There’s another War Between the States coming over Abortion
Before the Civil War, Northern and Southern states did battle over fugitive slaves. Once again, something legal in one state is illegal in a state next door.
The Supreme Court’s abortion decision is likely to set off a wave of legal and political disputes among states and the federal government unlike anything seen since the years before the Civil War, legal experts say.
With some states allowing private lawsuits against out-of-state abortion providers — and other states prohibiting cooperation with abortion investigations — the abortion issue is likely to pit state law enforcement agencies and court systems against one another in dramatic fashion. The federal government, meanwhile, faces a choice over how to deal with states that seek to ban Food and Drug Administration-approved abortion medication, now used in about half of pregnancy terminations. And whatever the Biden administration does, federal policy could change dramatically if the Republicans take the White House.
Experts say it is conceivable that a person could be wanted for a felony in an anti-abortion rights state but protected from extradition in a pro-abortion rights state. The governor of Massachusetts has already imposed rules forbidding state officers from cooperating in abortion investigations. California’s governor signed a bill seeking to protect from civil liability anyone providing, aiding or receiving abortion care in the state. Texas law, however, lets private citizens sue out-of-state abortion providers, and Missouri is considering a similar law.
“What we had in the years leading up to the Civil War was a failure of what lawyers call comity, the idea that states will respect other states’ laws” for reasons of courtesy, consideration and mutual respect, said Ariela J. Gross, a professor of law and history at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. “That starts to break down when you have these really stark differences over an issue involving a fundamental right, and that’s what happened in the years leading up to the Civil War.”
After the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, federal statutes required Northern states to assist Southern slave owners and their bounty hunters in capturing enslaved people who had escaped north to states that had banned slavery. But many Northern states passed laws to impede cooperation and enforcement.
The parallel to abortion is that “you literally are pursuing people across state borders for seeking medical care that is legal,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. “It’s a completely mind-blowing concept.”
Header featured image (edited) credit: Abortion-rights advocates (right) and anti-abortion advocates (left) rally outside of the Supreme Court in 2016. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Emphasis added by (TLB) editors
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.