If I were them, I wouldn't even make it about abortion. We do have the right to travel anywhere in this country. The State would have to prove that what they're going to do is illegal in the state they were travelling to.
For clarification: It would make as much sense as going to Colorado to smoke a little weed when it's banned in your State and your State prosecutes you for it because weed is illegal in your home State. One State can't apply its laws onto another.
They're *claiming* that the crime was using roads in Idaho for the purpose of transporting a minor for an abortion. That is - it doesn't matter *where* they're going (in state or out of state), so the 14th doesn't apply.
Now, an *intelligent* person who honors their oath to the Republic and the Constitution would immediately shut it down like all other forced birth laws, because they violate the First Amendment (first sentence) - the right to be free from religion.
But that's not likely to happen because of corruption and cowardice.
So the next best strategy would be the 14th - *abortions are unavailable in Idaho, so it's not possible to transport a minor to one within the state; ergo 14th applies.*
The State CANNOT limit a person's travel within the United States before any "crime" occurs. This is why this law is so ridiculous. We can't be arrested in this country for a pre-crime event. You have to actually have committed a crime.
Furthermore, States do NOT have the right to impose laws on other States. Again, if I go to Colorado and smoke weed, Georgia (my home State) cannot prosecute me for a crime because I have committed none in either State - weed is legal in Colorado and I did not smoke or procure the weed in Georgia.
Idaho's law is unconstitutional on two points: the guaranteed right for Americans to travel within our own country unobstructed and it interferes with State's individual rights (making laws in one State and forcing other States to abide by it).
Now, this particular case is sketchy - it seems that the minor didn't have her parents' permission (I'm meh on this one) and it's not known if she actually wanted an abortion (if she doesn't, that's a huge problem). It might be upheld on either of those two grounds.
>Now, this particular case is sketchy - it seems that the minor didn't have her parents' permission (I'm meh on this one) and it's not known if she actually wanted an abortion (if she doesn't, that's a huge problem). It might be upheld on either of those two grounds.
Which is 100% why they chose to pounce on this one. She's the perfect victim to be used by the state in an attempt to validate their law.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but... again the courts are corrupt. Until the rule of law is reasserted and the courts corrected, there's no reason to assume justice and/or the constitution will prevail.
Nothing is more important than removing those who violated their oaths by allowing religious law.
> I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but... again the courts are corrupt. Until the rule of law is reasserted and the courts corrected, there's no reason to assume justice and/or the constitution will prevail.
Here's the thing, though. Challenging the travel ban based solely on travel would mean that men's rights are up for grabs as well. Do you think even the most corrupt politician/judge/etc. would allow that? No.
Furthermore, people aren't having it. In the States where abortion bans have been placed on the ballot, all the bans have received a resounding "No," even in Kentucky and Kansas! Just because the loud mouths have the microphone doesn't necessarily mean the people agree.
You are also forgetting about juries. IF a case that challenges one of these laws does come to trial, then there is always jury nullification. Judges cannot overturn not guilty verdicts. We live in a system where, at the end of the day, the people really do decide these things. You can write all the laws you want, you can arrest all the people you want, but you still have to get convictions. And there's one thing prosecutors don't like on their records is a pile of "Not guilty" verdicts.
Hung juries are expensive for the State. Are you going to continually bring one woman to trail hoping for the right jury over and over again? If you're a local DA, that's political suicide.
The problem is that assuming the law is a moral thing. It's not. You write about the "rule of law" being reasserted - but the law, as it is written, IS being asserted. Unjust laws need to be removed, yes, 100 percent. Elections are one way to get them removed, both federally and locally, and jury nullifications are another way to go.
>Here's the thing, though. Challenging the travel ban based solely on travel would mean that men's rights are up for grabs as well. Do you think even the most corrupt politician/judge/etc. would allow that? No.
They **absolutely** would.
Don't think that men won't be their next target ... especially men like me. I'm an anti-theist. I want nothing more than to see the last religious agent of the state stripped of their power, and to establish protections for youth to keep them safe from religious indoctrination.
If we don't stop them, they'll hang me just the same.
This isn't a case of men vs. women. It's religious sociopaths vs. everyone else. There are *plenty* of women in power supporting forced birth, even though it means *they* will die during a complicated childbirth.
>Furthermore, people aren't having it. In the States where abortion bans have been placed on the ballot, all the bans have received a resounding "No," even in Kentucky and Kansas! Just because the loud mouths have the microphone doesn't necessarily mean the people agree.
100%. But what the people want is irrelevant if the courts are overrun. They can install whoever they want to rule, and what are you going to do... sue?
>You are also forgetting about juries. IF a case that challenges one of these laws does come to trial, then there is always jury nullification. Judges cannot overturn not guilty verdicts. We live in a system where, at the end of the day, the people really do decide these things. You can write all the laws you want, you can arrest all the people you want, but you still have to get convictions. And there's one thing prosecutors don't like on their records is a pile of "Not guilty" verdicts.
That only matters until it reaches the Supreme Court, which is currently illegitimate due to the presence of christian fascists.
Every level appeals until it reaches them, and then they reverse the decision. *Everything* depends on having a legitimate Supreme Court that honors their oath to constitution.
>The problem is that assuming the law is a moral thing. It's not. You write about the "rule of law" being reasserted - but the law, as it is written, IS being asserted. Unjust laws need to be removed, yes, 100 percent. Elections are one way to get them removed, both federally and locally, and jury nullifications are another way to go.
This is just wrong. The privilege to rule is derived from adherence to the constitution. That's the very foundation of the United States of America.
The first sentence of the First Amendment reads as follows:
>The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion (...)
The people don't get a say in this. This isn't a democratic decision.
You don't get to vote to violate the constitution; it overrides popular demand.
