Forum Discussion

First, this isn't a "states' rights" issue, because it has nothing to do with the federal government exercising powers that belong to the states.

Second, all the potential you see is not even remotely possible or suggested by the bill. If you're an Ohio resident, leave the state for an abortion, and then come back as an Ohio resident, you are committing a felony.

Having said all that, the bill - if passed - would be virtually unenforceable, and probably not constitutional anyway.

A rational dissenter who wants to be taken seriously could have made a simple analogy. Such as: it's the same as a Hawaii resident driving in Montana at its speed limit of 75, and getting a speeding ticket when he returns because Hawaii's limit is 55.

Well State's Right comment here refered to Ohio's state right in which it think its ok to make it a felony to have an abortion when the federal says its legal.

>If you're an Ohio resident, leave the state for an abortion, and then come back as an Ohio resident, you are committing a felony.
What exactly is your point? Cause that sentence just rephrases what I said originally.

>A rational dissenter who wants to be taken seriously
Wait, I have to fall into your definition of rational dissenter? And should I also stay in teh "designated" "free speech area" during events? Somewhere nowhere near the event I am protesting right? Sorta like what Bush wants when he goes to places?

My point is you're saying that if you are anywhere near a state, pass through it, or even say its name, you can be subject to its laws. That's not the case. You hae to be a resident of Ohio before and after the abortion occurs.

Well, if you'er going to make wild scenarios that are in no way representative of what the bill would allow, you can't expect to be taken seriously. Likewise with your strange conclusion that I am saying you should be put into designated free speech areas, like those used for the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Time for a hypothetical to illustrate my points
You of course know there are things that are legal in one state that are not legal in other right.
Ok. So lets say in Ohio there is a law against coloring dogs purple. But in Michigan lets there is no such law.

So if I take my dog and go to Mihichigan for a month and color him purple, keep like that for few weeks till the color washes off does it mean when I come back to Ohio I can be prosecuted for breaking the Ohio law while I was in Michigan?

More over while I am actually traveling through any state I am subject to their law.

So basically this Ohio law says: We can persecute you according to our states laws for something you are doing (in this case abortion) out of our state jurisdiction.

Does that sound right to you?

That's about what I said with the speeding. and I said it's probably not constitutional. We're not debating that. We're debating the fictional scenarios you suggested, where just passing through a state subjects you to all their laws back home. The Ohio bill was at least saying that Ohio residents who leave and then return as residents are subject. Doesn't make it any more constitutional, but at least makes it more restrictive than your exclamation point-laden suggestsions.

Actually the bill does not say you have to be a resident of the state.
So since when you are traveling through the state you are subject to their laws, that law would apply.

Ugh, I know I read it somewhere as I meticulously reprinted it, but I cannot for the life of me find it. Perhaps I read it was implied because of Ohio's lack of jurisdiction on people passing through. Don't know. But I'll keep looking.

However, what I have found is that this legislation was designed to be challenged by the pro-choicers, in hopes of going to the Supreme Court to help overturn Roe v. Wade. It probably would have been better to do it without this state lines crossing part.

>Perhaps I read it was implied because of Ohio's lack of jurisdiction on people passing through.
Again, if you are passing through Ohio, Ohio's laws apply to you.
If you think otherwise you are gravely mistaken. Ask any attorney.

>However, what I have found is that this legislation was designed to be challenged by the pro-choicers, in hopes of going to the Supreme Court to help overturn Roe v. Wade.

I had no doubt of that. Of course for that law needs to be upheld? But I wonder which part of this law you think is going to be upheld? The part where Ohio can place every woman under "state arrest" on a slightest chance she might be pregnant? Or the part where Ohio police has jurisdiction outside its borders?
I mean think about it, every woman who had sex lets say with in the last 3 days might be pregnant, because even birth control can fail.
So if the law passes are they now effectively trapped in Ohio and can not leave the state, because they MIGHT preform abortion when they leave. Sounds like a nice big concentration camp to me. Not America.

