Enforce-ability is a valid and obvious point to make, and may (sadly) have to be one of several rationale’s used to put a stop to this heinous legislation, as appose to purely moral grounds. Any and all means to stop it - whatever it takes to undo this BS is the required mindset.
Or who’s searching for out-of-state clinics.
Then, follow the phones. (And make it crime for a suspected baby-bearer to go dark.)
17 Likes
Not really, because the law will generate fear for those who would lack the means to get around it.
The law will be selectively and maliciously enforced against certain classes of people.
The entire point of fascist passage of laws are to have a class of people of no consequence to them, who are harmed.
25 Likes
Seriously; there are no words sufficient enough to express how much this enrages me.
31 Likes
My recollection is that they did this in Romania.
Wikipedia mentions related surveillance, but not specifically checking at the border:
After birth rates fell, Securitate agents were placed in gynecological wards while regular pregnancy tests were made mandatory for women of child-bearing age, with severe penalties for anyone who was found to have terminated a pregnancy.
11 Likes
Claiming the law is unenforceable is to be utterly blind to the history of such laws in fascist regimes. Rumor and innuendo suffice as “evidence” of the “crime,” and all it takes are a few violent enforcement examples to terrorize the populace into compliance.
In many ways, the less evidence, or even evidence that the enforcement was incorrect, strengthens the fascist position.
35 Likes
Once again, the point isn’t that the law is perfectly enforceable, or legal, or that every single woman trying to leave will get caught… it is cover for making women second class citizens…
28 Likes
Any and all means except being not very nice about the reality of the threat you mean, right?
20 Likes
As expected, the prior bluebird post was removed.
9 Likes
We remember, though.
14 Likes
To repeat and reinforce what others have said here (I’m attempting to add to their explanations without seeming like I’m explaining it to them):
Q: But they can’t possibly enforce this on everybody!?!
A: They don’t have to. Operant Conditioning doesn’t need to have a punishment response 100% of the time to work: what it needs is a punishment response enough of the time. Indeed, it works better if it’s not every time (just like you don’t win at the one-arm bandit every time: just enough to keep you playing. Just like you don’t get a rare item in the drop box every time: just enough to keep you jonesing for the next drop). And it’s crueller that way as well. 1) it keeps every woman, even those who manage to get away with it, anxious and fearful all the time: what if I’m about to be accused of it? What if they did spot me that time we went to “visit my aunt”, and they’re just waiting to kick in the door?, and 2) you can’t crush hope if there is no hope. They want to allow just enough hope that you might have gotten away with it this time, then kick in the door at 2am. The cruelty is the point.
And seeing it happen to other people can be sufficient. They don’t have to stop and test every woman crossing the border: it is enough that every woman crossing the border knows there is a non-trivial risk that it might be her that’s stopped and tested. Which will work to stop women casually crossing the borders at all, for fear that she might be stopped arbitrarily, because you go ahead and prove that you aren’t planning to do a thing. This is a chill on all people who might be pregnant, and anyone who travels with them, and anyone who fears for their safety.
And it will be implemented arbitrarily and selectively. State Senators’ wives will not get stopped at the border. GOP millionaire donors’ wives won’t be inconvenienced. Poor women, queer women, men with uteruses, women of colour, progressive women, politically active women, they are the ones who will be stopped.
TL;DR: that they can’t possibly enforce this on absolutely everyone is a feature, and just a part of what makes it so evil.
22 Likes
CNN devotes one small paragraph to Idaho’s restrictive laws.
16 Likes
With all the misinformation the GOP/GQP has been spreading about late term abortions, I can imagine some idiot accusing that woman of doing something illegal if she tries to leave the state. The fact that too many pro-birth lawmakers have demonstrated ignorance of everything related to human reproduction while taking away women’s rights makes it worse. They don’t care enough to learn anything more than what it takes to oppress and control. 
20 Likes
Of course, this is blatantly unConstitutional, but this makes no difference to the fascists; they are counting on their Fellow Travelers in the SCOTUS to give them a pass.
Too bad that expansion of the SCOTUS was never possible, even if it had been taken seriously by this Administration; the fascist grip grows ever stronger because of it.
It won’t be the last, either. Lots of State legislatures are in session right now.
Kinda surprised this hasn’t come up in the Texas Politboro yet, but it’s still early.
FTFY.
For the love of all that’s holy, call the bastards what they are… they aren’t ‘Republicans’, or ‘conservatives’ or any other normalizing term. Not any more.
Idaho [among others] is effectively claiming ownership of all resident fetuses in the state.
This is slavery; and if they aren’t providing adequate pre and post natal care, this amounts to child abuse. Since they claim a fertilized egg is a ‘child’, may as well hoist 'em on their own petard.
I don’t believe the civil war these fuckers are thirsting for is gonna turn out the way they think…
10 Likes
The only interpretation here would be to say the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th amendments (if not more) are null and void. This would be an interesting stance for the supposedly “originalist” majority on the Supreme Court to take. (Never mind the 11th, and 14th amendments as well — the latter of which I’m sure they’d love to overturn.)
11 Likes
If anything I suspect that the people in favor of this sort of bill wouldn’t want that.
Sure, they would be against the idea that ‘tech’ is allowed to exist beyond their prerogatives, so it must be forced to show subservience in the event of a dispute over someone’s facebook account or an ill-conceived demand for censorship of something; but if you want to do enforcement of something you lack the expertise, the legal authority, or both, to do surveillance of you could hardly ask for a greater gift than the commercially oriented surveillance and data brokerage that’s largely self-sustaining; but always an option if you’ve got checkbook or a subpoena.
Given the significance of new parents to various marketing and brand loyalty efforts; it’s virtually certain that people working to influence diaper buying or formula preference know a lot more about who’s pregnant(especially among those without access to formal prenatal care or looking to avoid public disclosure) than Idaho’s law enforcement does; which makes them quite an asset.
5 Likes
IIRC in China state surveillance and commercial surveillance are intertwined. Tech companies harvest and analyse data for their own purposes and also give it to the authorities.
7 Likes
More than unenforceable, I’m pretty sure this is a violation of the interstate commerce clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Not that any of that matters in Gilead.
7 Likes
They don’t need to, that’s the point. When you create a huge pile of vague unenforceable laws, it means open season on the people for the police. Most women traveling out of state probably can’t afford to fight such charges in court, so whatever cops decide in the moment becomes the law.
15 Likes
Yep. The police are already doing this with less vague, less unenforceable laws ALL THE TIME. If you live in the US and have ever traveled while poor, punk, Black, or any other easily identifiable “fringe” community member, or with such, you or someone you know has been harassed and likely unlawfully detained and/or arrested by police at some point. People outside the US don’t seem to get it, which, I’m kind of jealous of, but it’s also frustrating.
If you get stopped and harangued on the dark side of the road by a bunch of law enforcement bullies with guns, it really doesn’t matter what the laws are.
And if you are working class, it really doesn’t matter what the law says after that, because 90% of the time, you don’t have the time or resources to fight the unlawful detainment. You pay your fines, lick your wounds, and try to be more careful next time.
The enforceability is the least of our worries. 
You’re already several layers up in the court system by the time that becomes an issue.
15 Likes
