Ohio seeks to felonize (out-of-state) abortion

[zyncod]

Jim, I would like the reference to those laws about taking property out of state with the intent to defraud.

[Pangloss]

My hypothetical was that the authorities had you on tape:

 

Other person: "So you want to kill him?"

You: "Yes' date=' if he's in Oklahoma, or Florida, or whatever."

 

Very silly, and pretty much the only way you could be prosecuted in Florida.[/quote']

 

I'm okay with that.

[ydoaPs]

There are two issues:

 

1. Did Florida pass a statute to make this a crime (they might with their attempted murder laws and if some overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in Florida)?

 

2. Is the Florida statute constitutional?

it is unconstitutional for florida to prosecute you for a crime you did not commit in florida. end of story. the only thing they can do is send you to oklahoma

[Jim]

My hypothetical was that the authorities had you on tape:

 

Other person: "So you want to kill him?"

You: "Yes' date=' if he's in Oklahoma, or Florida, or whatever."

 

Very silly, and pretty much the only way you could be prosecuted in Florida.[/quote']

 

Suppose Perp A buys the gun for Perp B in Florida knowing Perp B's evil plan. Perp B makes an interstate communication into Oklahoma (e.g. a phone call) from Florida to dupe the vic (heh, reading a mystery novel now and they call victims vics) to be in a park in Oklahoma where he could be killed. Now suppose the vic doesn't show.

 

Where would the attempted murder charge be filed?

 

These are silly analogies only because we are trying to use the ordinary case to reason what a Court might do with with this rather extraordinary law. I'm no expert here either but my gut says it's not as much as a slam dunk against the law as some think IF Roe is history.

 

Also, note that we are shifting from a Constitutional issue of federal vrs state jurisdiction to state v. state jurisdiction. This is more of a due process personal type of jurisdiction.

[Pangloss]

There are two issues:

 

1. Did Florida pass a statute to make this a crime (they might with their attempted murder laws and if some overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in Florida)?

 

2. Is the Florida statute constitutional?

 

Agreed.

[zyncod]

Suppose Perp A buys the gun for Perp B in Florida knowing Perp B's evil plan. Perp B makes an interstate communication into Oklahoma (e.g. a phone call) from Florida to dupe the vic (heh, reading a mystery novel now and they call victims vics) to be in a park in Oklahoma where he could be killed. Now suppose the vic doesn't show.

 

The attempted murder charge would be in Oklahoma. I don't know about the conspiracy, except that it would be in Florida for Perp A, if at all. But Perp B made a call into Oklahoma, and then showed up in a park in Oklahoma with the intent to kill.

[mr d]

hello

 

i believe what ohio would be trying to carry off against the mother would be a charge of premediated murder. her sole purpose for leaving the state is to kill her fetus, given ohio gives person status to a fetus. so for her to leave she is actually transporting a person to be murder across state lines, and then carrying out her murder plan. though the person would be transported in the mother's womb.

if i devise a plan to kill you, then kidnap you in florida and transport you to oklahoma to be murdered because oklahoma has no law against murder. i can still be prosecuted in florida for premeditated murder. also anyone aiding me to leave the state to carry out my crime could be charged as an accessory to murder, or if they actually did help in planning and addictional charge of conspiracy could be tacked on. be my guess anyway.

 

mr d

[Pangloss]

Hmm... so the act of leaving the state with the intent to murder would constitute the local crime.

 

Interesting.

[Phi for All]

Wow, I stepped away and this thread really bloomed!

Set aside Roe for a moment - which these states would clearly like to do - and assume that the state is constitutionally entitled to view the fetus as a person with its own legal rights. Many divorce decrees control the ability of parents to remove children from the state. The state has its own interest[/url'] in protecting children.

The precedent issue I was referring to was in allowing one state to make it illegal to do ANYTHING in another state. I see why Ohio is doing this with the abortion issue but doesn't it open the door for Utah, where gambling is illegal, to enact a law making it illegal for any citizen of Utah to go to Nevada to gamble?

 

And how is Ohio planning on monitoring this? Are they going to be checking medical records from nearby states for Ohio citizens obtaining abortions?

[ecoli]

Wow, I stepped away and this thread really bloomed!The precedent issue I was referring to was in allowing one state to make it illegal to do ANYTHING in another state. I see why Ohio is doing this with the abortion issue but doesn't it open the door for Utah, where gambling is illegal, to enact a law making it illegal for any citizen of Utah to go to Nevada to gamble?

 

That's what I'm afraid of. In my county, the cigarette age is 19, in Manhattan, it's 18. Right now, I can go to manhattan to buy cigarettes, but will this precedent make it illegal? (I don't actually smoke, it's just an example)

[Jim]

Jim, I would like the reference to those laws about taking property out of state with the intent to defraud.

 

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, sec. 1834:

 

 

Any . . . debtor under a security agreement of personal property . . . who, while such . . . security agreement . . . remains in force and unsatisfied, conceals, sells, or in any manner disposes of such property, or any part thereof, or removes such property, or any part thereof, beyond the limits of the county, or materially injures or willfully destroys such property, or any part thereof, without the written consent of the holder of such mortgage or conditional sales contract, secured party or pledgee under a security agreement, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a period not exceeding three (3) years or in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine of not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00); provided, that the writing containing the consent of the holder of the mortgage or conditional sales contract, secured party or pledgee under a security agreement, as before specified, shall be the only competent evidence of such consent, unless it appears that such writing has been lost or destroyed

 

Case law also requires the state to prove a "specific intent to defraud."

