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.

  • BOMBS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This law reminds me of a similar issue before the civil war. From what I remember, the issue was that northern states were forced to send people that escaped enslavement back to the south. The north was sick of that crap, stopped, and the south got upset and formed their failed cessation.

    • PatFusty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sending people as a human right violation that they saw breaking the rules set by declaration of independence. Yes the underground railroad was breaking constitutional habeas corpus rules but they were also breaking rules of common man.

      Agin may be wrong but i remember that the north used this as the justification for harboring fugitives. This doesnt hold for this case , though, as its breaking interstate ex post facto laws. Its also breaking full faith and credit as stipulated by article IV in the constitution.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/full_faith_and_credit#:~:text=Full faith and credit is,of judgments across the country.

      I have a feeling supreme court will come into play here pretty soon.

        • PatFusty@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No because you are free to move between states asvyou wish. Whatever you do in a state is privy to the states laws of which they are in. Its kinda like how you can go to utah, get a polygamist marriage and if you go back to any other state you will go to jail.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wow, that’s so messed up. To say a person who has a residence in one state committed a crime in another state and can never go back lest they go to jail.

            • PatFusty@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Im pretty sure marriage is binding so in this case if you did something that is considered illegal in another state then you get the penalty. Then again, i may be wrong. Dont downvote me just because you dont like the outcome… if I am wrong then prove me wrong.