Idaho Doctors can Refer Patients for Out-Of-State Abortions, Judge Rules

[ThatRobGuy]

In the case of a covid 'passport' I would assume in any case that the restriction would be on entering a state. I can't imagine you could be prevented from leaving one. So in that sense it could be limited in the case of a pandemic. But being pregnant? What could possibly be the justification for that? And if the state you enter can give you an abortion then the state you came from has no say in the matter.

Actually, there are some laws that criminalize traveling across state lines for certain kinds of conduct.

For instance, and handful of states have laws pertaining to prostitution in that regard...it's a crime if you take someone across state lines for the purposes of promoting or engaging in "sexual activity for hire"...as well as a crime if you travel across state lines to solicit prostitution.

Meaning, if a pimp takes a prostitute across state lines to a state where prostitution is legal/decriminalized, they could be in trouble with their home state when they get back. Same goes for a person who decides they want to make a visit to a "ranch" in Nevada.

For the record, I'm against such kinds of laws... if State A allows it and State B doesn't...if everyone is consenting adults, They should be able to go from B to A to do whatever it is they want to do.


But it is a precedent none the less. Granted, they would likely need federal support to make it enforceable (and even with that federal buy-in, it's nearly possible to enforce)

 

[Bradskii]

Well, it should interest you...

I, for one, would definitely want to know whether or not my government was implementing a very strict measure during a time when it was still useful or if they were doing it after it was to a phase where the experts knew it was pointless in order to promote some sort of social conformity.

I'm not interested now in checking exactly what strain it was. Feel free to do that yourself. And do you think we sign up for anything at the drop of a hat here? Gimme a break. There was a lot of discussion about restrictions and 'passports'. It was explained in detail. Argued about. We had information from ministers, medical experts and a variety of talking heads all with a point of view. Public health orders pertaining to vaccination status were issued federally and by the states. And, as I said, the vast majority of us thought it was a good idea. You know, for the common good of us all.

If you think it was to perpetuate some sort of 'social conformity' and we all blindly and meekly accepted it then you are sadly lacking in understanding the Australian psyche.

So if the vast majority in a deep red state agreed that the best option for saving lives was to prevent people from being able to travel for abortions, would that make it okay?

If you still don't understand the difference between a deadly communicable disease and pregnancy then this is something of a waste of time. Nonsensical hypotheticals that ignore that basic fact are then just that. Nonsensical.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, there are some laws that criminalize traveling across state lines for certain kinds of conduct.

What is the point in bringing up federal laws when we're talking about what states can do?

 

[Belk]

In the case of a covid 'passport' I would assume in any case that the restriction would be on entering a state. I can't imagine you could be prevented from leaving one. So in that sense it could be limited in the case of a pandemic. But being pregnant? What could possibly be the justification for that?

Does not really matter as long as it is a secular justification.

And if the state you enter can give you an abortion then the state you came from has no say in the matter.

Likely not, though I will not say that is a certainty either.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you still don't understand the difference between a deadly communicable disease and pregnancy then this is something of a waste of time. Nonsensical hypotheticals that ignore that basic fact are then just that. Nonsensical.

This isn't about virus vs. pregnancy. This is about one camp asserting that reckless virus transmission is killing humans vs. another camp thinking abortion is killing humans, and measures each camp support in efforts to curtail what they feel is the unnecessary death of humans.

I'm not interested now in checking exactly what strain it was. Feel free to do that yourself. And do you think we sign up for anything at the drop of a hat here? Gimme a break. There was a lot of discussion about restrictions and 'passports'.

If someone was signing on for vaccine passports amid late delta / early omicron, then I'd argue that they were signing on for flimsy reasoning, or at the very least, some very flawed logistics.

When it got to the strains for which the vaccine wasn't particularly good at blocking transmission, there was no longer a logical rationale for "the guy two seats down at the pub needs to prove he's vaccinated so I'll feel safe", and was in the realm of social conformity (intentional or not).


But with regards to the topic at hand, who gets to decide what constitutes "a valid concern about needless death of humans". If Bob says "I believe an unvaccinated person traveling is causing needless death of humans" and Tim says "I believe that an elective abortion is causing the needless death of humans", who gets to decide who has a valid gripe and who doesn't?

As noted "we as a society" or "government entities" are always a reliable outlet for entrusting that power to. There are many times when the majority in locales will vote in favor of bad things, and examples of government overstepping when they're given that power.

It would seem as if not conceding that privacy/liberty in the first place is the best option all things considered. The issue for some people is that they have a hard time swallowing the fact that occasionally people will leverage their privacy and liberty for things they don't personally approve of.

