Companies offering abortion travel benfits

[rjs330]

June 29 (Reuters) - A growing number of companies, including JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) and Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) are updating or changing their health insurance policies to offer travel benefits to U.S. employees who may need to access out of state abortion services.

Lots of big name employers on the list. Most large national companies are self-insured. Meaning they’re exempt from state regulation, and can provide their employees with whatever health benefits they like. And I’ll bet more will follow suit.

The rise of abortion travel kinda confirms that the SCOTUS decision will be a full-employment act for abortion providers in permissive states.

Factbox: Companies offering abortion travel benefits to U.S. workers

That's fine, they are entitled to.

 

[rjs330]

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

The right is absolutely conditional. Taking the life of another through murder forfeits your right to life. You forfeit your right to life when you attempt to commit serious bodlily injury or death upon someone.

 

[rjs330]

I don't see how a state could prosecute someone for committing an offense in another state that is not illegal there.

If possessing marijuana is a crime in my state, but I travel to Washington where it's not, my state can't prosecute me for it.

It's seems the same enough to me.

 

[HARK!]

So what's your position on women travelling to another state where it's legal?

It's still killing a child.

What's your position on corporations increasing their profits by funding baby killing?

 

[QvQ]

The scenario is not going out of State to commit a crime. That would be the person receiving the abortion.
The question was, whether a person who paid expenses for a person to travel to another State to commit a crime as for instance, knowingly assisting a hit man by paying traveling expenses to go to another state to commit murder.
Is the person who paid the expenses an accessory to a crime even though the crime is committed by a person in another State?

 

[Tanj]

The stated intent of the Companies is to provide transportation to abortion clinic. That is stated intent, collusion and accessory.

To perform a legal action. And thus entirely legal

The same as if a person put a notice in the local news, "I am giving an airplane ticket to a hitman to go out of State to do a hit."

To perform an illegal action, and thus entirely illegal.

 

[Tanj]

The scenario is not going out of State to commit a crime. That would be the person receiving the abortion.

No it wouldn't. It would be an entirely legal act.

The question was, whether a person who paid expenses for a person to travel to another State to commit a crime as for instance, knowingly assisting a hit man by paying traveling expenses to go to another state to commit murder.
Is the person who paid the expenses an accessory to a crime even though the crime is committed by a person in another State?

Yes they are.

 

[QvQ]

If I give you the money and a plane ticket to fly to Afghanistan and purchase a large quantity of opium, entirely legal in Afghanistan. However it is an illegal act in this State, so can I do that, with the added intent of intending to circumvent the laws of the US?
Say you smuggled those drugs into a different State. That is Federal but also State, would I be charged with collusion in the State where I colluded with you?
I think I would be but it is in the RICO Act.
Not a lawyer...

 

[Desk trauma]

If I give you the money and a plane ticket to fly to Afghanistan and purchase a large quantity of opium, entirely legal in Afghanistan. However it is an illegal act in this State, so can I do that, with the added intent of intending to circumvent the laws of the US?
Say you smuggled those drugs into a different State. That is Federal but also State, would I be charged with collusion in the State where I colluded with you?
I think I would be but it is in the RICO Act.
Not a lawyer...

A more apt comparison:

My company pays for my flight from my home state where cannabis is 100% illegal to a state where recreational cannabis is legal and gives me a stipend to buy some while there. On my return trip I take none over the state boarder. All of my activities in said legal state were in compliance with state law. How does my home state then prosecute me for actions that took place outside of my state that were legal where they took place?

 

[Bradskii]

It's still killing a child.

Thanks for the indirect answer. But we'll take it that you think it should also be illegal. Despite it being constitutionally decided that it's a state matter. Which means that a state can declare that abortions within its borders will be illegal. But now you want to take it further and say that anyone living within a state border cannot have an abortion anywhere else.

Any idea how it might be prevented? What sort of punishments would you personally be happy with?

 

[HARK!]

Thanks for the indirect answer.

You didn't address my question at all.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, But, in the case of gambling, how does the State of Arizona prove that the transportation provider knew the intent of the person who went to California to gamble?

They don't need to. It's nothing to do with them. Nothing illegal has been done. That's the point. You might as well say that Amtrak could be liable for selling someone in Arizona a ticket to California IF that person made a bet when he got there.

 

[Bradskii]

You didn't address my question at all.

It doesn't apply. I don't consider it to be 'baby killing'. And if you want to discuss definitions, emotive or otherwise, then please take it elsewhere. This topic is about companies offering employees the option of having an abortion in a different state than the one in which they work. Please stay on topic.

That said, you can answer my follow-up questions. If you don't want this done, how are you going to prevent it. And what punishments would you consider suitable for a woman if it was made illegal?

 

[QvQ]

RICO and it has been used to prosecute gambling and just about everything else. Texas could pass a version of RICO and may have a version already. Arizona does, I believe.
RICO is for organized crime, such as one party paying expenses, another committing the crime, and using jurisdictions to avoid prosecution.
I am not a lawyer but RICO is extremely powerful tool for busting up organized crime syndicates which is what "Fly Me to Cali for the Dirty Deed" would be.
If Texas doesn't already have a law, Texas could pass one. Else what is a legislature for?

 

[durangodawood]

I believe that the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights; and that it most certainly falls within the Equal Protection Clause.

Thats a rationale for a national ban abortion.

Its not a useful attempt at an argument for states punishing people for travel to other states to do legal activities that would be illegal at home.

 

[Bradskii]

What would be their motivation to do that? I suspect their bottom line.

You can suspect until the cows come. Maybe they will think they'll look good and it might increase their bottom line. Who cares? Their motivations are irrelevant. The questions that you have been asked is how you think this could possibly be made illegal. And if it was, what the punishment for the woman should be.

As I said, we've all had many weeks to think about the repercussions of this SC verdict. Please don't tell me you haven't considered what was likely to happen.

 

[durangodawood]

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?

Can I give someone $100 to drive across the border to CO to have a "fun" night of smoking weed?

[disclaimer: I am not promoting the (legal in CO) activity of smoking the weed. Kids, theres almost always something better you could be doing with your time, like arguing with strangers on the internet. Its just a clear example of an activity thats legal in one state but not on others]

 

[durangodawood]

One curious thing:

When topics like this were proposed earlier on, supporters of the conservative supreme court were saying we're out of our minds hyperventilating about these far fetched scenarios that no one supports and would never happen.

But here we are with people right here in front of us supporting them and hoping they happen!

 

[Tanj]

If I give you the money and a plane ticket to fly to Afghanistan and purchase a large quantity of opium, entirely legal in Afghanistan. However it is an illegal act in this State, so can I do that, with the added intent of intending to circumvent the laws of the US?

You haven't circumvented any US laws. It actually isn't legal to buy opium in Afghanistan, but if it were then you haven't broken any state, federal, international or Afghani laws.

Say you smuggled those drugs into a different State

Then you broke the law.

That is Federal but also State, would I be charged with collusion in the State where I colluded with you?

I don't understand that sentence, specifically what does "that is federal but also state" mean. Also not sure what "I" and "you" did.

I think I would be but it is in the RICO Act.
Not a lawyer...

The RICO act is a federal statute that looks to strengthen penalties for organised crime, such as the Mafia. Not sure how it applies anywhere here nor how it is relevant to the conversation.

 

[QvQ]

It is unlikely that any State would attempt to stop a person from going to California for an abortion.
It is more a "could the State" question.
Whether anyone of us supports these scenarios or hopes they happen is not very much to hyperventilate about given that we can do little more than boycott and vote.