2y ago

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs law to protect doctors who mail abortion pills to other states

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law on Wednesday that aims to stop other states from prosecuting doctors and pharmacists who mail abortion pills to patients in places where the procedure is banned.

California already has a law protecting doctors who provide abortions from out-of-state judgements. But that law was designed to protect doctors who treat patients from other states who travel to California.

The new law goes further by forbidding authorities from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into doctors who mail abortion pills to patients in other states. It also bans bounty hunters or bail agents from apprehending doctors, pharmacists and patients in California and transporting them to another state to stand trial for providing an abortion.

Other states, including New York and Massachusetts, have similar laws. But California’s law also bars state-based social media companies — like Facebook — from complying with out-of-state subpoenas, warrants or other requests for records to discover the identity of patients seeking abortion pills.

108 comments

We're just doing the whole routine with the underground railroad and civil war all over again, aren't we. This country is so stupid.
- Except this time, the postal service is involved and it's illegal to interfere with the mail. It's a federal offense. State laws do not affect that. So any woman in, say, Texas who gets these pills will be doing so without risk to herself. And now there's no risk to the doctor either if she gets it from one in California.
  
  They can’t interfere with them getting it, but can prohibit usage right?
  
  There's still the wrinkle of sending prescription drugs through the mail is heavily regulated, the average doctor or pharmacist isn't allowed to just put the pill in an envelope without committing mail fraud.
I assume the doctor is still not able to visit those states (or another state without this law) without the fear of being arrested? Such a shitty country we live in.
- It's all about State's Rights.
  ...To deny your freedoms.
  
  Literally every republican woman I know is a single mom to a deadbeat dad.
  Crazy how their rhetoric has been flipped on them. These would be nice people otherwise, but they're surrounded by shitbags so they feel they also need to be shitty in order to fit in.
- Yeah or land at one of their airports. Which is annoying if they are a hub.
  
  I thought airports are federal jurisdictions?
The California Catholic Conference opposed the law, arguing the state is “engaging in ideological colonization against states and citizens that do not want abortion.”
Fucking bring it. California is one of the largest economies in the world. I'd like to see states like Louisiana and Alabama try to fuck with us. Texas might be able to go toe-to-toe, but they're about the only abortion-banning state that'd even stand a chance.
FUCK THE PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR THESE MONSTERS.
A good move from Gavin Newsom.
"Gavin is a Republican! Corporate bro!"
But he's our corporate shill.. still progressive AF for the big leagues. That's the game. He's better at it than most Dems on the national stage.
- (not American) this mf is R, huh? Fucking Dems better step up, jfc.
  
  Hehe no, sorry, the "s meant to imply /s
  Gavin is a Democrat.. but from like 1997
  
  There's a lot of relativity in the left-right stuff.
  Like California right is almost always more left leaning than the US federal left. Similar with Canadian right is more left than US left. But of course, california right is gonna be more right than california left, and canada right is gonna be more right than canada left.
Based
It’s very literally interstate commerce when presented in that fashion.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution specifically empowers Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes” (emphasis mine).
If that doesn’t satisfy someone’s definition of “Constitutional Originalism”, then I don’t know what will.
Suffice to say: all of these regressive laws around trying to prosecute abortion-related travel and transport of goods that are coming from the legislatures of those states are absolutely unenforceable and categorically bullshit.
- Why would Republicans care about the Constitution? This isn't a School Shooting!
Good, states have no business removing abortion rights it should strictly be a federal matter.
- it should be strictly a ~~federal~~ personal matter
- So is marijuana legislation.
While this is great postering; this is a law that will undoubtedly be ignored due to the rendition clause of the US Constitution.
Edit: after looking into this some more there is an argument that if someone has conclusively never been in the requesting during the offense, another state cannot request rendition, see Hyatt v People (1903). It was reaffirmed in Michigan v. Doran (1978).
Based on precedent there has to be no evidence whatsoever that a person was present in the state. It cannot be a question of fact or alibi for the crime itself. Ie., if a state asserts the person was present in the state and the person asserts they were not as an alibi defense, the person would still need to be extradited and can assert the alibi defense in their trial.
I think based on this reading my initial take was wrong, but I am not so sure how true this is with some more modern enactments like the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
Here is a law review article that discusses related issues in more depth: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=clr#:~:text=Without%20intervention%2C%20anti%2Dabortion%20states,the%20people%20that%20support%20them.
- That covers people who commit a crime in state A and then flee to state B. It's not clear whether it's even possible for a citizen of state B to commit a crime in state A without entering state A.
  
  Okay I think current precedent is consistent with your view; thank you for providing an opportunity to learn more about the extradition clause. Constructive presence is not currently considered in the context of the extradition clause.
  
  I am by no means a Trump supporter but I believe what’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Trump was never present in Georgia leading up to the electoral count as far as I am aware, yet he is charged with RICO under state law in Georgia. Do you think he could have simply fought rendition to Georgia?
- It's not at all clear that this would violate the Extradition Clause or Extradition Act which implements it. The offense in question isn't illegal in California and doctors practicing in California won't have fled from the States that may seek to bring charges.
  This law will give California governors another reason to ignore requests from other States, requiring them to try their luck with a writ of Mandamus from federal courts.
- Could you explain this further? I'm genuinely curious to know more.
  
  States aren't allowed to be sanctuary for criminals from other states. I'm not clear on whether active pursuit is required, but if the governor of Texas produces a legal warrant for a person to the governor of California, they are required to act on it. They may not have to perform a manhunt, butbifnthe person is stopped for speeding or something, they would likely be required to arrest them. The only exception is that a state can keep a person for criminal prosecution and imprisonment first, which isn't relevant for an out of state abortion.
  The state could argue that a warrant for performing an abortion isn't legal as the requesting state had no jurisdiction where the supposed crime occurred. This isn't required by the law though, so it may be up to the arrested person's counsel to raise that argument, keeping all the risk on the person still.
  