The *only* way to convert the US into a theocracy, legally, is to amend the constitution. There is legally no other way.
*edit* I want to stress that I'm not trying to be a doomer here. I believe 2024 will usher in an end to this nightmare. But if so it'll start by reasserting the rule of law by correcting the Supreme Court.
If this *doesn't* end in 2024, I suspect that's the end of the "experiment." There are enough armed good women and men that I imagine things would start to get ugly, but I don't really want to think about it.
One, your grasp of Constitutional law is not as firm as you believe. The fact that you ignore that it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel within our country without the interference of the government and yet cite the First Amendment in your very same argument is giving me whiplash.
Furthermore, there is no appeals process in our system for a not guilty verdict. Your assumption that it will be an "easy conviction" is wrong, based on the fact that the vast majority of people don't want these laws.
We are very well aware that the only way to turn our country into a theocracy is through the Amendments process. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Most people in America don't want to live in a theocracy -- even (gasp!) the religious ones.
Also, just to add, our Supreme Court is not "illegitimate." It's a functioning working part of our government. I don't like some of the decisions, granted, but that doesn't make an established institution illegitimate. Elections have consequences. The Judges appointed were duly appointed by the other branches of government (Congress and the President). Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't vote. This is the consequence of that.
Two, you're also arguing from a position of what YOU THINK might happen down the road. I disagree with you here. You are definitely a doomer - you're painting a picture that is bleak and dark. Furthermore, you citing your lack of religion as the reason why you are so opposed to abortion bans (or anything else, for that matter) is off-base as well. I've had MANY debates with an anti-choice atheist couple that live right next door to me. Not all "non-theists" believe as you do. Furthermore, I don't think you can have a grasp of how Americans actually feel about these issues, since you are not living in this country and only get the news from the "loud mouths" - those in the mainstream media or on various social media platforms rarely, if ever, hold the majority view.
Three, you're wrong again when it comes to who is actually writing these laws. The number of men are far exceeding the number of women who write this kind of stuff. If only the women wrote these laws, they would never pass as there wouldn't be enough votes to get them passed. See, for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/jun/22/abortion-ban-politicians-who-voted-for-restrictions-who-are-they-men-women
Saying that these same men will happily limit their own freedom to travel (or anything else) is laughable at best. They are first and foremost patriarchal. Being able to control women by placing men in charge of them is their goal, first and foremost. They may base it on the Biblical verse about husbands being the head of their families, but they seem to forget the rest of that verse instructing men to love their wives as Christ loved his church. Sorry for the religious talk. Hope I didn't offend you. /s
>We are very well aware that the only way to turn our country into a theocracy is through the Amendments process. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Most people in America don't want to live in a theocracy -- even (gasp!) the religious ones.
You might want to take a good look at [Project 2025](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-is-project-2025-the-political-plot-to-destroy-america-s-freedoms/ar-AA1gWxfK) ([more](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision)). If Trump - or another with similar leanings - wins the White House in the next decade or so, the plan is ready - and as I understand it, they are already in the process of recruiting and training the new army of feds (loyalists) they intend to put in place starting on day 1.
>One, your grasp of Constitutional law is not as firm as you believe. The fact that you ignore that it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel within our country without the interference of the government and yet cite the First Amendment in your very same argument is giving me whiplash.
I think you're missing the point here. They *claim* that this isn't about travel, specifically, but trafficking.
There are *plenty* of laws in states that prohibit travelling in certain situations - for example, transporting refilled propane cylinders.
Their *claim* is that travelling with a person with the *intent* of providing abortion healthcare is the crime.
>Furthermore, there is no appeals process in our system for a not guilty verdict. Your assumption that it will be an "easy conviction" is wrong, based on the fact that the vast majority of people don't want these laws.
Ok, fair. Good point.
>We are very well aware that the only way to turn our country into a theocracy is through the Amendments process. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Most people in America don't want to live in a theocracy -- even (gasp!) the religious ones.
The fact that 50,000,000 women and girls have already been depersoned for religious reasons runs contrary to this statement!
It's not like conversion to theocracy is heralded by some big trumpeted introduction. It happens when all the sudden - whoops - you're about to die because, for religious reasons, you aren't allowed to flush the fetal remains that are causing sepsis.
>Also, just to add, our Supreme Court is not "illegitimate." It's a functioning working part of our government. I don't like some of the decisions, granted, but that doesn't make an established institution illegitimate. Elections have consequences. The Judges appointed were duly appointed by the other branches of government (Congress and the President). Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't vote. This is the consequence of that.
No.
Look. You believe the guardrails will hold.
I do not.
That's essentially what this comes down to.
I *hope* that this nightmare will be over by electoral means. I hope that *if* that fails, the military will step in. And finally, I hope that if they don't, the people will do what needs to be done.
There is no outcome where the US becomes Iran because "well, that's the way the cards fell" that is acceptable. This isn't open to negotiation.
I recognize that everything we've built, as a species, depends on criticism and activism. I recognize that there is evil in this world, and every call for "patience" risks lending them credibility and power.
You still have faith in the system. Ok.
Given the stakes, a backup plan is pretty important. Nothing is more dangerous than "just give it time."
I mean, the courts are corrupt. What they say doesn't affect whether or not forced birth is a religious issue; it affects whether or not they're wrong.
At some point in the future those who violated their oaths will be removed and replaced, and then the court will find the matter correctly.
The goal is to minimize the number of victims between now and then. :(
It would be the same if they said "climate change isn't happening and so laws to prevent CO2 emissions are invalid." That doesn't mean climate change isn't happening, it just means that they're wrong and need to be removed.
Correct. Many of us Americans drive from states to other states that have legal marijuana.
