Several national anti-abortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are making plans to prevent people in abortion-free states from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to those involved in the debate. The idea has gained momentum in some corners of the anti-abortion movement in the days since the Supreme Court overturned its 49-year-old precedent for protecting abortion rights nationwide, enacting abortion bans in much of the Southeast and Midwest. The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal body, is drafting state law that would allow individuals to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion to terminate a pregnancy outside that state. The draft will be borrowed from the new legal strategy behind the abortion ban in Texas introduced last year, in which individuals had the power to enforce the law through civil disputes. The issue was hotly debated at two national anti-abortion conferences last weekend, with several lawmakers interested in introducing such bills into their states. The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an anti-abortion group led by Republican state lawmakers, has begun working with Texas abortion ban authors to investigate legislation that would restrict people from crossing the state border. abortions, said Texas State Representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charterer of the group’s national legislature. “Just because you cross a state line does not mean that your home state has no jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior consultant at the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you cross the state line.” Biden’s Ministry of Justice has already warned states that they will fight such laws, saying they violate the right to transnational trade. Roe is gone. Now anti-abortion lawmakers want more. Relying on individuals to enforce civil disputes, instead of trying to impose a state ban on abortions across the state, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups do not have a clear face to sue. . Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a creepy effect, with doctors in surrounding states stopping having abortions before the courts have the opportunity to intervene, worrying they could face lawsuits if they break the law. Not all anti-abortion groups agree with this idea. Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, noted that people have access to medical procedures across all state lines at all times. “I do not think you can prevent this,” he said. While some anti-abortion groups aspire to push Congress to pass a national abortion ban, restricting movement between states would represent another step in limiting the number of abortions performed in the United States. Such bills could be proposed even before state legislatures reconvene for their regular legislative sessions in 2023, said Arkansas State Sen. Jason Rupert (R). His home country, he said, may soon address the issue at an already scheduled special meeting. Another Arkansas senator, he said, has expressed interest in introducing the legislation. “Many of us have supported legislation to stop human trafficking,” said Rapert, president of the National Union of Christian Lawmakers. “So why is there a fold for people who traffick women to make money from aborting their babies?” In a televised interview over the weekend, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R) left the door open to restrict out-of-state abortion in her state, where the activation ban came into effect as soon as Roe was overthrown. The governor, who has convened a special meeting to discuss abortion legislation, said the issue could be discussed in South Dakota in the future. Abortions are now banned in these states. Others will follow. Dale Bartscher, executive director of South Dakota South Dakota, South Dakota’s leading anti-abortion organization, said he was keen to prevent South Dakota residents from having access to abortion in other states. “I have heard that they are being heard all over the state of South Dakota,” he said, although he would not discuss the purpose of the forthcoming special session. The idea to limit out-of-state abortions came earlier this year when Missouri State Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) proposed legislation based on the Texas-type enforcement mechanism. While Coleman’s account failed to move to the 2022 legislative session, Coleman said she has heard from many anti-abortion lawmakers and advocates in other states who want to seek similar legislation. The issue is particularly relevant in Coleman, Missouri, which has banned abortions with an activation ban that took effect within an hour of the Supreme Court ruling. Up to 14,000 people are expected to flood in southern Illinois this year, including thousands of Missouri residents, according to Planned Parenthood. Missouri lawmaker tries to prevent residents from having abortions outside the state Several Democratic-led states have passed legislation this year to repeal laws that seek to restrict movement between states. Connecticut passed a law in April that offers broad protection against abortion laws trying to reach other states. The measure will protect people from out-of-state calls or calls issued in abortion-related cases that are legal in Connecticut. And it would prevent the Connecticut authorities from complying with another state’s request to investigate or punish anyone involved in facilitating a legal abortion in Connecticut. “The legislators inside [antiabortion] “States have made it clear that their intention is not just to ban abortions within the borders of their state, but to ban them in states where it is explicitly permitted,” said Connecticut State spokesman Matt Blumenthal (D) in an interview. April. California passed a similar law Thursday to protect abortion providers and patients from civil litigation. Georgana Hanson of the Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts in Albany NY responds to the Supreme Court that ousted Roe v Wade by saying New Yorkers will fight hard in New York State to protect abortion rights and access. (Video: Erin Patrick O’Connor, Zoeann Murphy / The Washington Post) The Ministry of Justice has already signaled its intention to fight such lawsuits in court. In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe “does not eliminate the possibility for states to keep abortions legal within their borders.” “And the Constitution continues to limit the power of states to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.” This statement suggests that if a particular state passed a law that seeks to prevent women from traveling across state lines to have an abortion, the Department of Justice may file lawsuits that oppose such a law. This strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in the Justice Department’s opposition to Texas law restricting multiple abortions, but any new state law involving interstate travel could raise additional legal questions for the courts. Garland argued that the Constitution was clear about the legality of crossing state borders for medical care. “We recognize that the journey to reproductive care may not be possible in many cases. “However, according to fundamental constitutional principles, women living in states that have denied access to comprehensive reproductive care should remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal,” Garland said, adding that the First Amendment protects anyone offering information or advice on “reproductive care available in other states.” A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice did not provide further details on the attorney general’s statement. David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University who has studied such proposals, noted that Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh referred to transnational travel in a separate consensus he wrote with Roe’s overthrow, which he clarified. that people could not be prosecuted for abortions outside the state. However, Cavanaugh’s disagreement is not about the law enforcement strategy gaining ground among anti-abortion groups, Cohen said. “This will create a state-against-state and state-against-federal state chaos that we have not seen in this country in a long time.” Chris Rowland contributed to this report.
