You think abortion can't be prosecuted just because the woman crosses state lines?

No, it was YOU who posted the agreement between states used in cross state issues involving children.

You should know what you posted.

I'm not going to search your posts for you.

 

The two individuals involved in the abortion (the woman and the fetus) are both still subject to the limited jurisdiction of the state which they left.
They can potentially be extradited back.

The woman has no right to kill the citizen of another state, just because the killing happens to be legal in the state it was carried out in.

 

States decide who they extradite.

Why would a state extradite someone for doing something that is entirely legal?

 

You are aware the federal courts can order (or force) them to extradite?

Especially if there is a specific federal law concerning that type of extradition.

 

If there is a federal law that was broken.

Today, the direction of the religious right is to gather information on those seeking abortion and publishing it to the right wing hate groups that then know when appointments are, where clinics are, what the hours of the clinics are, the women's phone numbers, where they live, etc.

This is not theoretical. It is happening today.

This fits nicely with the Texas law that puts a bounty on the heads of women.

Then, we hear people say this is all allowed under our constitution.

But, that's only true if those interpreting the constitution and our laws ARE part of the hate groups focused on attacking women who need abortion services and attacking the doctors who provide those services.

Anyone who thinks this kind of hate is rational is just plain sociopathic.

And, we have a lot of them, including in high places where there is a duty to protect the lives of citizens.

 

Days later, and you and @kazenatsu are still spinning? You can't have a battle of wits with unarmed people.

You guys are like this:



Maybe it's time for this:



Unless, of course, this is fun for y'all, in which case, maybe take it to PF's message feature? Just A suggestion.

 

She's been shown to be false over and over.

You're right. I should just not respond.

 

No.

If one state seeks to extradite someone from another state, for breaking that state's laws, then a federal court will intervene. (The federal court will determine if the state has or should have jurisdiction over the person and situation) There are already federal laws that relate to this. But the person is not being extradited because they broke any federal laws.

You seem to intentionally not want to understand this.

 

Look it up.

 

If you don't believe me, then you have absolutely no reason to worry about this, do you?

 

"A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2

 

A fetus can't be a citizen....why are you ranting?

 

They don't have to be ...

 

Of course they can. We've already had this debate in another thread.

(Want to debate it again? Start another thread, and leave the link here. But we all know you won't)

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
A fetus can't be a citizen....why are you ranting?

YOU brought it up
kazenatsu said: ↑
The two individuals involved in the abortion (the woman and the fetus) are both still subject to the limited jurisdiction of the state which they left.
They can potentially be extradited back."""




and then want to change the subject....you do that a lot....

BTW, NO one has ever proven the fetus is a person.


BTW who is this "we " you always use? Do you have multiple personalities or always need "backup" ?

 

Well maybe a pregnant woman should use the pronoun "we", because you insist that the baby inside her is part of her body.

 

UNCHERRY PICKED POST:
YOU brought it up
kazenatsu said: ↑
The two individuals involved in the abortion (the woman and the fetus) are both still subject to the limited jurisdiction of the state which they left.
They can potentially be extradited back."""




and then want to change the subject....you do that a lot....

BTW, NO one has ever proven the fetus is a person.


BTW who is this "we " you always use? Do you have multiple personalities or always need "backup" ?

DUH, if it's part of her body then there is still one person... so why TF should she use we? You seem quite confused

Do you always use "we" to include you and your gall bladder?

Do you have multiple personalities or always need "backup" ? LOL...


Now, instead of going off topic why couldn't you address my entire post ?

 

Well, my gall bladder doesn't have arms and legs, and a face, and a brain, and a penis, and a beating heart of its own...

 

UNCHERRY PICKED POST:
YOU brought it up
kazenatsu said: ↑
The two individuals involved in the abortion (the woman and the fetus) are both still subject to the limited jurisdiction of the state which they left.
They can potentially be extradited back."""




and then want to change the subject....you do that a lot....

BTW, NO one has ever proven the fetus is a person.


BTW who is this "we " you always use? Do you have multiple personalities or always need "backup" ?

DUH, if it's part of her body then there is still one person... so why TF should she use we? You seem quite confused

Do you always use "we" to include you and your gall bladder?

Do you have multiple personalities or always need "backup" ? LOL...


Now, instead of going off topic why couldn't you address my entire post ?

 

This isn't going to happen any sooner than CA arresting and prosecuting Californians who went to NV to shoot unregistered 'assault weapons'.

 

I disagree with you. I think you haven't been paying close attention to the arguments in this thread.

The argument about state jurisdiction over her unborn child, even though the child was taken to another state.

 

Right. CA can't prosecute someone for what they did in AZ.

 

That's something that sounds like it should be true and reasonable, on the surface, but I think legal scholars and Constitutional experts would agree with my position.

The woman can be prosecuted if she comes under the jurisdiction of a state. The question is when exactly does this jurisdiction arise. It is not entirely limited to when the action is performed in that state.

Let me give you an example. If stolen property is taken from one state, and someone else destroys that property in another state so that it can never be returned to the first state, then that person could potentially be liable to that first state. The first state would make an extradition request, supposing it is refused, they would then make an extradition request to the federal courts, and if the courts agree, the second state will be instructed to extradite the person to the first state. Usually that would happen automatically, but federal agents could be sent in to bring the person to justice if the state they are in absolutely refuses to make an arrest. This is not because the person broke a federal law, but because extradition is seen as arising under the US Constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution is quite vague on exactly when extraterritorial state jurisdiction arises.

For the most part in history the US has passed federal laws to specifically deal with issues, rather than relying on state laws. Although these federal laws did rely on state jurisdiction to be Constitutionally valid.

The Fugitive Slave Act set one legal precedent in this area (despite slavery later being made illegal).

Child support payments and alimony are another example. You can look up the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, although in that case the federal government kind of pressured all states to agree to it (by threatening to withhold funding for child support enforcement).

You can also read about Interstate Child Custody.
The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (ojp.gov)

 

specifically, read about The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) (bwjp.org)

"The home state is the state where the child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 months immediately before the custody action was filed. Home state jurisdiction exists in the child’s current home state or in a state that was the child’s home state within 6 months before the case began."

There is a Supreme Court case Thompson v. Thompson (1988 ) that partially nullified this law but it might only have done so because the states didn't try working out the conflict between themselves before it went to federal court.

 

So YOU want the woman brought back so that ( quoting YOU) " she hops up on the table and spreads her legs, but they insert a red hot spicy suppository."""