An important move from the Biden administration in an under-the-radar case. Also: Ohio Republicans say they want to ignore the voters after passage of Issue One.
Deeply concerned with reproductive justice and so have been following the Alabama lawsuits. Appreciate your break down of the motion to dismiss and the DOJ brief in response. Will continue to follow closely
The criminal conduct is the agreement (the conspiracy) itself, which is conduct that occurs in Alabama that Alabama has every right to prosecute.”
But the conspiratorial agreement is to engage in interstate travel for the purpose of engaging in legal conduct. No unlawful means. No unlawful goal. Should be a slam dunk.
The state's argument will be that the crime doesn't lie in interstate travel but rather in the state's authority to limit access to abortion and therefore also to limit assistance in obtaining one. The crime, they will say, is in the conspiracy, not in the travel.
It should still be a slam dunk because the "conspiracy" hinders the right to interstate travel, but that's enough of a twig for a judge who wants to rule in the state's favor to hang a ruling on. Even in the NBA some slam dunks wind up as misses.
Edit: The doesn't mean such a decision would stand up on appeal, even in the 11th Circuit, even if only because courts are usually jealous of protecting their turf and resistant attempts to limit it. It does mean I wouldn't be floored with shock if it was ruled that way on the district level. The fact that it's before a Carter appointee makes that unlikely, but I've been disappointed too many times before to dismiss the possibility,
But a conspiracy require an illegal means or illegal purpose. I just don’t see how making it illegal to conspire to engage in interstate travel is any different from making it illegal to interstate travel.
Look, I said it should still be a slam dunk. But we can't act as if the state's argument just does not exist.
That argument is that it is unlawful in Alabama to assist another person in obtaining an abortion. The assistance took place in Alabama and so is covered by that law, regardless of the travel or even if it took place. The illegality is in the assistance itself, the conspiracy in the agreement to provide it.
I called that a "twig" that a judge who *wanted* to rule for the state could hang their ruling on and even then I can't see it surviving appeal - but I wouldn't be floored by an adverse ruling at the District level.
I mean, after all, was Kacsmaryk's ruling in the mifepristone case based on anything more substantial?
One final note: I notice that your response came after my original comment but before my edit noting that I can't see an adverse ruling surviving an appeal.
Does this mean a dry county could make it a crime to conspire to drive to a wet county for the purpose of drinking alcohol legally in that county? It’s completely absurd.
"For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel."
To quote Justice Kagan, let's see if "some genius" found a way the Supreme Court majority will found around that.
Chris, thank you again for the work you do. If you ever want someone to follow the Alabama AG's efforts more closely, just let me know. As an Alabaman myself, I'd love to shine a light on it--writing under the pen name "(emphasis added)."
I am more ignorant than most readers of this site, but it seems like there would be huge repercussions in many other areas if this case were to stand. People help others go to other states for all sorts of reasons, such as buying marijuana.
So it's December 8, 2023 today and of course we have another "Handmaid's Tale" --vis abortion and who gets to control women's bodies--going on in another State today. Our Evil State of the Day" is good 'ol Texas where AG Ken Paxton-- still under investigation for all kinds of alleged crimes and irregularities-has two notable things yesterday and today in relation to a court granting a Ms. Cox the emergency right to an abortion if a child she wants but that has a profound set of abnormalities, will die pretty much after birth, and where Cox's own ability to bear children in the future that she also wants: Paxton appealed to force Cox to bear the child and to increase her chances she cannot bear more in the future AND he warned doctors and hospitals that court orders permitting abortions under these circumstances won't stop Texas from going after doctors and hospitals trying to carry out the court-permitted abortion.
SO I AM MAD AS HELL.
And I ask who's with me in thinking that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Isn't it about time we do the following.
- Pass laws forcing men to get sterilized if they or the women they are with don't want children or more, and they can save their sperm for reproduction but must get court permission to use it. They must prove they are financially able to care for the child / children, have taken child rearing classes using practices --acceptable through negotiation and compromise and law by community council of ordinary of a broad cross section of citizens with no politicians and no people of any religion that permits corporal punishment to prevent abuse as generally understood.
- If the men and women want children, they still have to have training first.
-They must agree ahead of time in writing that if children are produced or adopted and if abortion is indicated for any reason before 24 weeks or whenever doctors can tell a child will be profoundly impaired or the mother's life in danger or both or if future child-bearing will be impeded in the future if the woman is forced to bear the child , that they will not report the woman or procedure or health care providers whether it is legal or illegal. (Medical Malpractice suits are permitted; if an abortion goes wring, the government will not prosecute anyone for the "fact of abortion" but may prosecute for shoddy or criminal medical work and terrible medical results.
