California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law on Wednesday that aims to stop other states from prosecuting doctors and pharmacists who mail abortion pills to patients in places where the procedure is banned.
California already has a law protecting doctors who provide abortions from out-of-state judgements. But that law was designed to protect doctors who treat patients from other states who travel to California.
The new law goes further by forbidding authorities from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into doctors who mail abortion pills to patients in other states. It also bans bounty hunters or bail agents from apprehending doctors, pharmacists and patients in California and transporting them to another state to stand trial for providing an abortion.
Other states, including New York and Massachusetts, have similar laws. But California’s law also bars state-based social media companies — like Facebook — from complying with out-of-state subpoenas, warrants or other requests for records to discover the identity of patients seeking abortion pills.
We’re just doing the whole routine with the underground railroad and civil war all over again, aren’t we. This country is so stupid.
Except this time, the postal service is involved and it’s illegal to interfere with the mail. It’s a federal offense. State laws do not affect that. So any woman in, say, Texas who gets these pills will be doing so without risk to herself. And now there’s no risk to the doctor either if she gets it from one in California.
They can’t interfere with them getting it, but can prohibit usage right?
How can they prove that?
“Friend” or family member tipping off police and/or subpoenas for electronic messages are two ways that spring to mind, but those can be prevented if people are vigilant
True. If people aren’t careful, they could get caught. But you could say that about weed in Texas too.
Exactly, it’s a complete disgrace that people will have to be mindful of this crap just to get the reproductive healthcare they need, but if the government can’t stop a people from transporting big old stinky plants on a regular basis good luck stopping people from delivering a few pills on the occasions when they’re needed
The Polish government developed a way using tandem mass spectrometry article
I guess theoretically they could do that, but I doubt deep-cut Republican Texas could afford it.
Amazingly, there’s always no funds for relief, plenty for oppression.
At least until there are substantial law changes, I’m pretty sure that would require a warrant
True, and I am not a lawyer, but I think a judge would be able to issue a warrant if there was reasonable suspicion of a “crime” being committed in that local jurisdiction. Or would something I am overlooking prevent such a warrant? It seems like the woman could be legally vulnerable in such a case.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I think you’re absolutely right about potential legal vulnerability, but that probable cause isn’t going to be an easy thing for the prosecution to get. Like, miscarriages just happen all the time, and (theoretically) the strength of probable cause a judge would want to ok a “we’re taking some of your bodily fluids” warrant is going to be about as high as it gets.
There’s still the wrinkle of sending prescription drugs through the mail is heavily regulated, the average doctor or pharmacist isn’t allowed to just put the pill in an envelope without committing mail fraud.
I assume the doctor is still not able to visit those states (or another state without this law) without the fear of being arrested? Such a shitty country we live in.
It’s all about State’s Rights.
…To deny your freedoms.
Literally every republican woman I know is a single mom to a deadbeat dad.
Crazy how their rhetoric has been flipped on them. These would be nice people otherwise, but they’re surrounded by shitbags so they feel they also need to be shitty in order to fit in.
Yeah or land at one of their airports. Which is annoying if they are a hub.
I thought airports are federal jurisdictions?
The California Catholic Conference opposed the law, arguing the state is “engaging in ideological colonization against states and citizens that do not want abortion.”
Fucking bring it. California is one of the largest economies in the world. I’d like to see states like Louisiana and Alabama try to fuck with us. Texas might be able to go toe-to-toe, but they’re about the only abortion-banning state that’d even stand a chance.
FUCK THE PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR THESE MONSTERS.
A good move from Gavin Newsom.
“Gavin is a Republican! Corporate bro!”
But he’s our corporate shill… still progressive AF for the big leagues. That’s the game. He’s better at it than most Dems on the national stage.
(not American) this mf is R, huh? Fucking Dems better step up, jfc.
