About the only time a state can stop an extradition to another state is if there's a crime committed in the state where the criminal is currently detained. States usually manage to work out those cases. But that's not an issue in this case because it's civil, not criminal.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

I haven't missed the issue. I understand. Respectfully, I think you're missing the issue. The way I would frame this question is, does NY state have the right to pass a law making abortion legal in Texas, even if in contravention of Texas' own law? Because that's its effect and its intention.

Eta: I gave a hypothetical where the state the person fled to has a law that says you're protected from prosecution. The fact that a law like that wouldn't be permitted is the point.

---

respectfully, you are showing with each post you don't get it at all.

a person is not protected from prosecution. the constitution requires extradition.

NY can pass a law saying abortion is legal in Texas all it wants. it has no force and effect in Texas.

the issue is what New York is required to do regarding a civil case in Texas. it has nothing to do with criminal prosecution or New York legalizing abortion in Texas.

---

How does it not have force and effect in Texas if as a practical matter it has the effect of legalizing abortion in Texas?

Quote:

---

How does it not have force and effect in Texas if as a practical matter it has the effect of legalizing abortion in Texas?

---

It does not have that effect as a practical matter.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

How does it not have force and effect in Texas if as a practical matter it has the effect of legalizing abortion in Texas?

---

It does not have that effect as a practical matter.

---

Can you unpack that? Because it seems to me that if you can facilitate an abortion in Texas by providing the means to an abortion in Texas with impunity, even though it's illegal in Texas, it does have that effect.

Bob Lee said:

---

The_Thinker said:

---

This is probably more complicated than you're thinking. To me the major question is whether or not you can establish a patient physician relationship across state lines without an in person visit.

Currently if I see you in my office for a problem but you fly to Florida on vacation I can call a pharmacy in Florida and prescribe medication. Even without a medical license in Florida because I am prescribing from my home state or licensed state; we have allowed this practice to continue and it is generally accepted.

If Texas wins this case at a national level you can potentially say goodbye to things like online prescribing of Viagra and other medication's including hair loss medication's as well.

Even with a narrow ruling people may stop prescribing across state lines due to fear. I don't know every states medical laws nor am I going to learn every states medical laws.

---

But they're sending these drugs through the mail. She didn't pick them up at a Texas pharmacy. If the abortionist tried to send a prescription for abortion drugs to a pharmacy in TX for pickup, the girl wouldn't have been able to get them that way.

---

You are correct in saying that is against the law in TX. But it isn't against the law Federally or in the state of New York. It's not even against the law for the postal service to transport and deliver the drugs to a person in Texas. So while the person sending the abortion drugs via the mail is guilty of a crime in Texas, the state does not way to apply that law/penalties to someone not in Texas.

nai06 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

The_Thinker said:

---

This is probably more complicated than you're thinking. To me the major question is whether or not you can establish a patient physician relationship across state lines without an in person visit.

Currently if I see you in my office for a problem but you fly to Florida on vacation I can call a pharmacy in Florida and prescribe medication. Even without a medical license in Florida because I am prescribing from my home state or licensed state; we have allowed this practice to continue and it is generally accepted.

If Texas wins this case at a national level you can potentially say goodbye to things like online prescribing of Viagra and other medication's including hair loss medication's as well.

Even with a narrow ruling people may stop prescribing across state lines due to fear. I don't know every states medical laws nor am I going to learn every states medical laws.

---

But they're sending these drugs through the mail. She didn't pick them up at a Texas pharmacy. If the abortionist tried to send a prescription for abortion drugs to a pharmacy in TX for pickup, the girl wouldn't have been able to get them that way.

---

You are correct in saying that is against the law in TX. But it isn't against the law Federally or in the state of New York. It's not even against the law for the postal service to transport and deliver the drugs to a person in Texas. So while the person sending the abortion drugs via the mail is guilty of a crime in Texas, the state does not way to apply that law/penalties to someone not in Texas.

---

I'm trying to understand how this is likely to play out when it inevitably ends up at the SCOTUS. If I'm thinking about the Shield law correctly, it's designed to frustrate Texas' ability to enforce the law in Texas and other states that have strict abortion laws. That's its purpose. I don't think that kind of law will be permitted when this is finally resolved.

Paxton's filing mentions Abbot v Perez. A USSC decision in 2018 over TX congressional redistricting before the 2012 election and quotes the following from the decision.

"The State suffers irreparable injury when it is precluded from enforcing its own laws".

Also Maryland v King that has to do w/ DNA cheek swabs

"[T]he inability to enforce its duly enacted plans clearly inflicts irreparable harm on the State."

Maybe he's using the cases to argue for the injunction, and as a foundation for standing in a federal lawsuit.

He's definitely teeing up the full faith & credit issue.

BMX Bandit said:

---

He's definitely teeing up the full faith & credit issue.

---

Why not go directly to a federal court at least tor a temporary injunction?

the issue is not ripe yet is my guess.

until there is a judgment, Texas can't go ask a federal court to tell New York to enforce the judgment