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
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.
A good move from Gavin Newsom.
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!
“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.
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.
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.
It’s interstate extradition. Unless California is going to ignore the executive branch, it’s entirely unenforceable.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you get in trouble for sending a small amount of methamphetamine through the mail for someone in California to consume if you live in Oregon? Its legal in Oregon. Why should Oregon lawmakers punish the person sending the meth if its only illegal in California?
The USPS will happily punish you for that action.
I shouldnt have used a fedrally illegal substance as an example 😀
I suppose if this is not seen as illegal then they should also make buying prescription drugs from out of country legal. This ends war on drugs right? Right?
This is still a bad example due to how state and federal law works. A better example would be me buying an old school steel jerry can from say Idaho and having it shipped to where I live here in California. Even though the sale of such jerry cans are illegal in California ownership isnt, and I didnt buy it from an instate vendor.
Also I dont know if old school steel jerry cans are illegal in Idaho I was just using it as an example, they are illegal to sell in California.
Yes but the example here would be someone in Cali ordering a jerry can from Idaho and the company in Idaho mailing it to Cali. Travelling to Idaho to buy a jerry can and bring it back would be fine, but in this case getting it to Cali is a part of the purchase. The purchase is being made across state lines for something that is legal in the state the transaction is made (Idaho) but illegal in the state it’s sent to (Cali). It basically boils down to whether the act of mailing is illegal, I think.
I’m sure there must be an established precedent or something already.
Perhaps I explained it a tad badly, but that was exactly what I was trying to say.
deleted by creator
My bad
deleted by creator
I get what your saying. Obviously your example doesn’t quite work, because meth is illegal in both states and federally. What we’re looking for is something legal federally and in one state, but not the other. I’m sure there must be some established precedent for this kind of thing.
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.
They should try it again. Only this time we should let them go.
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.
I have a feeling supreme court will come into play here pretty soon.
So do you likewise feel it’s illegal for Texas to punish women who cross state lines to get an abortion?
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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?
No, you’ll just get down votes with no explanation. You are referring to that.
After thinking about it, yeah you are right i think it would fall there. Am i wrong though like is this not applicable?
Edit: didnt realize i linked to the same thing