Hehe no, sorry, the "s meant to imply /s
Gavin is a Democrat… but from like 1997
maybe a demicrat lol
Now he’s naming two senators… can’t wait to hear about the authoritarian Dems from buttfuck inland empire.
Fast food workers to get a $20 minimum wage in CA - https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/fast-food-workers-to-get-a-20-minimum-wage-in-ca/
There’s a lot of relativity in the left-right stuff.
Like California right is almost always more left leaning than the US federal left. Similar with Canadian right is more left than US left. But of course, california right is gonna be more right than california left, and canada right is gonna be more right than canada left.
You cannot honestly tell me that Canadian right is equal or relative to the US left, that’s just ignorant
Canadian right is not equal to the US left. I never said that, no idea where you’d draw such conclusion. Everything is relative, I don’t see your point.
Are you trying to say that Canadian right is far more right (authoritarian and/or economic right) than the US left at the federal level? If so… then let’s see…
- Canadian right (CR) is for single payer public health care. US left (UL) is not, the “Obamacare” is significantly more right. So CR is more economic left.
- CR is less militarized than UL. So CR is more libertarian.
- CR is more pro-immigration than UL. All spectrum of the current Canadian government is supporting the current immigration influx, despite all its controversy. So, again CR is more libertarian.
- CR’s budget always had higher allocation to retirement, unemployment, maternity/paternity leave, etc. than UL. More left again.
So forth…
Sure, you’ll might find some points where CR is seemingly more ideologically more authoritarian right than UL. But show me a single major government budget where CR has ever been more economically right than UL. Prove me wrong.
Based
It’s very literally interstate commerce when presented in that fashion.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution specifically empowers Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes” (emphasis mine).
If that doesn’t satisfy someone’s definition of “Constitutional Originalism”, then I don’t know what will.
Suffice to say: all of these regressive laws around trying to prosecute abortion-related travel and transport of goods that are coming from the legislatures of those states are absolutely unenforceable and categorically bullshit.
Why would Republicans care about the Constitution? This isn’t a School Shooting!
Good, states have no business removing abortion rights it should strictly be a federal matter.
it should be strictly a
federalpersonal matterSo is marijuana legislation.
They send us their illegal immigrants. We send them abortion pills.
Interesting times we live in.
While this is great postering; this is a law that will undoubtedly be ignored due to the rendition clause of the US Constitution.
Edit: after looking into this some more there is an argument that if someone has conclusively never been in the requesting during the offense, another state cannot request rendition, see Hyatt v People (1903). It was reaffirmed in Michigan v. Doran (1978).
Based on precedent there has to be no evidence whatsoever that a person was present in the state. It cannot be a question of fact or alibi for the crime itself. Ie., if a state asserts the person was present in the state and the person asserts they were not as an alibi defense, the person would still need to be extradited and can assert the alibi defense in their trial.
I think based on this reading my initial take was wrong, but I am not so sure how true this is with some more modern enactments like the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
Here is a law review article that discusses related issues in more depth: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=clr#:~:text=Without intervention%2C anti-abortion states,the people that support them.
That covers people who commit a crime in state A and then flee to state B. It’s not clear whether it’s even possible for a citizen of state B to commit a crime in state A without entering state A.
Okay I think current precedent is consistent with your view; thank you for providing an opportunity to learn more about the extradition clause. Constructive presence is not currently considered in the context of the extradition clause.
I am by no means a Trump supporter but I believe what’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Trump was never present in Georgia leading up to the electoral count as far as I am aware, yet he is charged with RICO under state law in Georgia. Do you think he could have simply fought rendition to Georgia?
He made a phone call to Georgia, to influence the Secretary of State to commit fraud. That’s a crime. The victims are the citizens of the State of Georgia. If I shoot you over the state line am I innocent of a crime in your state? No.
This isn’t the 1800s where you flee over the county line and they can’t pursue you.
That is exactly my argument.
Your argument is bad because doctors in one state are not committing crimes in other states. Unless they are leaving their state to perform an operation. Mailing something like medicine may be a crime but these are not controlled substances.