There's not going to be a perfect carve-out system in which "the voters and the government restrict just the things I see fit, and keep a hands off approach on everything else". That's the kind of broad agreement you're only likely to find in very small towns and communities, the further out the circle goes, the less plausible that possibility is.

 

[Bradskii]

This isn't about virus vs. pregnancy.

Yes. It is. One is dangerous to the general population. The other is a woman who is pregnant. Get a grip on what is being discussed...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes. It is. One is dangerous to the general population. The other is a woman who is pregnant. Get a grip on what is being discussed...

Nobody's trying to stop pregnancy, there's people who are trying to stop the termination of a pregnancy because they feel it's murder.

Or more accurately put, the ideological contrast is
"Trying to stop virus transmission to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel"
vs.
"Trying to stop pregnancy termination to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel"

...with the overlay of determining how much power should be ceded to the state with regards to access to medical information in order to be able to enforce what certain government actors and their constituents see as "life saving measures"


I'm against both of the aforementioned restriction proposals for the record.
A) they'll be ineffective
B) they're nearly impossible to enforce absent a heavy-handed government intrusion
C) they're both based on illogical premises

...and to elaborate further on C), being that there's was/is no logical reason for either under the circumstances in which they were being proposed, they both seem less like they're about "genuine fear/concern", and more about "I want there to be a social penalty for this other person not making the choice I think they should've made"

 

[durangodawood]

Nobody's trying to stop pregnancy, there's people who are trying to stop the termination of a pregnancy because they feel it's murder.

Or more accurately put, the ideological contrast is
"Trying to stop virus transmission to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel"
vs.
"Trying to stop pregnancy termination to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel"

...with the overlay of determining how much power should be ceded to the state with regards to access to medical information in order to be able to enforce what certain government actors and their constituents see as "life saving measures"


I'm against both of the aforementioned restriction proposals for the record.
A) they'll be ineffective
B) they're nearly impossible to enforce absent a heavy-handed government intrusion
C) they're both based on illogical premises

...and to elaborate further on C), being that there's was/is no logical reason for either under the circumstances in which they were being proposed, they both seem less like they're about "genuine fear/concern", and more about "I want there to be a social penalty for this other person not making the choice I think they should've made"

The principle of restricting travel (and other things) during a pandemic is sound. Even if it was misapplied in one case or another, there are scenarios where the facts would justify it in accord with our society's values.

I dont think the principle of permanently restricting travel to other states for legal activities there is ever sound.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The principle of restricting travel (and other things) during a pandemic is sound. Even if it was misapplied in one case or another, there are scenarios where the facts would justify it in accord with our society's values.

I dont think the principle of permanently restricting travel to other states for legal activities there is ever sound.

But my point was, if a person honestly and truly feels abortion is murder, preventing travel to prevent a murder would be "sound" in their eyes.

It's going to be difficult to attribute objectivity standards to something that's highly subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

But my point was, if a person honestly and truly feels abortion is murder, preventing travel to prevent a murder would be "sound" in their eyes.

I'm not sure about that. Perhaps an extra judicial kidnapping could be morally justified for them. But I dont see how someone can legally justify prior restraint of travel to anywhere based on what a person might do there.

Or they could make it illegal to commit locally outlawed crimes in other states, or countries for that matter. I dont think anyone wants to open that can of worms - where your locality suddenly has jurisdiction everywhere and it legal framework follows you globally.

But none of that quite captures the specific OP issue, which is providing information about whats legal elsewhere. Outlawing that would seem to require a consitutional amendment. So I really dont see the legal basis there. Nor did the judge who reviewed it.

 

[Bradskii]

Or more accurately put, the ideological contrast is
"Trying to stop virus transmission to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel"

Which is one of the matters being discussed.

I'm against both of the aforementioned restriction proposals for the record.

So, for the record, you think that it's acceptable for someone with a deadly, highly contagious disease to go where he or she pleases.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So, for the record, you think that it's acceptable for someone with a deadly, highly contagious disease to go where he or she pleases.

If we're talking about Delta/Omicron, during a time when everyone who wanted to has had ample opportunity to get vaccinated, and the vaccine was offering a great deal personal protection, but no longer all that effective at blocking transmission, then my answer would be a definitive yes.

They've made their choice to not get vaccinated. I've got 3 doses and more than 1 prior infection ...I'm good to go (in fact, my last infection was a month after my booster dose (when it's supposed to be at its most effective). An unvaccinated stranger could sit next to me a bar and I wouldn't care.

Plus, the premise you're proposing isn't exactly on the level. An unvaccinated person doesn't equal "has covid".

Forcing people show a QR code proving you're vaccinated doesn't make you any safer... Making them show a negative covid antigen test from the last 24 hours would be a better safety measure than proof of vaccination. A vaccinated person with omicron is more of a transmission danger that an unvaccinated person without covid, correct?

