Companies offering abortion travel benfits

[jayem]

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

Where does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the bolded word applies to the unborn?

But it clearly should apply when a woman is deprived--without due process--of having a medical procedure done on her own body, with her informed consent, by a qualified physician.

 

[rjs330]

It's still killing a child.

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

It's just legal to kill them there.

 

[rjs330]

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.

What is likely to happen is that individual states will allow and restrict abortions in their state. That's it. All the other fear mongering and hand wringing by the left won't change that.

 

[QvQ]

I looked it up. It is aiding and abetting. It is the old laws before Roe. It is a crime and the companies could be prosecuted.
That is simple. It doesn't matter "where" the abortion was performed. A person could arrange transportation for a person from Mississippi to Louisiana to obtain an abortion before Roe. That person could be charged in Mississippi even though the abortion was performed in Louisiana.
The same as if I loaned my car to a person I knew was going to rob a liquor store across the State line. I can be charged, aiding and abetting
This is going to make lawyers rich before it is all said and done, if it ever is.

 

[Bradskii]

What is likely to happen is that individual states will allow and restrict abortions in their state. That's it. All the other fear mongering and hand wringing by the left won't change that.

So you're happy with people crossing state borders to have abortions. Under the restrictions we are likely to have then I also think that will happen and it would be opening a Pandora's Box to try and stop it.

What about buying mifepristone via the mail. OK with that?

 

[Bradskii]

I looked it up. It is aiding and abetting. It is the old laws before Roe. It is a crime and the companies could be prosecuted.
That is simple. It doesn't matter "where" the abortion was performed. A person could transport a person from Mississippi to Louisiana to obtain an abortion before Roe. That person could be charged in Mississippi even though the abortion was performed in Louisiana.
This is going to make lawyers rich before it is all said and done, if it ever is.

I think you'll need to quote some legalese to back that up. Do you have a link to where you found information that would result in you making the conclusion you did?

 

[QvQ]

This is the quote:
It is likely only a matter of time before companies face lawsuits from states or anti-abortion campaigners claiming that abortion-related payments violate state bans on facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions, according to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and expert on healthcare law."

 

[QvQ]

But it clearly should apply when a woman is deprived--without due process--of having a medical procedure done on her own body, with her informed consent, by a qualified physician.

I thought that at one time. However, the woman is depriving another person of their body, without due process of law.
That "mother' does not have the right to deprive any other person of the right to their body
When, for all the good reasons given for Roe, the abortion activists demand the right to kill any child of any age and willingly do so, then I will consider.
Can we kill them at 15 wks, can we kill them when they are 9 months. Why not kill them at 6 years, because it is all about killing? It is the same baby, nothing is argued except age. How we can square that with our neighbor's conscience? Can we argue a few more weeks out of the people who don't like killing?
At what age does your mother have a Right to murder her children and for what reasons?

 

[Bradskii]

This is the quote:
It is likely only a matter of time before companies face lawsuits from states or anti-abortion campaigners claiming that abortion-related payments violate state bans on facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions, according to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and expert on healthcare law."

But that would only apply to where abortions are illegal. You can't get arrested for buying an under age drinker a beer in a state where it's illegal. But not for buying him one where it is. Or driving him to a state where it's legal.

 

[ximmix]

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

And when does one become a person in the legal sence in the US?

 

[Bradskii]

I thought that at one time. However, the woman is depriving another person of their body, without due process of law.
That "mother' does not have the right to deprive any other person of the right to their body
When, for all the good reasons given for Roe, the abortion activists demand the right to kill any child of any age and willingly do so, then I will consider.
Can we kill them at 15 wks, can we kill them when they are 9 months. Why not kill them at 6 years, because it is all about killing? It is the same baby, nothing is argued except age. How we can square that with our neighbor's conscience? Can we argue a few more weeks out of the people who don't like killing?
At what age does your mother have a Right to murder her children and for what reasons?

Definitions of what constitutes 'person' or 'baby' etc aren't relevant to this discussion. Whether or not abortions should be illegal or not is not the point. It's whether woman from a state where it's illegal can have one where it isn't.

 

[QvQ]

It's whether woman from a state where it's illegal can have one where it isn't.

The providers were always the ones prosecuted before Roe. The concepts "facilitate" "provider" are going to be the issues going forward
I doubt people will be prosecuted for crossing State lines for abortion. I know that in the late 1960's, girls were traveling from all over the US to obtain abortions in hospitals because California was not prosecuting or did not restrict abortion. I never heard of other States bothering about it.
I don't believe that legal question has been settled, crossing State lines for whatever. The question is always arising in the matter of guns and so far, the widely divergent guns laws haven't led to anything more than arguments.

