re: Biden warns that states will start arresting women who cross state lines seeking abortions

quote:

---

jrodLSUke

---

no, I said that the “minor in possession of a firearm“ (I don’t recall the exact name of the charge) was the most likely of the four charges to result in a conviction … for two reasons:

(1) I explained that (among other anbiguities in that statute) there was an unanswered legal question as to whether he was required to take such a course, and

(2) I stated unequivocally from almost the first day that Rittenhouse would NOT be found guilty on the three shootings.

While you idiots were all whining that he was going to be railroaded into prison for life by corrupt democratic judges in Wisconsin, I assured you that he would be acquitted.

But, your unhealthy obsession with me is noted. Seriously, you are arguing about something that you THINK I said 21 months ago? Take some advice from Elsa and “let it go.”

quote:

---

One discussion related to Texas current law (which definitely allows pursuit of a civil action

---

quote:

---

Biden warns that states will start arresting women

---

Yep. You're retarded.

quote:

---

The second relates to possible enactment of future laws, criminalizing

---

no it doesn't

My very first post in this thread addresses both points.

quote:

---

Biden warns that states will start arresting women who cross state lines seeking abortions

quote:

---

Texas' new law already pays a $10,000 bounty for identifying those who "assist" a woman in obtaining an abortion. For example:

quote:

---

the (existing civil) statute does not limit itself to acts inside the State of Texas. Remember, Texas did not go the "criminal route." For now, it involves civil liability. (I suspect that will change, with Dobbs now on-the-books).

---

Is it really that much of a stretch (to think Texas will do as Biden fears and enact the referenced criminal penalties)?

---

---

From there, I engaged in parallel discussions of the civil bounty issue and the possible revision of criminal law issue.

No, I did not include boldface, allcap headers deliminating each topic for the slow-witted. I do tend to assume a certain minimal intelligence for those who participate in this sort of thread. In your case, it is apparent that this is perhaps an error.

I am beginning to think you truly do not understand this discussion in the slightest … that you actually ARE a drooling imbecile.

The existing civil statute allows any person (resident of Texas or not) to file a civil suit IN TEXAS for recovery of up to $10,000 against either anyone who performs an abortion (presumably in Texas, though this is not explicit in the statute) or anyone who ASSISTS another person in getting an abortion. Nothing in the statute limits the recovery to assistance in obtaining abortions conducted within the boundaries of the state of Texas. The plaintiff could file suit against a friend who buys a plane ticket in Houston for another person to fly to Illinois for an abortion. AGAIN, this is NOT a criminal statute. Your Colorado/marijuana analogy has absolutely zero bearing on this discussion.

quote:

---

Texas cannot and will not arrest people for engaging in legal activities in other states.

---

No, not under current law. As I have said at least a half dozen times, we are discussing the possibility that Texas will enact such a statute.

You seem to believe it that is impossible, but this very thread includes multiple posters arguing for exactly that result.

The Texas legislature is dominated by social conservatives at this time. I think it is entirely possible that they will enact such a draconian statute, as indicated by the monumentally stupid “heartbeat statute“ that they recently passed into law.

If that happens, Texas may or may not impose criminal penalties against a woman for getting a legal abortion in another state. That is part of what we are discussing, genius.

We are also discussing the possibility of a criminal provision similar to the existing civil Statute, by which Texas would criminalize the act of providing assistance (in the state of Texas) to a woman wishing to travel outside the state of Texas to obtain services which Texas deems to be against its public policy (abortion).

The only chance that Texas’ SoCon legislators (and many other Red states) will not criminalize the behavior of the woman herself lies in the hope that they will hate the bad optics less then they will love the roaring adoration of their SoCon constituents.

quote:

---

if I go to Colorado to smoke weed. They can't arrest me when I get back.

---

If they criminalize an action undertaken in the state of Texas, yes, they can. For instance, they could criminalize the act of making any purchase in the state of Texas (e.g. gasoline) in order to facilitate the uktimate purchase of marijuana. Yes, that would certainly be subject to some constitutional challenges (rightbto travel), but the recent actions of the Supreme Court would tend to indicate that those challenges would fail.

quote:

---

who gives a shite?

---

Translation: BlueBoy just had his ignorant arse handed to him.

quote:

---

If they criminalize an action undertaken in the state of Texas, yes, they can

---

right. that must be why i'm always reading about people getting busted for buying gas to go to CO to smoke weed. oh wait. no I don't. your whole argument is slippery slope bullshite, and you know that.

quote:

---

arse handed to him.

---

you come on here acting like you're out of everyone's league, and you get owned daily. you must like it.

quote:

---

that must be why i'm always reading about people getting busted for buying gas to go to CO to smoke weed. oh wait. no I don't.

---

No, because Texas has NOT criminalized buying gas for someone to buy weed out of state. Nor has Texas set a bounty for civil suits arising from such purchases.

However, Texas HAS set a bounty on helping a woman get an abortion. With Roe out of the way, it is naive in the extreme to think that the Ledge might not take the next step and criminalize that same behavior.

quote:

---

you get owned daily

---

That is hilarious. By any objective standard, I am seldom even touched, much less injured rhetotrically or “owned.”.

The fact that 60 screaming morons believe otherwise, on a site populated in large part by screaming morons, does not change the objective facts.

In any given thread, I usually have a dozen or more “opponents” taking shots at me, and even so, I seldom lose a debate on an objective basis.

What a great God-fearing Catholic

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

That’s textbook fear mongering seeing as what he is saying is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

AggieHank86

---

Would an argument like the below make any sense for this type of thing? disclaimer i've both stayed at a holiday inn and logged into legalzoom once.

taking the potential citizen across state lines and killing it deprives the state of their interest regardless of location because the mother was a citizen of X state?