Prescribing FDA approved medication for a valid reason is not a crime that has any victim, regardless of what politicians say.
Morally I am in complete agreement with you. I just think the US law is a lot more nuanced.
Could he? Yes. But in a conspiracy all participants are equally legally responsible for each overt act.
It’s not at all clear that this would violate the Extradition Clause or Extradition Act which implements it. The offense in question isn’t illegal in California and doctors practicing in California won’t have fled from the States that may seek to bring charges.
This law will give California governors another reason to ignore requests from other States, requiring them to try their luck with a writ of Mandamus from federal courts.
Could you explain this further? I’m genuinely curious to know more.
States aren’t allowed to be sanctuary for criminals from other states. I’m not clear on whether active pursuit is required, but if the governor of Texas produces a legal warrant for a person to the governor of California, they are required to act on it. They may not have to perform a manhunt, butbifnthe person is stopped for speeding or something, they would likely be required to arrest them. The only exception is that a state can keep a person for criminal prosecution and imprisonment first, which isn’t relevant for an out of state abortion.
The state could argue that a warrant for performing an abortion isn’t legal as the requesting state had no jurisdiction where the supposed crime occurred. This isn’t required by the law though, so it may be up to the arrested person’s counsel to raise that argument, keeping all the risk on the person still.
deleted by creator
Sure.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Now arguably one can say that a California person did not flee but that argument has not been explored from what I can gather. Generally rendition seems to be granted given an indictment in another state.
In 18 U.S.C. § 3182 (which enables interstate extradition): Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. …
Overall it seems to me that a person charged in another state will be extradited as one could interpret residing in California as “fleeing” say Texas’s jurisdiction.
Edit: see my edit on my top level comment. I’ve dug into this issue in a bit more depth and it feels like this is less of a clear cut issue than I initially thought. Thank you everyone for pointing out the flaws in my logic.
How exactly do you flee from somewhere you’ve never been?
By not coming to your arraignment. Edit: this is a potential legal argument a state could make if they try to overturn Hyatt v People in a Supreme Court case.
Thanks for the further explanation. I’m curious how this is handled if products that are banned in California are mailed there from other states. For instance I recently ordered a plexiglass glue and read that if I was a resident of California they would not mail it there due to a chemical in the glue being banned in California. I’m not a lawyer obviously but to me this seems like a very similar legal situation.
I have dug into this issue in a bit more depth and I think California has more of a ground to stand on than I originally thought. See the edit to my top level comment.
deleted by creator
I wonder which laws are going to get struck down first, the ones trying to criminalize things outside their state or the ones decriminalizing things.
Idk about getting struck down, but it seems like laws inside your jurisdiction are going to stand in a way laws outside don’t really. Where it gets tricky is going to be swaths of the country where certain people can’t go for fear of being arrested. Feels like a loosening of federalism to me and more like different countries in a way.
yeah imagine if your flying from new york to california and your plane has to divert to texas due to an emergency
do this with weed as well
What a weird comment. They are not even remotely comparable.
They can’t do this with weed until the federal government makes it legal because interstate commerce is under their jurisdiction
Someone please ask him to ask Joanna when the new album is coming.
I’m sure he’ll be removing the prohibition on mailing mushroom spores into the state as to not be hypocritical right?
Removed by mod
I specifically choose spores because California treats them differently than most of the rest of the country and there is nothing illegal about them until and unless they are grown out. I was pointing out the apparent lack of congruence between the stand Newsom is taking here and how California state law treats a similar situation differently when the roles are reversed.
I’m sure you could give yourself an abortion by taking too many shrooms but there are much easier ways.
Can shrooms do that?
If you believe hard enough, shrooms can do anything.
Good whataboutism there.
deleted by creator
But that’s a Federal violation, so not the same thing at all.
It’s not a violation of anything except California, Idaho and Georgia penal law.
