the last ~5 years. It'd work the same for abortion if we wanted/needed it to. States that dont get to elect their own LE are **** out of luck I guess. They should prolly change that.

 

You're being unrealistic. The Left doesn't think that way.
They're almost unable to think in terms of regionalism and local control, at least ideologically.
If the Left has control over a jurisdiction, they're not going to be willing to give up any power to local areas.

 

Sure they do. Its just that they value having control over others more than they value having control over themselves. That results, of course, in others having control over them, too. They may not be getting what they want, but they are getting it the way they want it. If they don't want to change their priorities, then fine. Like I said- **** out of luck.

 

There would be no issue at all if Repubs did NOT "" value having control over others more than they value having control over themselves""" by trying to ban abortion and destroy women's rights and freedoms that everyone else has..

 

I fully expect Republicans to attempt to pursue women across state lines should they seek medical attention not locally available.

So do many states, who are establishing law in defense of that disgusting practice.

 

Most likely the women will not end up pursued to another state but will end up on a wanted list, should they have visit their state of residency again.

Perhaps states might even follow the lead of China to trick and put pressure on them to go back.

 

I love that you use China as your example!

However, the very idea that a woman should be charged with a crime for making decisions concerning her own body and health is actually worse than China, though.

It's more likely Evangelical Christian!

 

You sure seem to ADORE China.....or is it just anywhere that abuses women?

 

Right - they need healthcare that the state's doctors refuse to perform, because of the threat to existence as a doctor.

So, they find a state that WILL work to save their lives, and the result is that they can't return home, because the Evangelical Christian LUNATICS there believe she should not have received life saving health.

How did THAT become a PLAN for American healthcare?

Those who did that should be in prison for assaulting the health of large numbers of women in their state.

 

You're being melodramatic. This isn't about saving lives. This mostly isn't about "women's health" either.
You seek to try to deflect the actual issue.

 

No, you're just wrong about that.

What you are missing is that women's healthcare is about saving lives, and it DOES include women who are pregnant.

 

You are aware, aren't you, that in every pro-life state the law still allows women to get abortions if there is an actual health issue?

The lie is that women need abortion on demand - no questions asked - for their "health".
You can relax. Women will not "die".

 

No, you are constructing that lie as a method of defending your position that women should not be able to get abortions.

The problem with health exemptions is that there is no protection for doctors and women who have to make decisions that are not crystal clear or where there can be argument.

Bills passed by congress can not possibly make the decisions that doctors and women have to make. Thus, there is ample room for prosecutors to take action.

The result is that doctors have to leave OB/GYN.

 

This is an issue in many other areas of medicine. Yet the Left only seems to care about it when it comes to the issue of abortion?

(You might research, for example, the issue of government imposes viciously stiff fines and penalties on physicians and hospitals accused of refusing to treat any patient that a zealous prosecutor deems an emergency patient, even though the hospital or physician screened and declared the patient's illness or injury non-emergency. If that hospital is to remain eligible for Medicare payments, which is a mainstay of pretty much all hospitals. Even though government refuses to actually pay for treatments for those individual emergency patients. Not to mention the hospital is potentially on the hook for millions of dollars in legal liability for any alleged malpractice even though the patient was never going to pay)

The point is, why are you so willing to trust prosecutor discretion; or why are you so completely indifferent, when it comes to other areas where the law and medicine intersect?
I think there are some clear double standards here.

 

Your example is a case of wanting to ensure the AVAILABILITY of treatment.

But, YOU want to BLOCK the treatment of patients.

And, it is the right wing that is putting way too much discretion in the hands of prosecutors.

The bills in many states are vague and draconian, leaving prosecutors wide margins to attack women and doctors.

 

I’m going to post some excerpts from a news item announcing a law suit in 3 states by 8 women and 4 doctors. This is what Republicans and their RW SCOTUS are doing to American women.

 

If the state laws are preventing women from being able to access abortions in emergency situations that are very life threatening, then I am no doubt sure the federal courts will intervene, likely even the state courts.
If, on the other hand, complaints of "life threatening emergencies" turn out to be a mostly dishonest smokescreen, then don't count on the courts intervening.

 

As I've pointed out, this isn't about emergency life or death situations. It's about healthcare.

Moving obstetrics out of a state damages that state's healthcare for women.

 

Which does the article sound like to you? (You need to get down to the 11th paragraph to get the details of the actual cases.)

 

Please remember:

This is not about emergencies.

It's about women's healthcare, which is NOT limited to emergencies.

 

As I explained to you in another thread, I don't think more access to abortion will affect death rates anywhere near as much as you think.
Women do not choose to get abortion because the doctor tells them there might be some health issues. They abort because either that particular pregnancy is very high risk, or because they never wanted the baby in the first place. Any special health concerns would actually be a very low priority why the vast majority (99.9+%) of women choose abortion (excepting emergency situations, which you claim we are not talking about here).

But this thread is not about health.