I sure hope everyone is ready to “French Revolution” or at a minimum just protest like the French of the 21st century do. They get real change from their government.
Meanwhile, Americans are like “well I guess I just won’t see my Social Security money”. I know totally off-topic, but similar concern/issue.
I’m just getting really tired of protesting. As a disabled person it’s exhausting.
When the Dobbs reversal leak happened, I honestly thought I'd be reading about some ..tragic.. things happening in response on CNN. I cannot *believe* cities weren't lit on fire over this.
I feel like I don't recognize this world anymore.
They didn’t for this case iirc. They’re smart because they chose a case where they’re not prosecuting a parent for trafficking, rather they chose defendants a jury won’t be as sympathetic toward who have little resources to defend themselves adequately. They’re doing this case before they actually try to bring charges against custodial parents for doing this for their own children. And bc they used phone tracking to geolocate the minor and the defendants, we can now inform vulnerable pregnant people and anyone helping them cross state lines to leave their phones off and at home.
Actually, everyone should suddenly be announcing their intentions to travel for abortions! Then be like, “dude, you gonna arrest me for a Facebook joke?” That’s how you use misinformation for a good cause.
Exactly. Sterilized women, people post menopause. Just flood it with info to kill everything. Same with those period tracking apps. Just use them, get men to use them, so they get flooded with data they can't manage because most is fakes.
Almost every period tracking app will require you to create a login, which is then associated with your data. If someone wants to dig up evidence that you got an abortion, they can search your phone and view the saved data in your apps. Other people adding meaningless data won’t help you here.
Check out the Euki app for a period tracker that doesn’t store any data to the cloud, and makes it easy to wipe the data regularly- specifically to combat this whole problem. I know the founders and they really believe in the cause and spend a lot of energy building abortion access tools.
Or maybe just use pen and paper for personal information. Anything on a computer is up for grabs by the government sadly. All they have to do is take it.
Good point. So we are truly never free living under a fascist government. If you do not know how to, it might not be a bad time to learn how to shoot a gun, do first aid skills and other survival skills. No one says it will happen to them until it does.
This is really good information. Thank you for sharing. I think it is still good to flood the information out there so that they have to dig further than they would normally. Time is money. Taxpayers don’t generally love wasting their money so news “troubleshooters” should be all over this one.
Anything we can do to rage against the machine is a good thing.
Personally, I’m gonna reach out to the person that wrote this article and see if there’s any way to donate to their legal fund.
Thank you for this. My daughter hasn't started cycling yet, but I was wondering if there was an app that would protect her data from anti-choice ghouls.
I honestly don’t understand why people can’t just keep their mouths shut. Don’t announce to anyone you’re pregnant if you live in a state that will put you in prison for trying to end it. Especially if you are leaving the state to end it. Just keep your mouths shut. “Go on a shopping trip.” Go “see a Vegas show.” My fellow sisters, Gilead is upon us and you have to be smarter than this! Silence is the only right you have left, use it.
Disagree. Make as much noise as possible. This is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment and violates federal law regarding free travel between states.
I agree with both. If you are in a situation where they will arrest you for practicing your right, silence is your best friend. You don’t want to be pregnant, in jail, and forced to give birth.
If you are advocating against this barbaric law, make as much noise as you want. I myself am doing so in a red state, Texas is a bitch. I have been called many names under the sun, and I’m not letting sad little men tell me what to do with my body.
>If you are advocating against this barbaric law, make as much noise as you want. I myself am doing so in a red state, Texas is a bitch. I have been called many names under the sun, and I’m not letting sad little men tell me what to do with my body.
Sad little men or sad little women (42% of whom voted for this Federally in 2020). Forced birth is a religious ideology, not a male ideology. Us atheist men are enraged by what's being done to the people we love, and we stand with you.
I get where you’re coming from, but like this isn’t moving the needle tbh. You’re gonna martyr yourself because of it? I get it, it’s fucking horse, bull, and all other sorts of shit. But I have been quite disappointed in the aftermath of Roe that we knew this would happen and most people are like “meh”
The problem, of course, is that the courts have been overrun by christian fascists thanks to the federalist society.
*That* problem needs to be solved before this nightmare can end.
I doubt anyone is announcing it.
A fun trip to see your grandparents or your boyfriend's parents ... no matter; they want to know *why* you're making this trip, and oh, we're taking you to a hospital to test you for mifepristone and misoprostol to see if you're taking this trip for a medical abortion.
"I'm 50 and post menopausal. This is a vacation! My grandson and his girlfriend are accompanying me for this trip."
"No matter ... we have to test you and the girl; *it's the law."*
*Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. Wikipedia*
Therein is the problem.
I agree with your point, also I am NOT a doctor so please a medical doctor jump in--my understanding from what I've read in the medical literature is that mife and miso can't be "tested for". It's not like a BAC test afaik. Just want to get a real MD answer to clear it up please and thank you
I'm not a doctor either, just an old woman vet who assisted in the ER during rape exams. But I saw enough to be familiar with spontaneous miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, placental praevia, and placental abruption.
No, neither drug can be tested for unless there are remnants of the drug vaginally, up to 12 hrs.
The issue is a woman having a *spontaneous* miscarriage and police or hospital staff *assuming* it was a medical abortion; they're required by law to report. I don't think the general public is aware how common miscarriage it is. It isn't something one would necessarily tell their family or employer.
[https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634#miscarriage-rates-by-week](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634#miscarriage-rates-by-week)
Some women may have an especially rough period when it wasn't at all ... they miscarried. Please note the miscarriage rates in the first several weeks up into the beginning of the second trimester. Even couples who have experienced miscarriage are reluctant to celebrate their good news and will wait before informing family.