  Sure.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-2/overview-of-the-extradition-interstate-rendition-clause
  Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2:
  A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
  Now arguably one can say that a California person did not flee but that argument has not been explored from what I can gather. Generally rendition seems to be granted given an indictment in another state.
  In 18 U.S.C. § 3182 (which enables interstate extradition): Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. …
  Overall it seems to me that a person charged in another state will be extradited as one could interpret residing in California as “fleeing” say Texas’s jurisdiction.
  Edit: see my edit on my top level comment. I’ve dug into this issue in a bit more depth and it feels like this is less of a clear cut issue than I initially thought. Thank you everyone for pointing out the flaws in my logic.
  
  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S2-C2-1/ALDE_00013632/#:~:text=A%20Person%20charged%20in%20any,having%20Jurisdiction%20of%20the%20Crime.
  It's interstate extradition. Unless California is going to ignore the executive branch, it's entirely unenforceable.
They send us their illegal immigrants. We send them abortion pills.
Interesting times we live in.
I wonder which laws are going to get struck down first, the ones trying to criminalize things outside their state or the ones decriminalizing things.
- Idk about getting struck down, but it seems like laws inside your jurisdiction are going to stand in a way laws outside don't really. Where it gets tricky is going to be swaths of the country where certain people can't go for fear of being arrested. Feels like a loosening of federalism to me and more like different countries in a way.
  
  yeah imagine if your flying from new york to california and your plane has to divert to texas due to an emergency
do this with weed as well
- They can't do this with weed until the federal government makes it legal because interstate commerce is under their jurisdiction
- What a weird comment. They are not even remotely comparable.
Someone please ask him to ask Joanna when the new album is coming.
Im pretty sure this is federally illegal/unconstitutional. You cant undermine a states law ex post facto as per section 10.
Feel free to correct me if im wrong
- Well the offense is being committed outside of the state where the law is. You could also argue that the states banning abortions are the ones infringing on federal law and constitutional rights, because they're trying to enforce their laws on doctors living outside their jurisdiction.
  
  Can you get in trouble for sending a small amount of methamphetamine through the mail for someone in California to consume if you live in Oregon? Its legal in Oregon. Why should Oregon lawmakers punish the person sending the meth if its only illegal in California?
- This law reminds me of a similar issue before the civil war. From what I remember, the issue was that northern states were forced to send people that escaped enslavement back to the south. The north was sick of that crap, stopped, and the south got upset and formed their failed cessation.
  
  They should try it again. Only this time we should let them go.
  
  Sending people as a human right violation that they saw breaking the rules set by declaration of independence. Yes the underground railroad was breaking constitutional habeas corpus rules but they were also breaking rules of common man.
  Agin may be wrong but i remember that the north used this as the justification for harboring fugitives. This doesnt hold for this case , though, as its breaking interstate ex post facto laws. Its also breaking full faith and credit as stipulated by article IV in the constitution.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/full_faith_and_credit#:~:text=Full%20faith%20and%20credit%20is,of%20judgments%20across%20the%20country.
  I have a feeling supreme court will come into play here pretty soon.
- I disagree and here's why.
  The 10th amendment does not constrain the state governments, and this is not an ex post facto law.
  States are not required to enforce the laws of other states, and generally do not have any legal standing to challenge other states' laws.
  It is generally not legal for a state to prosecute someone for actions that took place outside of their jurisdiction.
  
  The problem is this is akin to aiding and abetting on interstate level as an after the fact.
  Article four section two states that judges are not allowed to overrule interstate law.
- How exactly does it undermine another states law. And do those state laws count only for residents of the state? Is a pregnant woman passing through a probirth state have the same legal responsibility? What if the fetus was consived in the state? What if I mail a pill to a man in a state and he misplaced the pill?
- It's probably fine, as I understand it. The law only concerns what parties under state jurisdiction may do. Federal authorities, which would be involved in an inter-state arrest like this, would not be affected.
  It's similar to sanctuary city laws, which simply state that city and state officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. They don't make it illegal for those workers to operate; they simply make those officials do all the work themselves.
  
  You see, sanctuary cities works because thats for human bodies not pills. This is why Texas is allowed to ship undocumented people to different states without reprecussion. However, protecting people for illegal actions done in other states is not OK. If its illegal to take the medication in Utah after 18 weeks, California needs to respect that.
- No, you'll just get down votes with no explanation. You are referring to that.
  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S2-C2-1/ALDE_00013632/#:~:text=A%20Person%20charged%20in%20any,having%20Jurisdiction%20of%20the%20Crime.
  
  After thinking about it, yeah you are right i think it would fall there. Am i wrong though like is this not applicable?
  Edit: didnt realize i linked to the same thing
I'm sure he'll be removing the prohibition on mailing mushroom spores into the state as to not be hypocritical right?
- We get it, you do drugs.
  
  I specifically choose spores because California treats them differently than most of the rest of the country and there is nothing illegal about them until and unless they are grown out. I was pointing out the apparent lack of congruence between the stand Newsom is taking here and how California state law treats a similar situation differently when the roles are reversed.
  
  We get it, you care more about another user's personal habits than a state government's policies, because drugs are bad, mmkay?
- I’m sure you could give yourself an abortion by taking too many shrooms but there are much easier ways.
  
  Can shrooms do that?
- Good whataboutism there.
- But that's a Federal violation, so not the same thing at all.
  
  It's not a violation of anything except California, Idaho and Georgia penal law.

108 comments