-That ANY man that rapes a woman, a child, or commits incest and the rapee becomes pregnant, that the man must be sterilized and then agree to not only abortion if the woman wants it, but also financial responsibility
- Alternatively regarding rape and even marital rape if the man does not want to get sterilized, they must go through the rules above regarding acquiescence to pregnancy and abortion rights and properly raising the child or however the woman chooses, financial support of rapee and child for: 24 years so child and have higher education whether in a college, university or vocational school or apprenticeship program, AND they must agree to have NO CONTACT with the child and mother unless child and mother want it.
I could go on and these rules can be added to, adjusted, massaged, analyzed in all sorts of ways. Most readers are likely rolling their eyes and thinking, "she is nuts" and "keep government out of my face: my male body's my own and I'll darned well do what I want with it." REALLY? The government has the right to control only female bodies? Who died and left men kings other than systemic misogyny, misogyny that is taught or the product of certain religious training from doctrine and The government can require drivers licenses, but not for proper safe child raising? The government can already control civil marriage, child bearing, and raising and foster financial responsibility with licenses, preventing bigamy, preventing certain diseases for which the government already requires pre-marriage blood draws, preventing child abuse, etc. (And the government already takes kids away from people that abuses kids: how about abuse prevention? )
I am mad as hell that only women's bodies should be state-controlled. I am so mad that I want a law requiring men to get a politician's or judges (or both) permission for ANY kind of male healthcare. Let's say the man wants an elective or on the edge of medically necessary hernia operation or arthroscopy of the knee or a bunion surgery or plastic surgery: he must get permission from the state to decide whether it's medically necessary and whether the man has the financial responsibility for deductibles and co-pays. If not, the state can deny the care. WHY should only women be made to justify their place on earth and have to jump through hoops for their health?
So after losing twice, OH GOPpers want to undo the effect of Issue One by essentially stripping courts of authority to enforce it? My, my, what a shock.
Some years ago I started a list of "Rules for Right-wingers" about how they debate, or rather don't. Rule #18 is "If you can't win by the rules, change them."
FYI, the full list is at my Substack. Jus' sayin'.
Deeply concerned with reproductive justice and so have been following the Alabama lawsuits. Appreciate your break down of the motion to dismiss and the DOJ brief in response. Will continue to follow closely
The criminal conduct is the agreement (the conspiracy) itself, which is conduct that occurs in Alabama that Alabama has every right to prosecute.”
But the conspiratorial agreement is to engage in interstate travel for the purpose of engaging in legal conduct. No unlawful means. No unlawful goal. Should be a slam dunk.
The state's argument will be that the crime doesn't lie in interstate travel but rather in the state's authority to limit access to abortion and therefore also to limit assistance in obtaining one. The crime, they will say, is in the conspiracy, not in the travel.
It should still be a slam dunk because the "conspiracy" hinders the right to interstate travel, but that's enough of a twig for a judge who wants to rule in the state's favor to hang a ruling on. Even in the NBA some slam dunks wind up as misses.
Edit: The doesn't mean such a decision would stand up on appeal, even in the 11th Circuit, even if only because courts are usually jealous of protecting their turf and resistant attempts to limit it. It does mean I wouldn't be floored with shock if it was ruled that way on the district level. The fact that it's before a Carter appointee makes that unlikely, but I've been disappointed too many times before to dismiss the possibility,
But a conspiracy require an illegal means or illegal purpose. I just don’t see how making it illegal to conspire to engage in interstate travel is any different from making it illegal to interstate travel.
Look, I said it should still be a slam dunk. But we can't act as if the state's argument just does not exist.
That argument is that it is unlawful in Alabama to assist another person in obtaining an abortion. The assistance took place in Alabama and so is covered by that law, regardless of the travel or even if it took place. The illegality is in the assistance itself, the conspiracy in the agreement to provide it.
I called that a "twig" that a judge who *wanted* to rule for the state could hang their ruling on and even then I can't see it surviving appeal - but I wouldn't be floored by an adverse ruling at the District level.
I mean, after all, was Kacsmaryk's ruling in the mifepristone case based on anything more substantial?
One final note: I notice that your response came after my original comment but before my edit noting that I can't see an adverse ruling surviving an appeal.
Yes, fair point about whacko Judge K.
Does this mean a dry county could make it a crime to conspire to drive to a wet county for the purpose of drinking alcohol legally in that county? It’s completely absurd.
In Dobbs, Kavanaugh assured us that:
"For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel."
To quote Justice Kagan, let's see if "some genius" found a way the Supreme Court majority will found around that.