I remember I went to Canada less than a week after they reopened their borders. They required vaccine proof, but they also required that you present a negative PCR test that was taken within the last 48 hours. If they thought the vaccine, alone, was making anyone safer, they wouldn't have required the 2nd part.

 

[Bradskii]

If we're talking about Delta/Omicron...

We're not. Although you seem determined to do so. Your comment was:

"Trying to stop virus transmission to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel".

You disagreed that it should be done. If you now want to qualify that statement (you really should have done so from the outset), then the position then becomes 'Travel can and should be restricted in certain situations in regard to communicable diseases'.

 

[Bradskii]

Plus, the premise you're proposing isn't exactly on the level. An unvaccinated person doesn't equal "has covid".

Nobody said it did. I gave you the two reasons why it was implemented. That wasn't either of them. And neither would be 'Vaccinated equals "does not have covid" '. You should go back and re-read what I posted.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We're not. Although you seem determined to do so. Your comment was:

"Trying to stop virus transmission to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel".

You disagreed that it should be done. If you now want to qualify that statement (you really should have done so from the outset), then the position then becomes 'Travel can and should be restricted in certain situations in regard to communicable diseases'.

Pretty sure I both inquired about and mentioned "which variant were the restrictions implemented under"?...because that distinction does matter.

 

[Bradskii]

Pretty sure I both inquired about and mentioned "which variant were the restrictions implemented under"?...because that distinction does matter.

That was in relation to an Australian app that included vaccination details. The case in point being discussed is in relation to crossing state borders in America. And again, if you want to qualify your earlier statements re communicable diseases, then here's your chance to do it. A little late, but better late than never. You disagreed with this:

"Trying to stop virus transmission to save human lives by placing restrictions on travel".

Might I suggest you now change that to what I posted above or something similar:

'Travel can and should be restricted in certain situations in regard to communicable diseases'.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nobody said it did. I gave you the two reasons why it was implemented. That wasn't either of them. And neither would be 'Vaccinated equals "does not have covid" '. You should go back and re-read what I posted.

Well, then what is the point?

If it's past the point of stopping transmission, and the vaccine offers personal benefit and not communal, what exactly is the point of requiring it to enter certain venues and/or travel?

And it still doesn't address the fact that if a person believes abortion is murder, preventing people from traveling in order to get one is "saving lives" just as much in their view as "stopping unvaccinated people from going certain places" is in your view.

Perhaps it's time to just come out and admit there's a political ideological component to this?

IE: progressives don't think abortion is all that bad, conservatives do... conservatives don't think freedom should restricted due to covid, progressives did?

That seems like the most logical answer to this.

2nd to my answer, which is "the government doesn't get to impose anything violating medical privacy, full stop...I don't care what the risk is, the juice isn't worth the squeeze"

I don't want the government delving into vaccine decisions for the same reason I don't want them delving into abortion decisions. Liberals think an unvaccinated person going to a grocery store is killing grandma, conservatives think abortion is baby murder...I don't intend to concede to either of those two viewpoints to let a bunch of hysterical people think they're "right" just to placate them...sorry

 

[Bradskii]

I don't want the government delving into vaccine decisions for the same reason I don't want them delving into abortion decisions.

Then you need to do what you seem very reluctant to do. Say it plainly that you believe that there should be no restrictions on travel for anyone that might have a deadly, highly contagious disease. Stop waltzing around the argument and speak plainly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then you need to do what you seem very reluctant to do. Say it plainly that you believe that there should be no restrictions on travel for anyone that might have a deadly, highly contagious disease. Stop waltzing around the argument and speak plainly.

Sure, I'll give you what you want...there should be no travel restrictions for anyone who "might" have a contagious deadly disease. (Heck, that could be me...I may have HIV, Influenza, Rotavirus, or Hepatitis, etc... right now and not even know it)

Especially so in circumstances where vaccinated people are almost as likely to be able to contract it and spread it as unvaccinated people, and you're still letting the vaccinated people move freely.

But then I'll add the following for context...a list of contagious deceases that can be deadly...
Influenza
HIV
Rotavirus
Hepatitis
Meningitis

...but then I'll ask you, can we stop the façade of pretending that keeping people like Djokovic out of a tennis match was "in the interest of public safety" and not about "proving a point about what happens when you don't conform"?

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, I'll give you what you want...there should be no travel restrictions for anyone who "might" have a contagious deadly disease.

There you go. That wasn't too difficult. And to round off the discussion I'll give you a link which shows the death rates between our two countries.

Mortality Analyses - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

How does mortality differ across countries? Examining the number of deaths per confirmed case and per 100,000 population. A global comparison.

coronavirus.jhu.edu

To save you looking it up, yours was about 5x that of Australia.