 

It's been like ten years since I've seen this but I see now that this applies to the county, not state. However, the case I had where this came up was where a debtor took secured property out of state.

[Jim]

it is unconstitutional for florida to prosecute you for a crime you did not commit in florida. end of story. the only thing they can do is send you to oklahoma

 

But the crimes I'm talking about - conspiracy to attempt murder or, with the new law, taking a child out of state with the intent to kill that child - occurred in the state. Again, this only would apply if the child is a "child" not merely an extension of the woman. We are getting ahead of ourselves.

[Jim]

Hmm... so the act of leaving the state with the intent to murder would constitute the local crime.

 

Interesting.

 

Could constitute' date=' not would.

 

The law under discussion is simple: Thou shall not leave this state with the intent of killing your "child."

 

Since the fetus is, under this Roeless view, a child, my guess is that the state would have the right under the doctrine of parens patriae to keep it from being removed for the purpose of being killed.

 

Again, I'm way out of my area here but this doesn't strike me as being a slam dunk.

[Jim]

Wow' date=' I stepped away and this thread really bloomed!The precedent issue I was referring to was in allowing one state to make it illegal to do ANYTHING in another state. I see why Ohio is doing this with the abortion issue but doesn't it open the door for Utah, where gambling is illegal, to enact a law making it illegal for any citizen of Utah to go to Nevada to gamble?

 

And how is Ohio planning on monitoring this? Are they going to be checking medical records from nearby states for Ohio citizens obtaining abortions?[/quote']

 

But they aren't making conduct in Utah illegal. The crime is leaving Ohio with the intent to kill an Ohio resident.

 

Again, I'm not an advocate for this law as I'm tepidly prochoice. Ohio is probably not helping the prolife movement with this issue by putting it out front and making people worry about how far this may all go.

[Jim]

The attempted murder charge would be in Oklahoma. I don't know about the conspiracy, except that it would be in Florida for Perp A, if at all. But Perp B made a call into Oklahoma, and then showed up in a park in Oklahoma with the intent to kill.

 

What if he never showed up in Oklahoma because he learned via a phone call from Florida that the vic was not going to show? If this is all Florida had, my guess, and it is just a guess, is they could prosecute under conspiracy.

[Jim]

That's what I'm afraid of. In my county, the cigarette age is 19, in Manhattan, it's 18. Right now, I can go to manhattan to buy cigarettes, but will this precedent make it illegal? (I don't actually smoke, it's just an example)

 

The difference is that a state has an independent interest in protecting resident children.

[zyncod]

Case law also requires the state to prove a "specific intent to defraud."

 

It's been like ten years since I've seen this but I see now that this applies to the county, not state. However, the case I had where this came up was where a debtor took secured property out of state.

 

I suppose that, given this precedent, that the act of taking a fetus out of state for purposes of abortion would indeed be illegal. However you feel about abortion, you have to admit that allowing this law opens up some very very scary possibilities in terms of how the law treats pregnant women. That is, while you are pregnant, your life and liberty are essentially less important than the fetus you are carrying around.

[padren]

Jim, the main thing is: it is not a crime in the other state.

 

How about letting Utah charge you with criminal charges for having oral sex with your own wife while out of state.

 

I sure wouldn't want any connecting flights through Salt Lake City, thats for sure.

 

I am in favor of letting states have a fair amount of leeway in decided what is legal in their own state, with of course everyone's constitutional rights being under federal protection.

 

But this goes way beyond how a state governs itself. Its a state playing "world police" with the rest of the nation, regarding exceptionally contraversial issues no less. It is by no means established that any harm comes to anyone when an abortion is performed...it is simply the position of some people that a fetus is actually a living human child, which in itself is often based on nothing more than a religious belief.

 

 

Whats next, you can't gamble in Los Vegas or Atlantic City, or even on a reservation because your state has a problem with it? Personally I think this is a horrible idea.

 

 

The only way to support the idea, is to say the unborn child is a citizen of OK, and as such, taking a citizen out of OK for the purpose of killing them and then carrying it out...if someone kidnapped the Governor of OK and killed him in CA, I could see OK wanting to punish the murderer.

 

There is however, no citizen in this case, other than the pregnant woman who hasn't broken any law. If they want to be able to justify such things, they need to first establish that fetus is a person and a citizen of the state. At least then when they build a horrible and oppressive unjust law, it won't open up a huge wave of exceptionally bad precedents.

[Jim]

Jim' date=' the main thing is: it is not a crime in the other state.

[/quote']

 

 

I"m not saying I would pass the law. I'm prochoice. I'm only saying that I do not think it is a slam dunk that the law is unconstitutional (assuming Roe were to be reversed outright).

[Jim]

I suppose that, given this precedent, that the act of taking a fetus out of state for purposes of abortion would indeed be illegal. However you feel about abortion, you have to admit that allowing this law opens up some very very scary possibilities in terms of how the law treats pregnant women. That is, while you are pregnant, your life and liberty are essentially less important than the fetus you are carrying around.

 

Oh, I certainly agree. It's all moot unless Roe is reversed.