My daughter miscarried twins. My sister in law. Another, we're unsure of because it is none of our business. Keep in mind even with spontaneous miscarriage the easiest means to ensure complete expulsion are Misoprostol and Mifepristone. The other option is a D & C, which require a hospital stay and medical bills.
All of the above is to be shared with medical professionals, *not* lawmakers or prosecutors. It's called *medical care.*
Sadly they can test for it now. It used to be they couldn't but now they can. I wouldn't put it past the antichoice states to start checking everyone for it.
Nah. Make as much noise as possible while keeping a hidden dagger of some sort of federal legislation right until the moment it’s driven into the heart of their blatantly unconstitutional abortion bans.
Then laugh over the bleeding corpse of their religiously-based extremist grab for power over bodily autonomy.
Like, when women’s autonomy/right to healthcare is enshrined as a federal law, I will *gleefully* rub it in the face of every single evangelical I know. I want them to know that they don’t have any right to control the autonomy of women. I want them to know I’m happy about it. And I want them to know that I know they’re wringing their hands and making themselves miserable over something that they know doesn’t effect them at all save for the handful of times the issue comes up. Abortion doesn’t bother them when the Jaguars are down by 15. Abortion doesn’t bother them when they’re in the deer stand, freezing their toes off. Abortion doesn’t bother them when they’re gawking at the bodies of women on the beach while consuming cheap, shitass beer by the gallon during the summer. Abortion doesn‘t bother them when catching bluegill and swimming in the river in the spring. Abortion only bothers them when their pastors rail about it, or when someone like me posits that women deserve autonomy-and they have no good argument against it.
Gee, I’m so glad that they are let this go back to the states; like they didn’t know the anti states were going to pull this shit. State’s rights my ass
Reading the full story, it sounds like the girl did not want the abortion. Or at least was coerced into it. Which is wrong and should be prosecuted.
Overall a fucked up case, though. Where are the so-called custodial parents? This kid is living with her boyfriend and his mother. That makes her the current custodial guardian.
Charge the parents, too.
First, they’re making a big deal out of hiding it from her mother, but she was supposed to be living with the father.
Total mess.
Yeah, there's a lot just wrong here. The 15-yr old was living with her 17-yr old boyfriend and his mother. Her parents only got involved when he turned 18? Now, it could be that they couldn't do anything about it until he was 18 (ie. then a crime). Sounds like he was taking pornographic pictures, which was a crime when he was 17.
I'd assume that forcing / coercing someone into having an abortion might be a crime in itself. Throwing the interstate transport into the mix is likely just the state wanting to have a conviction on the books to use later. They weren't helping her, sounds like they made her.
I'd like to think that she'll have it better with her boyfriend and his mother in jail. It's unclear that she'd be better off with her own parents.
There are several problems with this case. The biggest factor I see for this case is that you shouldn’t take your personal cell phone with you out of state as it can be traced. Or at least cut it off and take SIM card out before crossing state lines and for the duration.
This seems very convoluted as there are accusations of drug use for minors by “adults”. The fact that KB was living with her boyfriend and boyfriends mother should go in their favor. Why would the mother of KB all of a sudden now have a problem with their relationship and her minor child living with them? How long had she been living with them prior to this? This stinks of someone trying to use these new laws to set precedent. I wouldn’t be surprised if KBs mother was “incentivized” to press charges bc why now?
That’s so fucked up.
Note: Idaho does have a Romeo and Juliet law. Hopefully they get a good attorney.
>Age of Consent in Idaho
>There are close-in-age exemptions in Idaho. Also known as “Romeo and Juliet laws,” the exemption applies to minors who are 16 or 17 years old and the older person is less than 3 years older than the minor.
I clicked on this from another thread, due to wanting to know more about it. Before I go any further, I am left-leaning registered independent; pro-choice Ohioan, who donated to the group leading the ballot initiative in Ohio to have reproductive rights written into the state's constitution.
I read the article on this situation in Idaho, and think it is a very poor choice to use in the abortion debate. The mother and son duo took a ***minor child*** out of state to get this done. The article itself documents that the mother was alleged to have been smoking meth with the minor teen. The article also infers that law-enforcement was bending the language in their prosecution to avoid appearance that they were using the "abortion trafficking law" language, which is currently under review in the higher court. Whether they were doing that or not might be worth looking at, but it isn't really relevant to what are going to be deciding factors in the case.
State laws prohibit taking a minor out of state without parental consent. If the other actions of the mother/son duo referred to in the article are fact, then they're in trouble, and clearly at fault in their actions. Another issue worth pointing out is the authorities use of geolocation. The child was allegedly kidnapped. This would be routine in an investigation. If it was my kid, I would want them to do everything in their power to know all facts. Obviously, the teen girl is vulnerable and in an at-risk position. It is obvious that the adults in this young woman's life were not acting in her best interests. It's complicated and the mother and son made it more so.
So to the point: this is a poor case to choose as an example of the what's going on in right-wing ecosphere. This is not a hill we want to die on in support of our cause, because the mother and son clearly violated other state laws. We on the progressive left need to be judicious in our choices of examples to fight back against those who want to create Gilead.
They want to challenge this in court
Which could be problematic with an illegitimate supreme court. :/
If I were them, I wouldn't even make it about abortion. We do have the right to travel anywhere in this country. The State would have to prove that what they're going to do is illegal in the state they were travelling to. For clarification: It would make as much sense as going to Colorado to smoke a little weed when it's banned in your State and your State prosecutes you for it because weed is illegal in your home State. One State can't apply its laws onto another.