You asked, what do you believe the law should be.
Now, a child that is 15 wks old in the womb is the same child when it is 9 months old in the womb. It is the same child that is 6 years old. And any age thereafter.
All the arguments about whether to terminate a 15 wk old child, a 9 month child and a 6 yr old child are the same. The same arguments for terminating a 15 wk old child apply equally to a 6 yr old. The only thing that is being argued is at what age can a mother kill her child?
Frankly, I don't have an opinion on that because I cannot condone killing any child, that same child at any age.
I am going to do what I do. The people are going to do what they do. All I can say is "God help us all."

 

[Greg Cheney]

Not to take away from this thread but, what are your thoughts on capital punishment? Still a fundamental right to life?

Yes, a right to life unless you forfeit that life by murdering someone. Absurd comparison. God himself said that whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.

 

[Bradskii]

The providers were always the ones prosecuted before Roe.

That's because it was an illegal procedure. Now it isn't (in some states). So that isn't applicable. So if we can't prosecute the doctor, do we prosecute the woman?

Now, a child that is 15 wks old in the womb...

Again, this isn't about definitions. Or even if it should be legal in some states or not. That has been decided. Threads on this subject have been closed for going off topic. Let's keep it relevant to the op.

 

[FireDragon76]

Maybe because if they spend more time at work, they can earn more money, to buy better cell phones. I guess it's a matter of what they've been sold, as their highest priorities.

Kid dies, I get a fancier phone!

It's misogynistic to trivialize the risks and harms of unwanted pregnancies.

 

[disciple Clint]

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

What makes elective abortion "health care" frankly plastic surgery in most cases is not health care if it is strictly for beautification and abortion for the reason of convenience or should I say avoiding the inconvenience of having a child is even less justifiable.

 

[rjs330]

So you're happy with people crossing state borders to have abortions. Under the restrictions we are likely to have then I also think that will happen and it would be opening a Pandora's Box to try and stop it.

What about buying mifepristone via the mail. OK with that?

I'm happy with whatever states do to restrict abortions. Of course I would like to make abortion illegal everywhere cause killing a baby should be abhorrent to every human being.

But I also understand the Constitution and I know that states are allowed to have their own laws and if the voters in that state want abortions up until the baby is born that's on them.

I also believe in freedom of movement. If you want to go to another state to have an abortion the state you came from cannot charge you with a crime because it is NOT a state crime in the state where you are going.

If you leave Texas and go to California to commit murder there, Texas cannot try you for murder.

As far as the drug is concerned if you are in a state that outlaws the possession of it, then if you buy it on line and have it shipped to your house you are still guilty of possession. The laws have always worked that way. I don't know what the big deal is.

 

[rjs330]

The same as if I loaned my car to a person I knew was going to rob a liquor store across the State line. I can be charged, aiding and abetting

Yes you could get charged with aiding and abetting because it's against the law in both states to commit robbery.

 

[rjs330]

The providers were always the ones prosecuted before Roe. The concepts "facilitate" "provider" are going to be the issues going forward
I doubt people will be prosecuted for crossing State lines for abortion. I know that in the late 1960's, girls were traveling from all over the US to obtain abortions in hospitals because California was not prosecuting or did not restrict abortion. I never heard of other States bothering about it.
I don't believe that legal question has been settled, crossing State lines for whatever. The question is always arising in the matter of guns and so far, the widely divergent guns laws haven't led to anything more than arguments.

You asked, what do you believe the law should be.
Now, a child that is 15 wks old in the womb is the same child when it is 9 months old in the womb. It is the same child that is 6 years old. And any age thereafter.
All the arguments about whether to terminate a 15 wk old child, a 9 month child and a 6 yr old child are the same. The same arguments for terminating a 15 wk old child apply equally to a 6 yr old. The only thing that is being argued is at what age can a mother kill her child?
Frankly, I don't have an opinion on that because I cannot condone killing any child, that same child at any age.
I am going to do what I do. The people are going to do what they do. All I can say is "God help us all."

Yes the law has been settled. You cannot be prosecuted in one state where something is illegal if you go to another where it is legal.

For example, prostitution and gambling is legal in Las Vegas. If it is illegal in my state I cannot be charged with gambling and prostitution in my state for doing it in Vegas.

 

[rjs330]

That's because it was an illegal procedure. Now it isn't (in some states). So that isn't applicable. So if we can't prosecute the doctor, do we prosecute the woman?



Again, this isn't about definitions. Or even if it should be legal in some states or not. That has been decided. Threads on this subject have been closed for going off topic. Let's keep it relevant to the op.

Depends on how the law is written. That includes if it is written as a civil law or criminal law.

You could easily write a law that makes it criminal to perform an abortion, but not to have one.