The prosecution might say: "Well duh, you can SEE she's no longer pregnant".

The defense would probably respond: "Yes but can you prove she had an actual abortion".



Without the aid of the pro-abortion state, I don't see how the person could be prosecuted for having had an abortion, in that state.





This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 28 2022 11:23am

not sure, i guess time and events will tell their own story, it should not take too long for the first cases to come along.

Oh, I imagine there's people rushing around already... just to force the issue.

i found this:

The last year for which the CDC reported a yearly national total for abortions is 2019. The agency says there were 629,898 abortions nationally that year, slightly up from 619,591 in 2018.
Guttmacher’s latest available figures are from 2020, when it says there were 930,160 abortions nationwide, up from 916,460 in 2019.

so well, i guess those numbers/annual equates to alot of cases daily forcing this issue front and centre.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 28 2022 11:31am

No. Getting the abortion is not the crime in states where trigger laws outlaw it. Committing the abortion is the crime. It's not the woman who is guilty, it's the physician. AKA if a doctor were to travel to another state to perform abortions, then go back to a state where it's not legal, there's a potential gray area where the State could pursue the issue. However, the assumption is at a SCOTUS level, any such case would be thrown out. If action A is legal and performed in State A were it's legal, State B has no standing to prosecute over said action occurring in State A.

And once again, Roe v Wade was not "law". It was a Supreme Court judgement. Very different matter. They deemed their own judgement as Unconstitutional, due process does not give a right for physicians to practice procedures without oversight, and abortion is mentioned precisely nowhere in the Constitution. Thus, the decision contained in both Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey violated both the 9th and 10th Amendments, and had to be overturned.

Do not forget, the decision in no way outlawed abortion. It merely tossed the decision back to the states, which makes the situation extremely weird when you see riots in states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc. These states already have the right to abortion enshrined in either their State Law or State Constitution. And this is exactly within the rights of these States to do. So seeing people burn down their own cities over a right they already have and will continue to have, over the decisions of other States in which they do not live? Is really strange and bizarre. If anything, States that have legalized abortion should be celebrating this decision. This will attract a bunch of business from neighboring states where abortion is illegal, or going to be illegal, and quite possibly may attract some residents as well.

Living in one State is not living in another. And decision one State makes that costs it residents, especially skilled residents, to other States benefits the other States at it's own detriments. If "the left" truly believes Abortion is such an extreme issue that people would be willing to take their business to leftist States, this should be a cause for celebration among the left.

I would think, the first to attempt it would be those that can afford for the case to go... either way.

I think both the doctor and the woman will be prosecuted. Assuming the woman was conscious at the time.

It would play out like a doctor writing prescriptions for a patient that were NOT necessary, but involved... fun drugs.
The doc would lose his license for writing the prescription and the patient would also be prosecuted for "taking" the pills.

Again, this is assuming the defense could not prove the prescription was necessary, or even possibly necessary.

Admittedly, I've not read all the trigger laws, only a couple. But those I read only criminalized the procedure, and the physicians who committed the act. Not having read them all, you may very well be correct that in some State or States, the pregnant woman could be liable as well, but if so, I've simply not seen it.

Happy to read the laws if you have them handy. Doesn't matter from a personal standpoint. Abortion is legal up to the point of birth in my State, and that's how it shall remain. If/when I move, will do my best to select a State where the practice of abortion is either highly regulated (heartbeat or first trimester) or outlawed entirely, but does NOT target the woman, only the people who "Committed the Intentional Homicide of an Unborn Child".

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 28 2022 11:53am

All I've seen so far is guesstimates by various legal folk.
Nothing you'd want to bet the farm on.
I don't even attempt to remember the sites unless I see something definite.

They're like... professor of law, non-emeritus from No Where You Know University in Hell Knows Where, North Dakota or some such.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 28 2022 12:35pm

Don’t apologize, it was clear you are not real keen on the reality of the situation, which is 100% understandable because the conservative position is so misrepresented across every medium. I am aware that the world (outside the US) views conservative women as mindless subservient drones. That is due to deliberate misrepresentation.

Another huge misrepresentation of the conservative position prompted your follow up question. The answer is, no! Nobody in their right mind wants to restrict travel for anybody within the US.

The loudest voices want the world to thing conservatives hate women, want to control women, want to punish women. We feel the women are victims of the abortion industry. We hate the abortion doctors (for relentlessly convincing women to end the life of their children), we would love to control these doctors (by restricting their ability to end lives), we would LOVE for these doctors to be punished if they disobey the laws which the states have decided on.