Meanwhile, Texas

[L'Emmerdeur]

How on earth would those crazy bigots be able to check that a woman travelling though their areas are a) pregnant (particularly before it shows) and b) heading interstate for an abortion. Surely various laws would prevent authorities stopping cars and demanding pregnancy tests there and then...

It's a 'vigilante' law--enforcement falls on alert citizens to make the accusation and bring suit in state court. It appears intended more to create a chilling effect rather than produce legitimate lawsuits--frightening people into forgoing travel out of state to get the medical care they seek. The article mentions that no suits have yet been brought under these laws.

[JimC]

But would those "alert citizens" be able to stop a car travelling along a highway?

[Brian Peacock]

Texas joining the 'stop 'em from travelling' scheme.

'Highways are the next antiabortion target. One Texas town is resisting.'

More than a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, many conservatives have grown frustrated by the number of people able to circumvent antiabortion laws — with some advocates grasping for even stricter measures they hope will fully eradicate abortion nationwide.

That frustration is driving a new strategy in heavily conservative cities and counties across Texas. Designed by the architects of the state’s “heartbeat” ban that took effect months before Roe fell, ordinances like the one proposed in Llano — where some 80 percent of voters in the county backed President Donald Trump in 2020 — make it illegal to transport anyone to get an abortion on roads within the city or county limits. The laws allow any private citizen to sue a person or organization they suspect of violating the ordinance.

Antiabortion advocates behind the measure are targeting regions along interstates and in areas with airports, with the goal of blocking off the main arteries out of Texas and keeping pregnant women hemmed within the confines of their antiabortion state. These provisions have already passed in two counties and two cities, creating legal risk for those traveling on major highways including Interstate 20 and Route 84, which head toward New Mexico, where abortion remains legal and new clinics have opened to accommodate Texas women. Several more jurisdictions are expected to vote on the measure in the coming weeks.

“This really is building a wall to stop abortion trafficking,” said Mark Lee Dickson, the antiabortion activist behind the effort.

...

[E]ven in the most conservative corners of Texas, efforts to crack down on abortion travel are meeting some resistance — with some local officials, even those deeply supportive of Texas’s strict abortion laws, expressing concern that the “trafficking” efforts go too far and could harm their communities.

The pushback reflects a new point of tension in the post-Roe debate among antiabortion advocates over how aggressively to restrict the procedure, with some Republicans in other states fearing a backlash from voters who support abortion rights. In small-town Texas, the concerns are more practical than political.

Any idea about the legal position on states effectively closing their borders to a particular demographic?

[Svartalf]

probably illegal in a country where free circulation of everything is one of the bases of the ideology.

[Sean Hayden]

fascist pigs

[L'Emmerdeur]

But would those "alert citizens" be able to stop a car travelling along a highway?

In general I think that if these local laws were actually to be put into use, it would be as an add-on to the existing state-wide abortion vigilante law. The righteous vigilante can bring suit in state court, accusing the health care provider (state law) and accusing anybody who helped her travel out of state (local laws). The incentive is $10,000 in 'damages' and legal costs paid to the accuser in the case of the the state law, and likely a similar reward for the local anti-assistance laws. A real on-the-ball zealot might take it upon themselves to apprehend the perpetrators en route but I don't think that's the intended means of enforcement; the vigilante could be accused of false imprisonment.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Any idea about the legal position on states effectively closing their borders to a particular demographic?

Pretty unequivocally unconstitutional, but it depends on which court is dealing with the case. Trumpist judges have already made some extremely dubious judgements. For instance Kacsmaryk in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine vs USDA.

[Brian Peacock]

Any idea about the legal position on states effectively closing their borders to a particular demographic?

Pretty unequivocally unconstitutional, but it depends on which court is dealing with the case. Trumpist judges have already made some extremely dubious judgements. For instance Kacsmaryk in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine vs USDA.

Thought as much. So any such ordinance would be unworkable. It's mostly performative, with the intension to deter by frightening women and those who support them.

[Tero]

There is no real way to enforce such plans. The laws banning such activity would fail. Texas has no authority to block any activity outside its borders. So it can only end up ass harassment.

[Brian Peacock]

ass harassment.

Indeed.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Speaking of stupid and venal, these unscrupulous asshats want to compel other states to help them with their moronic vendetta against the people they've got it in for (trans folks and those seeking abortion).

'Texas conservatives test how far they can extend abortion and gender-transition restrictions beyond state lines'

In the months since Texas outlawed abortion and prohibited adolescents from receiving gender-transition care, women have flooded abortion clinics in nearby states and parents with transgender children have moved to places where puberty blockers and hormone therapy remain legal.

So now, Texas conservatives are testing the limits of their power beyond state lines.

Some cities and counties have passed so-called travel bans aimed at stopping Texans from driving to abortion appointments in other states. Meanwhile, Attorney General Ken Paxton has demanded medical records from at least two out-of-state clinics that provide gender-affirming care to minors.

“This request from the Texas Attorney General is a clear attempt to intimidate providers of gender-affirming care and parents and families seeking that care outside of Texas and other states with bans,” Dr. Izzy Lowell, a Georgia physician who received one such demand letter, said in a statement.

These recent efforts to restrict or scrutinize what Texans do out-of-state raise an important question: Just how far does Texas’ authority over its residents extend?

The question of extraterritoriality — when and whether a state can impose its laws beyond its borders — is largely unresolved, legal experts say. It just hasn’t come before the courts that often. And while the right to travel is well-established in the U.S. Constitution, the local travel bans are enforced through private lawsuits, a legal loophole the U.S. Supreme Court has so far allowed to stand.

[JimC]

The conservative right often attacks the liberal left for wanting to control the actions of individuals, and yet, deep down, their own urge to control anything they disapprove of is very, very clear...

[pErvinalia]

Imagine how outraged Cunt would be about this attack on freedom.

[Sean Hayden]

The policy establishes a new process for reconsideration of library materials in which a community member can request a review of a book. If that material is in a non-adult section, it is immediately moved to the 18-and-older shelves until the Citizens Review Committee reconsiders the content. The committee — made up of individuals selected by the court’s five members, who Keough said “will reflect the values of this community” — can choose to move the book into a different section, leave the book where it is or remove it from circulation through a unanimous vote.

"Citizens Review Committee" --like corruption's the most natural thing in the world...