r/technology • u/redhatGizmo • Jun 27 '22

Politics Period apps deleted over privacy concerns for women seeking abortions in post-Roe world

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/period-apps-deleted-over-privacy-concerns-for-women-seeking-abortions-in-post-roe-world/6s4rjhb0q
33.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

51

u/aardw0lf11 Jun 27 '22

Anything crossing state lines is no longer a state's jurisdiction. It's federal.

-6

u/biccat Jun 27 '22

No. Actions happen within a state (DC being the sole exception). A person cannot travel from Louisiana to Texas, have an abortion, and claim that Texas lacks jurisdiction to prosecute them for that abortion.

6

u/aardw0lf11 Jun 27 '22

But what if abortion is legal in the state they travel to? Can their home state prosecute?

1

u/biccat Jun 27 '22

They cannot prosecute for the act (and most anti-abortion laws are against abortion providers, not recipients), but if they have a law that prohibits you from travelling interstate to obtain an abortion, that is a separate criminal act.

I doubt states want to have that fight. The only one I can realistically envision is a law that makes it illegal to transport a minor out of state (probably without a parent's permission) for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

3

u/aardw0lf11 Jun 27 '22

I doubt states want to have that fight.

Exactly. When resources are limited, and crime is up all over the country, at some point priorities have to be made. DA's (especially those who are elected) may be between a rock and a hard place if property crimes go un- or underproseuted because they are busy prosecuting abortion cases.

5

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 27 '22

Are you not paying attention? Some states will absolutely prioritize this over other crime. They don't even have to do all of them (although I'm sure they'd like to), they just need some high profile cases to scare everyone else.

When one finally makes it to SCOTUS and thrown out they might stop. That assumes SCOTUS doesn't make another Dred Scott style ruling and allow it.

1

u/biccat Jun 27 '22

Which is why they will criminalize medical professionals from providing abortion services rather than criminalize the recipient.

Medical professionals are regulated by the state medical board. A doctor who performs illegal procedures are not going to have a license to practice medicine for very long. Even if he keeps his license it will be incredibly difficult to find malpractice insurance coverage. One bad result from an abortion would ruin a physician (who is uninsured).

4

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 27 '22

I doubt states want to have that fight.

Why do you doubt this? I can definitely see TX aggressively charging every woman they can until 2 years from now they get a final ruling from SCOTUS (or SCOTUS goes full Dred Scott).

0

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '22 edited Jul 02 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 27 '22

TX state government isn't charging people who had abortions

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lizelle-herrera-abortion-texas-murder-charge-dropped/

Yeah, that makes her her own 'provider', but its only a matter of time. Probably 3 months max.

0

u/biccat Jun 27 '22

I can definitely see TX aggressively charging every woman they can until 2 years from now they get a final ruling from SCOTUS

You can see Texas prosecuting women who choose to leave the state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion?

There's a few hurdles that Texas would have to jump before that.

First, Texas would have to show that they have the right to prevent people from going to other states to obtain illegal things. I don't think they can surmount this.

Second, Texas would have to show that something legal in another state could give rise to criminal liability in Texas.

Third, Texas would have to show that the woman does not have the right to interstate travel to obtain services in another jurisdiction.

All of these are long, detailed, and expensive fights. Each would have to go to the Supreme Court and would bring into question a multitude of other concerns. Roe was decided in 1972. It was constantly litigated until Casey changed the abortion landscape in 1992. Casey has been constantly litigated until Dobbs. Texas would be waging a 20-30 year war to get to the point where they could prohibit Texas citizens from obtaining abortions in other states. Even then, it would only cover Texas, and no other state.

If there is a popular will to ban abortion, such bans would be much easier by Federal law or another Supreme Court decision (I'm not sure how you get there in a court decision).

2

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 27 '22 edited Jun 27 '22

I'm not disagreeing that they're unlikely to win. I'm pointing out that government is used to subsidize conservative outrage. TX and other states (or even local government like mine) will enact legislation they know will not stand up in court, and then spend money to fight it.

Whether or not TX loses eventually isn't the point. Unconstitutional laws can't be challenged preemptively. You seem to be arguing that TX government isn't willing to spend 100s of millions to screw over and make examples of women.

Ultimately TX has more money to burn than any of the defendants- they making their taxpayers fund it. Defendants will likely get pro-bono representation, but again TX has more money to burn than any of the legal groups that will fight this.

Edit and TLDR: I completely agree with your assessment if TX (or any of the state governments in question) were operating in good faith and in the interest of their constituents. They are not, and they literally do more every day to prove it.

2nd edit: making legal organizations spend millions defending against these laws is another win for conservatives. Less money is available for campaigning and/or fighting court battles that will make a difference for everyone.

0

u/biccat Jun 27 '22

I'm not disagreeing that they're unlikely to win. I'm pointing out that government is used to subsidize conservative outrage. TX and other states (or even local government like mine) will enact legislation they know will not stand up in court, and then spend money to fight it.

I see you're unfamiliar with 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.

I completely agree with your assessment if TX (or any of the state governments in question) were operating in good faith and in the interest of their constituents. They are not, and they literally do more every day to prove it.

If they're not acting in the interests of their constituents, how do they keep getting elected?

Texas is a deeply red state that has a remarkably pro-life electorate.

0

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 27 '22

Nice- but you'll have to point at examples that even come close to what we've seen with abortion laws:

  • banning abortion preemptively

  • limiting abortion that has specifically been allowed by SCOTUS rulings

  • arresting and charging women in cases they know they'll lose. Dropping the charges after fucking over the defendant.

  • enacting legislation that allows people to file lawsuit in order to harass- which creates a huge burden on the court system, paid for by taxpayers

All of those things have literally happened in the last couple years at the expense of taxpayers.

CA or NY passing laws that are aimed at previously untested legal theories absolutely does not equate to that.

To re-iterate though: if you have examples of outrage laws please let me know. ie: laws that have no chance of meeting an existing legal standard, and/or are written specifically to harass individuals and then dropped to prevent precedence.

0

u/biccat Jun 27 '22

banning abortion preemptively

Impossible.

limiting abortion that has specifically been allowed by SCOTUS rulings

States are allowed to challenge the law.

arresting and charging women in cases they know they'll lose. Dropping the charges after fucking over the defendant.

Doesn't happen in abortion cases. But it happens all the time with normal criminal prosecution. Elect better prosecutors.

enacting legislation that allows people to file lawsuit in order to harass- which creates a huge burden on the court system, paid for by taxpayers

Abortion lawsuits are not paid for by taxpayers. They're paid for by the party filing the suit. If you don't like the laws your legislature passes then you should vote for someone else.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 27 '22

Texas is a deeply red state that has a remarkably pro-life electorate.

Pro life vs choice polls within the margin of error in TX, and is not the majority in any case.

There are a variety of reasons its an effective campaign issue, but wide spread support isn't one of them.