[gadflyinyoureye]

Possibly. Now the fun will begin if when the Feds stake a claim via the Commerce Clause to make inter-state abortion travel a right. This could end run Roe's overturn because the Feds could say that a State not allowing abortions will affect the price of abortions much like the Feds said you can't hold back corn grown on your farm to feed your livestock because that would prevent the corn from going to market at a market set rate.

[jmgao]

Kavanaugh's concurring opinion said this:

> Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause.

[hotpotamus]

Didn't Kavanaugh also state that Roe was settled precedent? And anyway even if he actually means what he says this time, do you think the right will be satisfied with this outcome? Or when the time comes will they replace him with a judge who will find that the constitution does in fact find that a state can bar a resident from traveling to another state for an abortion?

[UnpossibleJim]

True but Thomas opened up, in his opinion explicitly, the line to legally challenge same sex marriage and legal contraception. Same sex marriage only recognized in one state but not another opens all sorts of issues when it comes to interstate travel as far as communal assets, marital rights during hospital visits and death rights, and insurance claims.

[gadflyinyoureye]

I think there are (at least) two things on this topic. The majority opinion didn't agree with Thomas (no one signed on to it). Second, event under Thomas' opinion, the question becomes one of shaky Constitutional footing. If these "rights" are not really Constitutional, the issue needs to move to Congress. There is nothing that prevents Congress from crafting a law to explicitly allow anything you listed.

Also, it could be that better argumentation is needed to seat something as a right. Take gay marriage as an example. If we solely describe it as a contract (not a religious rite), then you can probably lay access to gay marriage within the Commerce clause. Married couples move around. We can't have their marriages suddenly annulled by moving within the US. We don't allow that to happen to other contracts. Yes it might require a destination wedding, but the couple will comeback with all the rights an privileges thereof.

[nradov]

While I support marriage equality, it seems like fundamentally the wrong issue. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. A better solution would be to eliminate civil marriage from the legal code entirely. If people want to go through some sort of ceremony and declare themselves married then that's fine, but that process shouldn't grant them any more legal rights or privileges than single people.

Currently civil marriage is bundled up with other legal issues like immigration, child custody, income taxes, and medical care decisions. But there's no fundamental reason other than tradition why those things need to be coupled. They could all be handled through separate contracts or elective registries.

[sofixa]

> Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. A better solution would be to eliminate civil marriage from the legal code entirely. If people want to go through some sort of ceremony and declare themselves married then that's fine, but that process shouldn't grant them any more legal rights or privileges than single people

That doesn't make much sense. So in order to get basic rights that come out of marriage/civil union like hospital visits, power of attorney, inheritance, child support, alimony, splitting assets and children in case of divorce etc. one would need to involve lawyers and sign one-off contracts that cover everything? Sounds like a collosal waste of time and money.

[UnpossibleJim]

I think that's fine, and by that logic religious institutions can avoid taxes by following charitable institution policies and tax regulations. That would keep a lot of the religious scam artists out of the water and money that says it's going to go somewhere good, going somewhere good. But I think we all know at least 1/2 of America's heads would explode.

What American government should do and what American government does are fundamentally different things and that ship has sailed. No different than what priests, teachers and actors should do.

[landemva]

People can do what they want through voluntary contracts with each other. If marriage is a right, then we don't need government license to practice the right.

[sterlind]

I'm not so sure. say that Planned Parenthood operates shuttles to abortion clinics out of state. then Mississippi makes it a crime to operate any business within the state that facilitates abortion.

that would have an indirect effect on interstate commerce, but I could imagine the Court upholding Mississippi's ban, since it only concerns businesses that operate there.

of course, this would run straight into the Heart of Atlanta Motel decision that ended racial discrimination in hotels.

[zdragnar]

Setting aside the topic of abortion, that would be one precedent I would absolutely love to see the court overthrow. It was a terrible decision in the first place (wheat, not corn, IIRC) and the commerce clause is far too abused as a result.

[betwixthewires]

I hope to see that happen particularly because I'd love to see the supreme court overturn that commerce clause ruling (I forget the case but I'm familiar with it) because it is clearly nonsense. But any state law restricting travel to another state for abortion would be unconstitutional, yes, no state can pass a law criminalizing behavior in another state, thankfully.

[dillondoyle]

What about 'aid and abet' the person to get there? Or allowing crazy civil lawsuits that evidently are a constitutional 'gotcha'?

[betwixthewires]

Assisting someone in crossing state lines would be pretty well covered by the constitution, the federal government is the only authority capable of regulating cross state movement and interstate commerce, period.

Do you have any examples or possibilities for a constitutional gotcha under these circumstances?

[dillondoyle]

Some texas-style rigmarole.

I'm genuinely asking as I'm not an attorney.

My guess would be something like give each citizens in __ state the power to sue __ for assisting someone to commit a "murder" or "crime of life," whatever insane definition they put into law.

Making "civil suits by private citizens the exclusive avenue of enforcement."

And grants a bounty to encourage this.

Further placing 100% of the burden on the person being sued to prove their innocence (and pay legal fees); doesn't matter the uber driver was just dropping someone off at the airport. Whereas the state would have to prove the crime.

it's the threat, the time, the money, and the inconvenience which creates the deterrence & fear that they want.

No matter how baseless it might be, this whole 'gotcha' is that the Supreme Court won't intervene because - and this is where legal understanding could have nuances - each victim is unique (person being sued civily), and that the relief would be from unique individuals and not the state. SCOTUS "ruling that the providers could not bring suit against the classes of state judges and clerks or the state Attorney General"

[ed25519FUUU]

Or Congress could just pass a law.

[Brian-Puccio]

Obama in 2007: first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, essentially codifying Roe

Obama in 2009 (the same year he had a supermajority in the legislature): eh, that’s not so important

I have zero faith in Democrats in Congress to actually do this and all of the Republicans in Congress are vocally (or tacitly) opposed to it.

Clinton’s VP pick was an anti-choice Democrat.

I doubt there will be a federal law allowing for first trimester abortions on demand for at least a decade.

[whateveracct]

Calling what Obama had a "supermajority" is revisionist history. At best, it was like 20 working days of exactly 60 votes (e.g. due to the Al Frank stuff). If even one Dem didn't go along with it (which for a somewhat nuanced issue like abortion back in 2009 - definitely a possibility) even then it wasn't possible.

So acting like there was some all-powerful supermajority is ignorant at best, misinformation at worst.

[dillondoyle]

Won't happen unless we somehow get 10 new Dems probably with 2 to spare (or primary centrist Dems)

[djur]

The Feds don't need to rely on Wickard or any Commerce Clause jurisprudence in regards to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities clause.