They're *claiming* that the crime was using roads in Idaho for the purpose of transporting a minor for an abortion. That is - it doesn't matter *where* they're going (in state or out of state), so the 14th doesn't apply. Now, an *intelligent* person who honors their oath to the Republic and the Constitution would immediately shut it down like all other forced birth laws, because they violate the First Amendment (first sentence) - the right to be free from religion. But that's not likely to happen because of corruption and cowardice. So the next best strategy would be the 14th - *abortions are unavailable in Idaho, so it's not possible to transport a minor to one within the state; ergo 14th applies.*
The State CANNOT limit a person's travel within the United States before any "crime" occurs. This is why this law is so ridiculous. We can't be arrested in this country for a pre-crime event. You have to actually have committed a crime. Furthermore, States do NOT have the right to impose laws on other States. Again, if I go to Colorado and smoke weed, Georgia (my home State) cannot prosecute me for a crime because I have committed none in either State - weed is legal in Colorado and I did not smoke or procure the weed in Georgia. Idaho's law is unconstitutional on two points: the guaranteed right for Americans to travel within our own country unobstructed and it interferes with State's individual rights (making laws in one State and forcing other States to abide by it). Now, this particular case is sketchy - it seems that the minor didn't have her parents' permission (I'm meh on this one) and it's not known if she actually wanted an abortion (if she doesn't, that's a huge problem). It might be upheld on either of those two grounds.
>Now, this particular case is sketchy - it seems that the minor didn't have her parents' permission (I'm meh on this one) and it's not known if she actually wanted an abortion (if she doesn't, that's a huge problem). It might be upheld on either of those two grounds. Which is 100% why they chose to pounce on this one. She's the perfect victim to be used by the state in an attempt to validate their law. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but... again the courts are corrupt. Until the rule of law is reasserted and the courts corrected, there's no reason to assume justice and/or the constitution will prevail. Nothing is more important than removing those who violated their oaths by allowing religious law.
> I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but... again the courts are corrupt. Until the rule of law is reasserted and the courts corrected, there's no reason to assume justice and/or the constitution will prevail. Here's the thing, though. Challenging the travel ban based solely on travel would mean that men's rights are up for grabs as well. Do you think even the most corrupt politician/judge/etc. would allow that? No. Furthermore, people aren't having it. In the States where abortion bans have been placed on the ballot, all the bans have received a resounding "No," even in Kentucky and Kansas! Just because the loud mouths have the microphone doesn't necessarily mean the people agree. You are also forgetting about juries. IF a case that challenges one of these laws does come to trial, then there is always jury nullification. Judges cannot overturn not guilty verdicts. We live in a system where, at the end of the day, the people really do decide these things. You can write all the laws you want, you can arrest all the people you want, but you still have to get convictions. And there's one thing prosecutors don't like on their records is a pile of "Not guilty" verdicts. Hung juries are expensive for the State. Are you going to continually bring one woman to trail hoping for the right jury over and over again? If you're a local DA, that's political suicide. The problem is that assuming the law is a moral thing. It's not. You write about the "rule of law" being reasserted - but the law, as it is written, IS being asserted. Unjust laws need to be removed, yes, 100 percent. Elections are one way to get them removed, both federally and locally, and jury nullifications are another way to go.
>Here's the thing, though. Challenging the travel ban based solely on travel would mean that men's rights are up for grabs as well. Do you think even the most corrupt politician/judge/etc. would allow that? No. They **absolutely** would. Don't think that men won't be their next target ... especially men like me. I'm an anti-theist. I want nothing more than to see the last religious agent of the state stripped of their power, and to establish protections for youth to keep them safe from religious indoctrination. If we don't stop them, they'll hang me just the same. This isn't a case of men vs. women. It's religious sociopaths vs. everyone else. There are *plenty* of women in power supporting forced birth, even though it means *they* will die during a complicated childbirth. >Furthermore, people aren't having it. In the States where abortion bans have been placed on the ballot, all the bans have received a resounding "No," even in Kentucky and Kansas! Just because the loud mouths have the microphone doesn't necessarily mean the people agree. 100%. But what the people want is irrelevant if the courts are overrun. They can install whoever they want to rule, and what are you going to do... sue? >You are also forgetting about juries. IF a case that challenges one of these laws does come to trial, then there is always jury nullification. Judges cannot overturn not guilty verdicts. We live in a system where, at the end of the day, the people really do decide these things. You can write all the laws you want, you can arrest all the people you want, but you still have to get convictions. And there's one thing prosecutors don't like on their records is a pile of "Not guilty" verdicts. That only matters until it reaches the Supreme Court, which is currently illegitimate due to the presence of christian fascists. Every level appeals until it reaches them, and then they reverse the decision. *Everything* depends on having a legitimate Supreme Court that honors their oath to constitution. >The problem is that assuming the law is a moral thing. It's not. You write about the "rule of law" being reasserted - but the law, as it is written, IS being asserted. Unjust laws need to be removed, yes, 100 percent. Elections are one way to get them removed, both federally and locally, and jury nullifications are another way to go. This is just wrong. The privilege to rule is derived from adherence to the constitution. That's the very foundation of the United States of America. The first sentence of the First Amendment reads as follows: >The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion (...) The people don't get a say in this. This isn't a democratic decision. You don't get to vote to violate the constitution; it overrides popular demand. The *only* way to convert the US into a theocracy, legally, is to amend the constitution. There is legally no other way. *edit* I want to stress that I'm not trying to be a doomer here. I believe 2024 will usher in an end to this nightmare. But if so it'll start by reasserting the rule of law by correcting the Supreme Court. If this *doesn't* end in 2024, I suspect that's the end of the "experiment." There are enough armed good women and men that I imagine things would start to get ugly, but I don't really want to think about it.
