• LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait until president DeathSantis sends FBI to Colorado and demands names and addresses of these women so they can be properly prosecuted

    • VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not DeSantis, but red states are really getting records for out of state care their people seek.

      I know it’s a whataboutism, but I really can’t stand that we can’t have something like a gun registry because “MuH gUnz!?!!” and the government might take them or whatever, but we can’t buy or borrow books without government agencies being able to secretly procure that information. Now private medical records from the doctor’s office, not just like a person googling around, are being hoovered up for overtly political reasons against vulnerable people. Why are guns so much more sacred than people being able to live?

    • aeternum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t put it past them to make it illegal to travel to another US state to get an abortion.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution

        That’s why you can buy weed in Colorado and not be prosecuted in Texas, as an example.

        • treefrog
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          So basically someone would have to appeal it to the SC if the feds came after them.

          Considering the state of the court, I wouldn’t count on the commerce clause standing in regards to prosecuting abortions.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is a violation until it goes to scotus who will say that it doesn’t apply just like with the precedent of Roe v Wade and that made up case about a website for a gay couple.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I definitely understand the sentiment, but this is literally written into the constitution - the others are reinterpretations of former decisions

            They’re both bullshit, and one didn’t even have standing, but they’re much easier to “justify”