Exactly. This is a fundamental misunderstanding—or maybe a deliberate distortion—of what “leaving it up to the states” is supposed to mean.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to interstate travel. Full stop. That means people can move freely between states, and yes, they can access legal services—including medical care—once they’re there. Abortion included. So when states try to criminalize the act of traveling for an abortion, or punish those who help, they're not just legislating morality—they’re trampling on constitutional rights.
It’s not just overreach. It’s dangerous.
These laws aren’t about state sovereignty. They’re about control that extends beyond state borders. They want to dictate what someone does in a completely different jurisdiction, based on their own ideology. That’s not “states’ rights”—that’s authoritarianism with a red-state zip code.
And you’re right—it shouldn’t take a Supreme Court justice to say that giving someone a ride, money, or support to go somewhere and get legal medical care is protected behavior. But the fact that we’re even entertaining these questions says a lot about how emboldened these lawmakers feel, and how fragile our rights become when enforcement is selective and ideologically driven.
This isn't just a policy disagreement. It's a constitutional crisis in slow motion.
Exactly. This is a fundamental misunderstanding—or maybe a deliberate distortion—of what “leaving it up to the states” is supposed to mean.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to interstate travel. Full stop. That means people can move freely between states, and yes, they can access legal services—including medical care—once they’re there. Abortion included. So when states try to criminalize the act of traveling for an abortion, or punish those who help, they're not just legislating morality—they’re trampling on constitutional rights.
It’s not just overreach. It’s dangerous.
These laws aren’t about state sovereignty. They’re about control that extends beyond state borders. They want to dictate what someone does in a completely different jurisdiction, based on their own ideology. That’s not “states’ rights”—that’s authoritarianism with a red-state zip code.
And you’re right—it shouldn’t take a Supreme Court justice to say that giving someone a ride, money, or support to go somewhere and get legal medical care is protected behavior. But the fact that we’re even entertaining these questions says a lot about how emboldened these lawmakers feel, and how fragile our rights become when enforcement is selective and ideologically driven.
This isn't just a policy disagreement. It's a constitutional crisis in slow motion.