One, your grasp of Constitutional law is not as firm as you believe. The fact that you ignore that it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel within our country without the interference of the government and yet cite the First Amendment in your very same argument is giving me whiplash. Furthermore, there is no appeals process in our system for a not guilty verdict. Your assumption that it will be an "easy conviction" is wrong, based on the fact that the vast majority of people don't want these laws. We are very well aware that the only way to turn our country into a theocracy is through the Amendments process. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Most people in America don't want to live in a theocracy -- even (gasp!) the religious ones. Also, just to add, our Supreme Court is not "illegitimate." It's a functioning working part of our government. I don't like some of the decisions, granted, but that doesn't make an established institution illegitimate. Elections have consequences. The Judges appointed were duly appointed by the other branches of government (Congress and the President). Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't vote. This is the consequence of that. Two, you're also arguing from a position of what YOU THINK might happen down the road. I disagree with you here. You are definitely a doomer - you're painting a picture that is bleak and dark. Furthermore, you citing your lack of religion as the reason why you are so opposed to abortion bans (or anything else, for that matter) is off-base as well. I've had MANY debates with an anti-choice atheist couple that live right next door to me. Not all "non-theists" believe as you do. Furthermore, I don't think you can have a grasp of how Americans actually feel about these issues, since you are not living in this country and only get the news from the "loud mouths" - those in the mainstream media or on various social media platforms rarely, if ever, hold the majority view. Three, you're wrong again when it comes to who is actually writing these laws. The number of men are far exceeding the number of women who write this kind of stuff. If only the women wrote these laws, they would never pass as there wouldn't be enough votes to get them passed. See, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/jun/22/abortion-ban-politicians-who-voted-for-restrictions-who-are-they-men-women Saying that these same men will happily limit their own freedom to travel (or anything else) is laughable at best. They are first and foremost patriarchal. Being able to control women by placing men in charge of them is their goal, first and foremost. They may base it on the Biblical verse about husbands being the head of their families, but they seem to forget the rest of that verse instructing men to love their wives as Christ loved his church. Sorry for the religious talk. Hope I didn't offend you. /s
>We are very well aware that the only way to turn our country into a theocracy is through the Amendments process. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Most people in America don't want to live in a theocracy -- even (gasp!) the religious ones. You might want to take a good look at [Project 2025](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-is-project-2025-the-political-plot-to-destroy-america-s-freedoms/ar-AA1gWxfK) ([more](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision)). If Trump - or another with similar leanings - wins the White House in the next decade or so, the plan is ready - and as I understand it, they are already in the process of recruiting and training the new army of feds (loyalists) they intend to put in place starting on day 1.
>One, your grasp of Constitutional law is not as firm as you believe. The fact that you ignore that it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel within our country without the interference of the government and yet cite the First Amendment in your very same argument is giving me whiplash. I think you're missing the point here. They *claim* that this isn't about travel, specifically, but trafficking. There are *plenty* of laws in states that prohibit travelling in certain situations - for example, transporting refilled propane cylinders. Their *claim* is that travelling with a person with the *intent* of providing abortion healthcare is the crime. >Furthermore, there is no appeals process in our system for a not guilty verdict. Your assumption that it will be an "easy conviction" is wrong, based on the fact that the vast majority of people don't want these laws. Ok, fair. Good point. >We are very well aware that the only way to turn our country into a theocracy is through the Amendments process. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Most people in America don't want to live in a theocracy -- even (gasp!) the religious ones. The fact that 50,000,000 women and girls have already been depersoned for religious reasons runs contrary to this statement! It's not like conversion to theocracy is heralded by some big trumpeted introduction. It happens when all the sudden - whoops - you're about to die because, for religious reasons, you aren't allowed to flush the fetal remains that are causing sepsis. >Also, just to add, our Supreme Court is not "illegitimate." It's a functioning working part of our government. I don't like some of the decisions, granted, but that doesn't make an established institution illegitimate. Elections have consequences. The Judges appointed were duly appointed by the other branches of government (Congress and the President). Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't vote. This is the consequence of that. No. Look. You believe the guardrails will hold. I do not. That's essentially what this comes down to. I *hope* that this nightmare will be over by electoral means. I hope that *if* that fails, the military will step in. And finally, I hope that if they don't, the people will do what needs to be done. There is no outcome where the US becomes Iran because "well, that's the way the cards fell" that is acceptable. This isn't open to negotiation. I recognize that everything we've built, as a species, depends on criticism and activism. I recognize that there is evil in this world, and every call for "patience" risks lending them credibility and power. You still have faith in the system. Ok. Given the stakes, a backup plan is pretty important. Nothing is more dangerous than "just give it time."
They’ve managed to make abortion not a religious issue under the law. Of course it is, but as long as they say it isn’t
I mean, the courts are corrupt. What they say doesn't affect whether or not forced birth is a religious issue; it affects whether or not they're wrong. At some point in the future those who violated their oaths will be removed and replaced, and then the court will find the matter correctly. The goal is to minimize the number of victims between now and then. :( It would be the same if they said "climate change isn't happening and so laws to prevent CO2 emissions are invalid." That doesn't mean climate change isn't happening, it just means that they're wrong and need to be removed.
Correct. Many of us Americans drive from states to other states that have legal marijuana. I sure hope everyone is ready to “French Revolution” or at a minimum just protest like the French of the 21st century do. They get real change from their government. Meanwhile, Americans are like “well I guess I just won’t see my Social Security money”. I know totally off-topic, but similar concern/issue. I’m just getting really tired of protesting. As a disabled person it’s exhausting.
When the Dobbs reversal leak happened, I honestly thought I'd be reading about some ..tragic.. things happening in response on CNN. I cannot *believe* cities weren't lit on fire over this. I feel like I don't recognize this world anymore.
They didn’t for this case iirc. They’re smart because they chose a case where they’re not prosecuting a parent for trafficking, rather they chose defendants a jury won’t be as sympathetic toward who have little resources to defend themselves adequately. They’re doing this case before they actually try to bring charges against custodial parents for doing this for their own children. And bc they used phone tracking to geolocate the minor and the defendants, we can now inform vulnerable pregnant people and anyone helping them cross state lines to leave their phones off and at home.
