Alabama attorney general says he has right to prosecute people who facilitate travel for abortions
Source: CNN Politics
CNN — Alabama’s Republican attorney general said in a court filing that he has the right to prosecute people who make travel arrangements for pregnant women to have out-of-state abortions. In a court filing Monday, attorneys for Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote that providing transportation for women in Alabama to leave the state to get an abortion could amount to a “criminal conspiracy.”
The court filing comes in response to lawsuits against Marshall that was filed in July from two women’s health centers and Yellowhammer Fund, an organization which says it provides “financial and practical support for those who are pregnant and require assistance.” The plaintiffs argue that Marshall violated their constitutional rights by publicly stating that organizations which help pregnant women in Alabama get an abortion out of state could be criminally investigated.
“Alabama can no more regulate out-of-state abortions than another state can deem its laws legalizing abortions to apply to Alabama,” the Yellowhammer Fund lawsuit argues.
Marshall is now asking Judge Myron Thompson to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that helping a woman avoid Alabama’s restrictions by facilitating an abortion elsewhere is a conspiracy.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/alabama-attorney-general-abortion-prosecute/index.html
Full headline: Alabama attorney general says he has right to prosecute people who facilitate travel for out-of-state abortions
Two words. "Commerce Clause".
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .
The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce and restricts states from impairing interstate commerce. Early Supreme Court cases primarily viewed the Commerce Clause as limiting state power rather than as a source of federal power. Of the approximately 1,400 Commerce Clause cases that the Supreme Court heard before 1900, most stemmed from state legislation.1 As a consequence, the Supreme Court’s early interpretations of the Commerce Clause focused on the meaning of "commerce" while paying less attention to the meaning of "regulate." During the 1930s, however, the Supreme Court increasingly heard cases on Congress’s power to regulate commerce, with the result that its interstate Commerce Clause jurisprudence evolved markedly during the twentieth century.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1/ALDE_00013403/
= new reply since forum marked as read
probably with the "assumption" that they would find "transport" for a woman to receive certain medical treatment "out of state".
And this brings to mind whether similar idiocy of "politicians-as-doctors" happen for someone who might need, say, specialized neurological diagnostics/treatment/surgery/post-treatment care and the only place that offers it is "out of state", so they can be told that they "can't go out of state" for their medical care, and any medical facility that arranges the medivac/ambulance trips to that specialized facility, is in violation of the RW loon politician-as-doctor's nonsensical laws. Just. Because. 
It still goes back to COMMERCE CLAUSE. The states can't "regulate travel/transit/commerce" between states. There is no authority... unless they think the SCOTUS wants to continue to throw the Constitution out of the windows. 
I think of learning in history about the whole thing with "mail" and "stamps" and each state having its own postal stamp to move mail, leading Congress to essentially "nationalize" the system (obviously still allowing private couriers), and even having their own currencies.
