RF Rules & Illegal Abortions

[F1fan]

I considered that. But "other illegal sexual acts" strikes me
as so broad as to invite mischief. This SCOTUS seems prone
to novel & aggressive interpretations of law & the Constitution.
And as we saw in the other link, lawmakers plan to illegalize
seeking abortion in other states.

I thought the same thing. Prosecutors can file charges on a broad interpretation of a law, and even if it is thrown out in court it will cost the person quite a lot of money for defense. It seems a far right prosecutor could file such charges and hope for back counsel and get a conviction, and then there is a precedent for future indictments. Trying to overturn a conviction costs even more money and is typically difficult.

So I would not trust activist prosecutors any more than we can trust the supreme court at this point.

The upshot here is a strong possibility that ferrying women
across state lines for abortions is (or will soon be) illegal.
Does advocating an underground railroad violate the rules?
If not now, I'm concerned that it soon might.

My question is I assuming these would be women with legal addresses in a state where abortion is banned, and this is how a state can assume some legal authority. If it's illegal for a woman from Missouri to travel to Illinois and get an abortion it wouldn't be illegal for a woman living in Illinois getting that service and be prosecuted, so I think the next step will be what is the basis for authority of a state over a women. I could see a way to avoid this by changing the legal address of a woman in need to a state where she won't be accused.

Would a pregnant woman in Oklahoma not be allowed to move for a job to another state and then seek an abortion? Will the state assume authority over the woman at the time of conception? I would not be surprised if some of these states go farther and farther to assume authority over a zygote, and in essence own both the woman and the zygote.

 

[F1fan]

As long as no one has any sex with the fetus we are golden

Well now they will say having sex with your pregnant wife is illegal, because.....what you said.

 

[fantome profane]

In the interests of fairness and equal treatment I imagine American secret service staff will start abducting non-Americans so that they can be put on trial in the land of the free, duly charged with promoting murder.

Der gona hafta find me first.

[fantome vanish]

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What about advocating an undergound railroad?

By the very nature of the term, wouldn't that be advocating committing a crime?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If you were to do something like completely ignore federal law to assist people being oppressed by said law, it wouldn't be wise to discuss plans for exactly what and how you would go about it online, no matter what RF rules are.

But speaking in broad terms about why people won't follow such a law isn't against RF rules so long as you aren't conveying a personal lawbreaking experience or telling others to.

And yes, RF rule 6 applies to federal law.

 

[Alien826]

If this goes on to the point where a web forum has to institute rules to stop members posting their views in favor of abortion rights, then it will have gone too far by a long stretch. Not that I can't see it happening.

What I'm hoping (perhaps pathetically) is that there is a point where most people will cry "enough already" and kick these idiots out of power.

 

[Alien826]

Certainly a future Republican controlled house and senate with a Republican President could further amend the Mann Act to include the transport of women across state lines to seek abortion. Such change would be unchallengeable under the current Supreme Court.

How about if the driver hands over the wheel to the woman while crossing the border? I'm not being totally silly, I can see a challenge on the basis of who is transporting whom.

 

[stvdv]

If we advocate assisting pregnant mothers seeking abortions in other
states, is this a rule violation because it's a crime in some states?

I just thought about it too

I guess RF mods yet have to make up their mind about this issue. New laws take time to settle in

With covid it took awhile until they complied, and created a separate forum fir it

IF it's still only a crime in some states THEN abortion talks are not yet an issue to overrule "Freedom of free speech" I guess

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If we advocate assisting pregnant mothers seeking abortions in other
states, is this a rule violation because it's a crime in some states?
It might even become a federal crime...or already be one, depending
upon how SCOTUS rules on interpreting the Mann Act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/
Excerpted...
Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to people involved in the discussions.

Mann Act - Wikipedia
Excerpted...
In its original form the act made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking...


SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of the Mann Act many times.
So it gives Congress the ability to prosecute people for transporting
women across state lines for "immoral purposes", which abortion is
being treated as in many states. Congress has amended the act
to focus upon prostitution, but the original form is far broader.

It seems like abortion would not apply in this case. The 1986 amendments seem to clarify it is only for sexual crimes. I do not support any laws criminalizing people for going to a different state to get an abortion.

 

[Quetzal]

Luckily some of us are not in the U.S.

If that makes a difference.

Don't rub it in.

 

[Revoltingest]

As long as no one has any sex with the fetus we are golden

A creative justice might argue that the fetus
typically results from sexual congress, thereby
bringing abortion under that law.
Stranger arguments have been made.

 

[fantome profane]

As long as no one has any sex with the fetus we are golden

Matt Gaetz! We’re looking at you!

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought the same thing. Prosecutors can file charges on a broad interpretation of a law, and even if it is thrown out in court it will cost the person quite a lot of money for defense. It seems a far right prosecutor could file such charges and hope for back counsel and get a conviction, and then there is a precedent for future indictments. Trying to overturn a conviction costs even more money and is typically difficult.

Aye, tis already common for cops to arrest people
on false charges, knowing that even though there'd
be no conviction, the arrest itself is a strong message,
ie, punishment for somethin not even a crime, eg,
insulting a cop, recording an interaction with a cop.

 

[Revoltingest]

By the very nature of the term, wouldn't that be advocating committing a crime?

Tis a matter of interpretation, eh.
It needs discussion.

 

[Orbit]

As far as RF rules go, it wouldn't be any different from discussing marijuana legalization, (it is legal in over 20 states).

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't rub it in.

No worries.
He's from some ****hole country.
He wishes he lived here.

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as RF rules go, it wouldn't be any different from discussing marijuana legalization, (it is legal in over 20 states).

But advocating something illegal would be a problem,
eg, growing more than is allowed in a particular state.
And note that it's illegal in every state under federal law.

 

[Revoltingest]

If this goes on to the point where a web forum has to institute rules to stop members posting their views in favor of abortion rights, then it will have gone too far by a long stretch. Not that I can't see it happening.

What I'm hoping (perhaps pathetically) is that there is a point where most people will cry "enough already" and kick these idiots out of power.

The problem is when one advocates something illegal.
Short of that, we may post all sorts of views, eg,
"abortion is good", "anti-abortionists suck pebbles IMO".

 

[Orbit]

But advocating something illegal would be a problem,
eg, growing more than is allowed in a particular state.
And note that it's illegal in every state under federal law.

That's why the two are similar. Legal in some states, no Federal recognition of legality.

 

[Revoltingest]

...isn't against RF rules so long as you aren't conveying a personal lawbreaking experience...

So hypothetically, were some obstreperous malcontent
to describe a persona experience of draft resistance that
was felonious, that would be prohibited?
My impression from many discussions about civil rights
& civil disobedience is that there's tacit permission, so
long as one doesn't violate widely agreed upon laws,
eg, don't bomb buildings, don't murder people.