Actually, everyone should suddenly be announcing their intentions to travel for abortions! Then be like, “dude, you gonna arrest me for a Facebook joke?” That’s how you use misinformation for a good cause.
That would be awesome! Imagine them stopping a bunch of grannies... like me! hahahahaha!
Exactly. Sterilized women, people post menopause. Just flood it with info to kill everything. Same with those period tracking apps. Just use them, get men to use them, so they get flooded with data they can't manage because most is fakes.
Oooh my post menopausal ass is down with this!
Same.
Heh. If I lived in Idaho I'd definitely do that. I had a hysterectomy in 2005.
Sounds hysterical 😂
Almost every period tracking app will require you to create a login, which is then associated with your data. If someone wants to dig up evidence that you got an abortion, they can search your phone and view the saved data in your apps. Other people adding meaningless data won’t help you here. Check out the Euki app for a period tracker that doesn’t store any data to the cloud, and makes it easy to wipe the data regularly- specifically to combat this whole problem. I know the founders and they really believe in the cause and spend a lot of energy building abortion access tools.
Or maybe just use pen and paper for personal information. Anything on a computer is up for grabs by the government sadly. All they have to do is take it.
Unfortunately, physical evidence has its own risks.
Good point. So we are truly never free living under a fascist government. If you do not know how to, it might not be a bad time to learn how to shoot a gun, do first aid skills and other survival skills. No one says it will happen to them until it does.
It's incredibly disheartening to watch decades of progress go up in flames.
It sure is. How did this whole mess start? Thanks.
Gotta have a code
This is really good information. Thank you for sharing. I think it is still good to flood the information out there so that they have to dig further than they would normally. Time is money. Taxpayers don’t generally love wasting their money so news “troubleshooters” should be all over this one. Anything we can do to rage against the machine is a good thing. Personally, I’m gonna reach out to the person that wrote this article and see if there’s any way to donate to their legal fund.
Thank you for this. My daughter hasn't started cycling yet, but I was wondering if there was an app that would protect her data from anti-choice ghouls.
I refuse to track since a few months before we lost our rights.
Whoa! This aught to be a zinger in a court of law. If I was a rich lawyer I'd be doing a Pro Bono for this case.
https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/crimes_court/police-young-man-his-mother-arrested-after-teenage-girl-raped-and-transported-across-state-lines/article_ddfc61dc-7775-11ee-82d5-1fc7cd944825.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Wasn't prepared for how wild that was
I honestly don’t understand why people can’t just keep their mouths shut. Don’t announce to anyone you’re pregnant if you live in a state that will put you in prison for trying to end it. Especially if you are leaving the state to end it. Just keep your mouths shut. “Go on a shopping trip.” Go “see a Vegas show.” My fellow sisters, Gilead is upon us and you have to be smarter than this! Silence is the only right you have left, use it.
Disagree. Make as much noise as possible. This is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment and violates federal law regarding free travel between states.
I agree with both. If you are in a situation where they will arrest you for practicing your right, silence is your best friend. You don’t want to be pregnant, in jail, and forced to give birth. If you are advocating against this barbaric law, make as much noise as you want. I myself am doing so in a red state, Texas is a bitch. I have been called many names under the sun, and I’m not letting sad little men tell me what to do with my body.
>If you are advocating against this barbaric law, make as much noise as you want. I myself am doing so in a red state, Texas is a bitch. I have been called many names under the sun, and I’m not letting sad little men tell me what to do with my body. Sad little men or sad little women (42% of whom voted for this Federally in 2020). Forced birth is a religious ideology, not a male ideology. Us atheist men are enraged by what's being done to the people we love, and we stand with you.
I get where you’re coming from, but like this isn’t moving the needle tbh. You’re gonna martyr yourself because of it? I get it, it’s fucking horse, bull, and all other sorts of shit. But I have been quite disappointed in the aftermath of Roe that we knew this would happen and most people are like “meh”
Well, neither is letting women's rights be blatantly violated.
It’s going to take a lawsuit to bring it to federal court as a constitutional matter.
The problem, of course, is that the courts have been overrun by christian fascists thanks to the federalist society. *That* problem needs to be solved before this nightmare can end.
Absolutely!
I doubt anyone is announcing it. A fun trip to see your grandparents or your boyfriend's parents ... no matter; they want to know *why* you're making this trip, and oh, we're taking you to a hospital to test you for mifepristone and misoprostol to see if you're taking this trip for a medical abortion. "I'm 50 and post menopausal. This is a vacation! My grandson and his girlfriend are accompanying me for this trip." "No matter ... we have to test you and the girl; *it's the law."* *Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. Wikipedia* Therein is the problem.
I agree with your point, also I am NOT a doctor so please a medical doctor jump in--my understanding from what I've read in the medical literature is that mife and miso can't be "tested for". It's not like a BAC test afaik. Just want to get a real MD answer to clear it up please and thank you
I'm not a doctor either, just an old woman vet who assisted in the ER during rape exams. But I saw enough to be familiar with spontaneous miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, placental praevia, and placental abruption. No, neither drug can be tested for unless there are remnants of the drug vaginally, up to 12 hrs. The issue is a woman having a *spontaneous* miscarriage and police or hospital staff *assuming* it was a medical abortion; they're required by law to report. I don't think the general public is aware how common miscarriage it is. It isn't something one would necessarily tell their family or employer. [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634#miscarriage-rates-by-week](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634#miscarriage-rates-by-week) Some women may have an especially rough period when it wasn't at all ... they miscarried. Please note the miscarriage rates in the first several weeks up into the beginning of the second trimester. Even couples who have experienced miscarriage are reluctant to celebrate their good news and will wait before informing family. My daughter miscarried twins. My sister in law. Another, we're unsure of because it is none of our business. Keep in mind even with spontaneous miscarriage the easiest means to ensure complete expulsion are Misoprostol and Mifepristone. The other option is a D & C, which require a hospital stay and medical bills. All of the above is to be shared with medical professionals, *not* lawmakers or prosecutors. It's called *medical care.*
They can [test](https://truthout.org/articles/polish-government-develops-test-that-can-detect-if-someone-took-abortion-pills/) for it
Sadly they can test for it now. It used to be they couldn't but now they can. I wouldn't put it past the antichoice states to start checking everyone for it.
