[f38zf5vdt]

Various states already prohibit using public money to fund abortions, a prohibition on private funds for an act they consider extremely illegal and equivalent to murder is not a stretch.

"12 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that provides abortions."

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family...

[chitowneats]

And you believe it will be legal for them to arrest you for donations you made before those laws were in place?

That's assuming you're correct they would try to ban private funds. A big assumption.

[f38zf5vdt]

IANAL.

No, ex post facto laws aren't legal.

If the state law says so, yes, you could get an out-of-state charge for providing financial aid to an abortion operation after contributing to an organization that funds them. With Roe v Wade gone, I am not sure there is a federal precedent for how to handle crimes relating to committing a murder in one state that is not considered a murder in another state.

[amanaplanacanal]

If planned parenthood isn't performing any abortions in a state where it is illegal, how could funding them ever be made illegal? None of this makes sense.

[f38zf5vdt]

People from illegal states already cross state lines to get abortions and then return to their home states. While it's not presently illegal, without Roe v Wade, I think that may quickly change.

> No state has yet enacted a law to ban this travel. But it has been attempted: In Missouri, a bill is pending that would enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits if the abortion is administered outside the state.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish...

[rootusrootus]

> enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits

I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS kills off these attempts to use civil litigation to end-run the Constitution. The Texas law matched the court's ideology, so they let it stand, but now that Roe is overturned I expect the court to dispense with the law before places like California can use it to render the 2A moot.

If they let this continue, the court will become irrelevant in a hurry. They may have granted themselves sweeping authority a long while back, but that can be changed easily via legislation.

[vorpalhex]

You can prohibit public money for any reason - and we do all the time, eg forcing the state to buy only US made cars.

You can't prohibit private money use in a situation like this - especially not for a political funding thing. That is actually a freedom of speech issue.