Chris, thank you again for the work you do. If you ever want someone to follow the Alabama AG's efforts more closely, just let me know. As an Alabaman myself, I'd love to shine a light on it--writing under the pen name "(emphasis added)."
I am more ignorant than most readers of this site, but it seems like there would be huge repercussions in many other areas if this case were to stand. People help others go to other states for all sorts of reasons, such as buying marijuana.
In what other contexts can it be a crime to conspire to do something legal?
"Foreign billionaires."
Fuck's sake, just say Jews.
^ FYI to others, this is referring to a quote from an Ohio Republican about funding for Issue One.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear about that in my frustration and exhaustion.
That press release is just rife with antisemitic dogwhistles.
All good! I just wanted to make clear others would know, since that wasn’t quoted here anywhere.
Not good time to be an antisemite.
So it's December 8, 2023 today and of course we have another "Handmaid's Tale" --vis abortion and who gets to control women's bodies--going on in another State today. Our Evil State of the Day" is good 'ol Texas where AG Ken Paxton-- still under investigation for all kinds of alleged crimes and irregularities-has two notable things yesterday and today in relation to a court granting a Ms. Cox the emergency right to an abortion if a child she wants but that has a profound set of abnormalities, will die pretty much after birth, and where Cox's own ability to bear children in the future that she also wants: Paxton appealed to force Cox to bear the child and to increase her chances she cannot bear more in the future AND he warned doctors and hospitals that court orders permitting abortions under these circumstances won't stop Texas from going after doctors and hospitals trying to carry out the court-permitted abortion.
SO I AM MAD AS HELL.
And I ask who's with me in thinking that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Isn't it about time we do the following.
- Pass laws forcing men to get sterilized if they or the women they are with don't want children or more, and they can save their sperm for reproduction but must get court permission to use it. They must prove they are financially able to care for the child / children, have taken child rearing classes using practices --acceptable through negotiation and compromise and law by community council of ordinary of a broad cross section of citizens with no politicians and no people of any religion that permits corporal punishment to prevent abuse as generally understood.
- If the men and women want children, they still have to have training first.
-They must agree ahead of time in writing that if children are produced or adopted and if abortion is indicated for any reason before 24 weeks or whenever doctors can tell a child will be profoundly impaired or the mother's life in danger or both or if future child-bearing will be impeded in the future if the woman is forced to bear the child , that they will not report the woman or procedure or health care providers whether it is legal or illegal. (Medical Malpractice suits are permitted; if an abortion goes wring, the government will not prosecute anyone for the "fact of abortion" but may prosecute for shoddy or criminal medical work and terrible medical results.
-That ANY man that rapes a woman, a child, or commits incest and the rapee becomes pregnant, that the man must be sterilized and then agree to not only abortion if the woman wants it, but also financial responsibility
- Alternatively regarding rape and even marital rape if the man does not want to get sterilized, they must go through the rules above regarding acquiescence to pregnancy and abortion rights and properly raising the child or however the woman chooses, financial support of rapee and child for: 24 years so child and have higher education whether in a college, university or vocational school or apprenticeship program, AND they must agree to have NO CONTACT with the child and mother unless child and mother want it.
I could go on and these rules can be added to, adjusted, massaged, analyzed in all sorts of ways. Most readers are likely rolling their eyes and thinking, "she is nuts" and "keep government out of my face: my male body's my own and I'll darned well do what I want with it." REALLY? The government has the right to control only female bodies? Who died and left men kings other than systemic misogyny, misogyny that is taught or the product of certain religious training from doctrine and The government can require drivers licenses, but not for proper safe child raising? The government can already control civil marriage, child bearing, and raising and foster financial responsibility with licenses, preventing bigamy, preventing certain diseases for which the government already requires pre-marriage blood draws, preventing child abuse, etc. (And the government already takes kids away from people that abuses kids: how about abuse prevention? )
I am mad as hell that only women's bodies should be state-controlled. I am so mad that I want a law requiring men to get a politician's or judges (or both) permission for ANY kind of male healthcare. Let's say the man wants an elective or on the edge of medically necessary hernia operation or arthroscopy of the knee or a bunion surgery or plastic surgery: he must get permission from the state to decide whether it's medically necessary and whether the man has the financial responsibility for deductibles and co-pays. If not, the state can deny the care. WHY should only women be made to justify their place on earth and have to jump through hoops for their health?
So after losing twice, OH GOPpers want to undo the effect of Issue One by essentially stripping courts of authority to enforce it? My, my, what a shock.
Some years ago I started a list of "Rules for Right-wingers" about how they debate, or rather don't. Rule #18 is "If you can't win by the rules, change them."
FYI, the full list is at my Substack. Jus' sayin'.