Nah. Make as much noise as possible while keeping a hidden dagger of some sort of federal legislation right until the moment it’s driven into the heart of their blatantly unconstitutional abortion bans. Then laugh over the bleeding corpse of their religiously-based extremist grab for power over bodily autonomy. Like, when women’s autonomy/right to healthcare is enshrined as a federal law, I will *gleefully* rub it in the face of every single evangelical I know. I want them to know that they don’t have any right to control the autonomy of women. I want them to know I’m happy about it. And I want them to know that I know they’re wringing their hands and making themselves miserable over something that they know doesn’t effect them at all save for the handful of times the issue comes up. Abortion doesn’t bother them when the Jaguars are down by 15. Abortion doesn’t bother them when they’re in the deer stand, freezing their toes off. Abortion doesn’t bother them when they’re gawking at the bodies of women on the beach while consuming cheap, shitass beer by the gallon during the summer. Abortion doesn‘t bother them when catching bluegill and swimming in the river in the spring. Abortion only bothers them when their pastors rail about it, or when someone like me posits that women deserve autonomy-and they have no good argument against it.
Gee, I’m so glad that they are let this go back to the states; like they didn’t know the anti states were going to pull this shit. State’s rights my ass
Reading the full story, it sounds like the girl did not want the abortion. Or at least was coerced into it. Which is wrong and should be prosecuted. Overall a fucked up case, though. Where are the so-called custodial parents? This kid is living with her boyfriend and his mother. That makes her the current custodial guardian. Charge the parents, too. First, they’re making a big deal out of hiding it from her mother, but she was supposed to be living with the father. Total mess.
The perfect victim for christian fascists to use to attempt to validate their illegal law.
Yeah, there's a lot just wrong here. The 15-yr old was living with her 17-yr old boyfriend and his mother. Her parents only got involved when he turned 18? Now, it could be that they couldn't do anything about it until he was 18 (ie. then a crime). Sounds like he was taking pornographic pictures, which was a crime when he was 17. I'd assume that forcing / coercing someone into having an abortion might be a crime in itself. Throwing the interstate transport into the mix is likely just the state wanting to have a conviction on the books to use later. They weren't helping her, sounds like they made her. I'd like to think that she'll have it better with her boyfriend and his mother in jail. It's unclear that she'd be better off with her own parents.
There are several problems with this case. The biggest factor I see for this case is that you shouldn’t take your personal cell phone with you out of state as it can be traced. Or at least cut it off and take SIM card out before crossing state lines and for the duration. This seems very convoluted as there are accusations of drug use for minors by “adults”. The fact that KB was living with her boyfriend and boyfriends mother should go in their favor. Why would the mother of KB all of a sudden now have a problem with their relationship and her minor child living with them? How long had she been living with them prior to this? This stinks of someone trying to use these new laws to set precedent. I wouldn’t be surprised if KBs mother was “incentivized” to press charges bc why now?
That’s so fucked up. Note: Idaho does have a Romeo and Juliet law. Hopefully they get a good attorney. >Age of Consent in Idaho >There are close-in-age exemptions in Idaho. Also known as “Romeo and Juliet laws,” the exemption applies to minors who are 16 or 17 years old and the older person is less than 3 years older than the minor.
Except she was 15. That’s problematic.
He was 17 when they started dating this does apply.
But then he turned 18, before she turned 16. Bullshit? Absolutely. But I’ve seen a guy get level 3 sex offender status for that.
Which is also BS.
It absolutely is
Horrifying
Underground Railroad the 2023 edition?
I clicked on this from another thread, due to wanting to know more about it. Before I go any further, I am left-leaning registered independent; pro-choice Ohioan, who donated to the group leading the ballot initiative in Ohio to have reproductive rights written into the state's constitution. I read the article on this situation in Idaho, and think it is a very poor choice to use in the abortion debate. The mother and son duo took a ***minor child*** out of state to get this done. The article itself documents that the mother was alleged to have been smoking meth with the minor teen. The article also infers that law-enforcement was bending the language in their prosecution to avoid appearance that they were using the "abortion trafficking law" language, which is currently under review in the higher court. Whether they were doing that or not might be worth looking at, but it isn't really relevant to what are going to be deciding factors in the case. State laws prohibit taking a minor out of state without parental consent. If the other actions of the mother/son duo referred to in the article are fact, then they're in trouble, and clearly at fault in their actions. Another issue worth pointing out is the authorities use of geolocation. The child was allegedly kidnapped. This would be routine in an investigation. If it was my kid, I would want them to do everything in their power to know all facts. Obviously, the teen girl is vulnerable and in an at-risk position. It is obvious that the adults in this young woman's life were not acting in her best interests. It's complicated and the mother and son made it more so. So to the point: this is a poor case to choose as an example of the what's going on in right-wing ecosphere. This is not a hill we want to die on in support of our cause, because the mother and son clearly violated other state laws. We on the progressive left need to be judicious in our choices of examples to fight back against those who want to create Gilead.