California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs law to protect doctors who mail abortion pills to other states
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs law to protect doctors who mail abortion pills to other states
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law protecting doctors and pharmacists who mail abortion pills to patients in other states.
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
-
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 matter -
So is marijuana legislation.
-
-
They send us their illegal immigrants. We send them abortion pills.
Interesting times we live in.
-
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
-
-
Based
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
Someone please ask him to ask Joanna when the new album is coming.
-
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
-
-
-
I'm sure he'll be removing the prohibition on mailing mushroom spores into the state as to not be hypocritical right?
-
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.
-
-
We get it, you do drugs.
-
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.
-
We get it, you care more about another user's personal habits than a state government's policies, because drugs are bad, mmkay?
-
-
-
Im pretty sure this is federally illegal/unconstitutional. You cant undermine a states law ex post facto as per section 10.
Feel free to correct me if im wrong
-
Well the offense is being committed outside of the state where the law is. You could also argue that the states banning abortions are the ones infringing on federal law and constitutional rights, because they're trying to enforce their laws on doctors living outside their jurisdiction.
-
I disagree and here's why.
The 10th amendment does not constrain the state governments, and this is not an ex post facto law.
States are not required to enforce the laws of other states, and generally do not have any legal standing to challenge other states' laws.
It is generally not legal for a state to prosecute someone for actions that took place outside of their jurisdiction.
-
How exactly does it undermine another states law. And do those state laws count only for residents of the state? Is a pregnant woman passing through a probirth state have the same legal responsibility? What if the fetus was consived in the state? What if I mail a pill to a man in a state and he misplaced the pill?
-
It's probably fine, as I understand it. The law only concerns what parties under state jurisdiction may do. Federal authorities, which would be involved in an inter-state arrest like this, would not be affected.
It's similar to sanctuary city laws, which simply state that city and state officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. They don't make it illegal for those workers to operate; they simply make those officials do all the work themselves.
-
You see, sanctuary cities works because thats for human bodies not pills. This is why Texas is allowed to ship undocumented people to different states without reprecussion. However, protecting people for illegal actions done in other states is not OK. If its illegal to take the medication in Utah after 18 weeks, California needs to respect that.
-
-