Jim are you ok with living in a concentration camp? Cause I am certainly not. Now you may call this a hyperbole but the actual argument is true. If this bill becomes a law, every fertile woman is under suspicion everytime she leave the state.

Your answer would probably be:
The part where it is criminal to "for a woman to seek to terminate her pregnancy".
Now the interesting part about that phrasing is "seek".
That does not imply abortion has been performed or anything. It implies that some DA THINKS that woman seeks to perform abortion.
Its sorta like you driving under speed limit and getting pulled over for "seeking" to break it. How does the policeman knows if you were actually going to break the law? Oh I know, because you had a car and foot which when combined together a certain way can make the car go faster then speeding limit. Lets prosecute for that.

And this is not nitpicking. In the law the DEVIL is in the DETAILS!!! :)

The phrasing of "seek" is not in the bill. That is just how the reporter or blogger worded it. The bill is overwhelming to pore through, and I am hoping to still verify the part about being a resident, or if it is just implied because that is of whom the state would have jurisdiction. My suspicion, based on reading what I have from the bill, is that people passing through being subject to the law is just creative hyperbole.

Anyway, the phrasing is "Her causing, threatening to cause, or attempting to cause" an abortion. (Section 2903.09(c)(5)).

I've already said the law is overly unenforceable and probably not even constitutional because of the state lines thing.

The argument about being trapped in Ohio is pretty silly. You can argue that about almost any law, without even the crossing state lines scenario.

For example, underage drinking... Any adult who buys alcohol is effectively under suspicion of allowing a minor to have some in their home, so police would be required to follow home everyone that purchases alcohol to make sure that no minors are given that alcohol. And every house that contains alcohol would have to be staked out to make sure no minor enters the house. And anyone that has a baby is then under suspicion because they can introduce alcohol to that minor.

I can be just as creative as you, but doesn't make it plausible, likely, or even true. You're inventing how the law would be enforced. The bill (as far that I can tell, so far) does not suggest anything like you suggest. Women are not going to be asked to urinate on a stick at the Ohio border.

So I would just get a grip. Every law that can be violated in private requires a police state, but in reality relies on credible tips to be enforced. This is no exception.

Heck, if they can't even catch illegal aliens who participate in parades publicly declaring their illegality, and even talk to national news cameras about being illegal aliens, I don't think these girls discreetly leaving the state will be at any more risk.

I have jumped the gun on the word "seek". I do admit that I have not reviewed the bill throughly enough.

>My suspicion, based on reading what I have from the bill, is that people passing through being subject to the law is just creative hyperbole.
I went over the bill and I have not found a provision of this applying only to residents of the State. By default the law woudl apply to anyone within the state boundry, since that states jurisdiction. Do point it out to me if you have found it.

>You're inventing how the law would be enforced.
Somewhat yes. But I also am pointing out that pregnancy is not always visible. And that to TRULLY enforce this law one would have to do just that.

>I don't think these girls discreetly leaving the state will be at any more risk.
Well, beign anti abortion would you prefer to have them arrested? Would you, for example, support a bill to lets say add more state border guards to enforce this law.

I wouldn't support adding border guards to enforce the law. It wouldn't be practical. You can't just arrest people for driving to Pennsylvania. It would be just as unreasonable as having border guards to search your car to make sure you aren't transporting alcohol across state lines, which is also illegal.

This proposed law really isn't any different, in terms of the ability to enforce, than so many others. To truly enforce a lot of them, you can argue a police state must and, therefore, will be put in place.

The one difference is that this bill is trying to cover something that occurs in a different state. I haven't been able to go through the bill any more to find explicit mention, but the only way it could arguably have any jurisdiction is if someone is a resident and comes back. Even still, as we established, it's pretty shaky jurisdiction. So it will probably be struck down on those grounds before it can do anything to chip away at Roe v. Wade.

Alright. I am glad to see that you think the law is draconian.

I didn't say that. I said I think the law is not constitutional. I think your fictional law to enforce the law is draconian.

ok.

indeed.