[jacamera]

> Texas will claim jurisdiction since in its eyes a citizen was murdered.

But this just isn't how it works, right? "Claiming" jurisdiction I mean. Take your previous example but instead imagine the woman from Texas took a trip with her husband to New Mexico and paid a hitman to murder him during the trip. The suspected hitman would most certainly be arrested on a layover in Texas (or any other state) but that state wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder that happened in New Mexico. The suspect would instead be extradited to New Mexico to face charges there.

> Would you be willing to risk arrest if you were a doctor in New Mexico and a Texas resident comes to you for an abortion? Even the threat of arrest has consequences on peoples’ actions.

I certainly agree there and definitely cannot speak to the risk assessment that abortion providers might unfortunately be contending with but I can't imagine that this will remain a question for long. Federal courts definitely do not like legal ambiguities between states.

[steanne]

>> Texas will claim jurisdiction since in its eyes a citizen was murdered.

>But this just isn't how it works, right? "Claiming" jurisdiction I mean.

yes, that's exactly what might happen.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/15/1111383520/texas-abortion-law...

[moistly]

> The suspect would instead be extradited to New Mexico to face charges there.

Only because the two states have the same law regarding murder.

More comparable would be the prosecution of internationally-travelled kiddy-diddlers. Though the laws in the foreign country may have allowed such behaviour, itis illegal in the US and the prosecution will be in the US. The diddler is not extradited to the permissive country.