Companies offering abortion travel benfits

[HARK!]

It's in the U.S. Code.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

That's a definition. It's not a prohibition. It's not a penalty.

 

[Desk trauma]

Are there any Federal laws against murder? I can't find any; but it's fun to speculate, not that I would ever use a crystal ball.

States rights until they have the votes to take away the rights of the states using their rights n ways the GOP doesn’t approve of.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I thought that the death penalty was for vicious murders, like those who would cold heartedly murder a child.

It’s really simple.

Do you truly believe in a fundamental right to life for every living person or is this right to life conditional?

 

[Green Sun]

That's a definition. It's not a prohibition. It's not a penalty.

There's a penalty right in the body of the text.

(b)
Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

 

[HARK!]

So we can make exceptions for the right to life, then?

Criminals forfeit certain rights. That's why they can't take their bazookas into prison.

 

[Green Sun]

Criminals forfeit certain rights. That's why they can't take their bazookas into prison.

So the right to life is not absolute, then. If it can be taken away, it can't be absolute.

Thank you for voicing your opinion.

 

[HARK!]

There's a penalty right in the body of the text.

Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Thanks for pointing that out.

The term “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes:
(1)
The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.

18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

Do you have anything that would be in context to this discussion?

 

[Green Sun]

Thanks for pointing that out.

The term “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes:
(1)
The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.

18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

Do you have anything that would be in context to this discussion?

That's still a punishment, so I don't know why you're acting like it isn't.

 

[QvQ]

Transporting persons across State Lines for immoral purposes.
Mann Act

 

[HARK!]

It’s really simple.

Do you truly believe in a fundamental right to life for every living person or is this right to life conditional?

Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it?
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

 

[Green Sun]

Transporting persons across State Lines for immoral purposes.
Mann Act

The Mann Act would not cover abortions, as it was amended in 1978 and 1986 by specifying "any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense."

It could be amended again, theoretically, but as it stands, it wouldn't count, unless you'd get SCOTUS to agree to an argument that abortions are sexual activity.

 

[HARK!]

That's still a punishment, so I don't know why you're acting like it isn't.

It really isn't relevant to the People nor the States, anymore than murder laws in Iran.

I'm not within that jurisdiction.

 

[QvQ]

Thanks, however Texas is considering resurrecting a version of the Mann Act.
Also, Texas could hold the companies as accessories, aiding and abetting and a host of other crimes already on the books.
BTW Rasmussen Poll today, 50% of people polled agreed with the Supreme Court.

 

[Green Sun]

Thanks, however Texas is considering resurrecting a version of the Mann Act.
Also, Texas could hold the companies as accessories, aiding and abetting and a host of other crimes already on the books.

I'm aware, but an abortion-focused Mann Act variant would be just a Texas law, not Federal. This highly limits their ability to impact interstate activity, since they don't have control over those other states. I suppose they could ban companies from operating in Texas, but if someone travels to another state for an abortion, it gets messier legally, and so far we don't have a good idea of what the courts will rule there.

For a less-politically-charged example, it'd be like if I went to a state that let me gamble, then went back to my home state that banned gambling. If they had a law that punished me for gambling out of state, would that pass muster in the courts?

 

[HARK!]

BTW Rasmussen Poll today, 50% of people polled agreed with the Supreme Court.

Those were the ones who have a better understanding of the law.

 

[QvQ]

The companies are saying it is payment for health care. However, then the company is on the hook for the cost of the abortion also.
The cost of this may cause some companies to back peddle.
Before Roe, abortion was a deeply immoral act. Now pregnancy is a disease for which companies must provide medical intervention.

 

[HARK!]

The companies are saying it is payment for health care. However, then the company is on the hook for the cost of the abortion also.

There is a huge point buried in this statement.

If someone puts a hit on someone who resides with him in that state; and pays for the hit in the same state; then travels with that person to another state, where the hit man takes care of business; can he prosecuted in the state where he paid for the hit?

 

[QvQ]

If someone puts a hit on someone who resides with him in that state; and pays for the hit in the same state; then travels with that person to another state, where the hit man takes care of business; can he prosecuted in the state where he paid for the hit?

Yes, that is back to the accessory laws, aiding and abetting. Paying for the hit.

A person who has health care in one state, that health care may not travel with them. Abortion in California, for out of state people, is really expensive, hotels, taxi's and all the attendant costs.
The Company may be offering plane fare but put the company's health care provider on the hook for the entire costs and the companies may back down.

 

[Yttrium]

Also, Texas could hold the companies as accessories, aiding and abetting and a host of other crimes already on the books.

Does Texas really want to drive large companies out of the state?

 

[Green Sun]

There is a huge point buried in this statement.

If someone puts a hit on someone who resides with him in that state; and pays for the hit in the same state; then travels with that person to another state, where the hit man takes care of business; can he prosecuted in the state where he paid for the hit?

For hitmen/murder-for-hire that crosses state lines, these are treated as federal offenses, as they involve interstate actions, and thus fall to the federal government's jurisdiction.

18 U.S. Code § 1958 - Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire
1107. Murder-for-Hire—The Offense

Of course, there's still the murder charge itself, which could also be tried in the state the murder occurred in. I do not believe it would be possible for the original state to charge for a murder, at least based on my understanding of the law. If there's anything you can link to clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Yes, that is back to the accessory laws, aiding and abetting. Paying for the hit.

A person who has health care in one state, that health care may not travel with them. Abortion in California, for out of state people, is really expensive, hotels, taxi's and all the attendant costs.
The Company may be offering plane fare but put the company's health care provider on the hook for the entire costs and the companies may back down.

The companies likely are spending an insubstantial amount of money compared to the PR boost they get, and their overall cost of business. I doubt the major organizations like Microsoft will care, even if it all ends up coming out of Microsoft's own pockets.