Historically, a state’s legal code was supposed to stop at its borders. And for the most part, states have not prosecuted residents who left to do something that was legal where they came from but was illegal at home. “Before it was legalized in most places, people would go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City to gamble without fear that their state would,” said David S. Cohen, another author of the paper. come back and accuse them. an associate professor at Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law. “Anti-gambling ethicists do exist, but they’re not strict at all to make sure people don’t go to Las Vegas. But anti-abortion extremists are doing their best to prevent as many abortions as possible, and this uncertain body of precedent will give them an opportunity to test the waters.”
This Spring, Missouri considered, but did not passa measure that would have criminalized going out of state to get an abortion, creating a bounty hunting incentive similar to Texas’ new anti-abortion law to execute it. Exercising “extraterritorial rights,” or attempting to enforce one state’s laws within another state’s jurisdiction, would be a new frontier in restricting abortion, but in the future.Roe world, legal scholars cannot rule it out. In New York, which has declared itself a safe state for abortion, legislators have recommend an invoice to protect abortion providers from being extradited to anti-abortion states for prosecution, and Connecticut has passed a law protection against extradition and also sentences handed down in other states.
Conflicts between states’ legal rules when people cross their borders — or drugs, or the internet — is just one conflict that can arise. For example, cross-border travel and interstate commerce are constitutionally protected, and mail delivery is a federal project. Approving the safety and sale of pharmaceuticals nationally is the responsibility of the FDA. GenBioPromifepristone manufacturing company, is Mississippi State because its limits on drug availability are stricter than those set by the FDA.
“The federal government has control over the mail, and the federal government also has control over how a drug can be made and sold,” said Khiara M. Bridges, a law professor at UC Berkeley Law School. in U.S.A. “Therefore, we think there will be a conflict between a state’s ability to regulate health care and the federal government’s ability to regulate the availability of any drug in the United States. Ky.”
Fertility law scholars tracking this slow-motion crash predict that legislators in anti-abortion states will not wait for courts to rule on these conflicts before acting to restore access to near abortion. They expect those states to continue to impose restrictions on the privacy of mail, the movement of goods between states, the prerogative of other states to direct the conduct of healthcare. health — and continue to do so until a decision is reached at some level by the court system notifying the offending countries that they have overreacted.
