[krapp]

>It seems pretty clear to me that in your scenario Texas wouldn't have jurisdiction over anything that happens outside its border.

States enforce laws across state lines all the time, doing so for abortion - now considered a crime - would be no different. Several states, including Texas, have or are attempting to pass laws making it illegal to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. South Carolina is banning websites which describe how to get an abortion. So this affects not only freedom of travel, but freedom of speech.

[OrangeMonkey]

I would assume, perhaps rightly perhaps wrongly, that in your example Texas does not have jurisdiction and would be a third party to that action. The state government could act against an individual for something they did in their state, or the federal government could conceivably act, but not other uninvolved states.

In both of your examples, the states are controlling the behavior of people in those states. Texas is controlling people in its state (and leaving). South Carolina would be banning things brought into its state (information). I think both of these examples, if they are as plainly stated as you mentioned, are illegal for different reasons (interstate commerce clause) but I wouldn't think this is an example of states policing actions that happened in other states.