Hacker News Reader

Comment by Buttons840 | Hacker News Reader

The eventual court cases over whether going to another state to do something legal is in fact illegal in your current state will be sad and interesting.

View on HN

Likely unconstitutional for a number of reasons: - the constitution guarantees freedom of movement within the states. - the dormant commerce clause prohibits states from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce - states cannot pass laws with extraterritorial jurisdiction. The constitution establishes a federal system in which states have sovereignty within their own borders but cannot exert authority in other states.

But "states rights" are now a thing, somehow. Our Supreme Court has now shown a heavy political leaning, and the ability to discard precedent.

If I was a women, who according to my doctor, needed a medical abortion to save my life, what good is a multi-year appeal going to do me?

Innocent mothers will die from these laws, and future infertility will be caused.

If only somebody could have seen this coming.

Roe was nakedly political. Even liberals hardly defend it as an exercise in actual Constitutional law. It also remains an aberration in the developed world: the EU Court of Human Rights has repeatedly declined to recognize a general “right” to abortion that overrides the power of elected legislatures to regulate it.

The Supreme Court that showed a “heavy political leaning” was the one that decided Roe in the first place, not the one that overturned it, returning the issue to the public to decide, as is true in every country in the EU.

It's sad that you're getting downvoted when you're objectively right. Roe was the poster child for judicial activism where the justices literally invented a constitutional right out of thin air in order to justify their decision.

I’m going to go on a limb and say that a fetus will be counted under interstate commerce jurisdiction of the US Constitution so there will be a federal law level decision on whether abortion is illegal or not if one doesn’t exist already. Because then I’d imagine that supremacy clause means that states actually do not have the right to restrict procedures like abortions either.

In the Wickard v Filburn case the court ruled that a guy growing food on his own land to feed to animals on his own land was participating in interstate commerce. So it wouldn't be the first stretch of the term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com