Texas and I believe a few other states have passed anti-abortion laws that attempt to cover people leaving their states to seek safe and legal abortions. The ones I’m familiar with (as I recall) applied to things like traveling on state-owned roads to seek an abortion out of state.
Let’s lay aside the question of constitutional and federal restrictions governing interstate commerce laws for now. I started wondering if these laws would govern transportation via airlines or Amtrak. They could (I assume) make the argument that they pulled you over on the way to the transportation facility, but if you didn’t buy the tickets until you get there, I think it’d complicate the state’s case. I did some thinking along those lines.
My real question now is whether the defendant could state that they were traveling for reasons of a medical consultation regarding their pregnancy but had not yet decided whether they would be having an abortion performed. As far as I know, these laws necessarily target intent. If the patient states they were traveling to a state where they would be more likely to receive competent medical advice (which is a truism - abortion-restricting states also limit what MDs can say to a patient), would the state need to prove their intent? Absent something like a text message stating “I’m going to California to get an abortion,” does the prosecution have any line of attack there?
Abortion resources:
California abortion resources by the state government
I just want to make sure I understand your answer. I’m going back to the cannabis example to make sure I’m clear in terms of what I’m saying and understanding.
Texas cannot make it illegal to smoke pot in California. We are on the same page there. Texas can however make it illegal to have drugs in your system while in Texas. If you get back from CA and test positive in Texas, I believe you can be charged for having drugs in your system. For instance, you will probably go back to jail if you test positive while on parole. I don’t want the parole thing to confuse the issue - the point is that smoking in CA is not what’s illegal. Being in TX with drugs in your system can be.
This isn’t ex post facto because the law against having terminated your pregnancy would have existed before the patient traveled.
What I’m thinking about specifically is the concern many people have about things like menstrual tracking apps being used by law enforcement to determine if someone was pregnant and now is not. To my reasoning, that means that the concern is ipso facto the termination.
And I agree on keeping any conversations about it in a manner that a prosecutor would be unable to use them to show motivation for travel. I mentioned that when o was asking whether it would be a reasonable defense if/when someone were to be charged (pretending that it doesn’t get overturned).