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

Update: Louisiana goes after Dr. Carpenter.

https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/4764

Quote:

---

the request of Attorney General Liz Murrill and District Attorney Tony Clayton, Governor Jeff Landry has signed the extradition warrant for New York Doctor Margaret Carpenter. A grand jury in West Baton Rouge Parish indicted Carpenter for the charge of Criminal Abortion by Means of Abortion-Inducing Drugs, a violation of La. R.S. 14:87.9(A) and (B)(1), committed on or about April 5, 2024.

---

Wow… That's a big ol' heapin' helpin' dose of FAFO…

Isn't the Texas Tribune getting the most dollars from USAID? The worst paper in Texas among the entire lot. Cut them off.

nai06 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

NY doesn't have jurisdiction in Texas and can't stop a Texas prosecution. Texas can issue an arrest warrant, NY has to honor it because of full faith and credit clause.

---

NY has a shield law in place that prevents the state from cooperating with Texas. So this will likely come to the supreme Court. I'm guessing the doctor tells Paxton to pound sand. What's he going to do about it?

Likely nothing because he isn't going to be able to go and arrest the doctor unless she comes to Texas. Also likely nothing because that's his MO. File a lawsuit which looks good for the cameras and his base then do nothing to follow up on it.

---

If New York were to prevail, I could see Texas implement shield laws protecting Texas law enforcement from prosecution form NY DAs after apprehending NY citizens in their homes.

lb3 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

NY doesn't have jurisdiction in Texas and can't stop a Texas prosecution. Texas can issue an arrest warrant, NY has to honor it because of full faith and credit clause.

---

NY has a shield law in place that prevents the state from cooperating with Texas. So this will likely come to the supreme Court. I'm guessing the doctor tells Paxton to pound sand. What's he going to do about it?

Likely nothing because he isn't going to be able to go and arrest the doctor unless she comes to Texas. Also likely nothing because that's his MO. File a lawsuit which looks good for the cameras and his base then do nothing to follow up on it.

---

If New York were to prevail, I could see Texas implement shield laws protecting Texas law enforcement from prosecution form NY DAs after apprehending NY citizens in their homes.

---

Tx Leo's aren't going to be able to go to NYC and arrest people in their homes. They have no jurisdiction. Same with Louisiana. The governor can sign the extradition warrant bit out means nothing unless NY agrees to extradite the doctor or she travels to the state.

Rapier108 said:

---

The Texas Tribune is nothing but taxpayers money given to Soros funded propaganda outlet posing as a news outlet.

---

FIFY

nai06 said:

---

lb3 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

NY doesn't have jurisdiction in Texas and can't stop a Texas prosecution. Texas can issue an arrest warrant, NY has to honor it because of full faith and credit clause.

---

NY has a shield law in place that prevents the state from cooperating with Texas. So this will likely come to the supreme Court. I'm guessing the doctor tells Paxton to pound sand. What's he going to do about it?

Likely nothing because he isn't going to be able to go and arrest the doctor unless she comes to Texas. Also likely nothing because that's his MO. File a lawsuit which looks good for the cameras and his base then do nothing to follow up on it.

---

If New York were to prevail, I could see Texas implement shield laws protecting Texas law enforcement from prosecution form NY DAs after apprehending NY citizens in their homes.

---

Tx Leo's aren't going to be able to go to NYC and arrest people in their homes. They have no jurisdiction. Same with Louisiana. The governor can sign the extradition warrant bit out means nothing unless NY agrees to extradite the doctor or she travels to the state.

---

I agree no Texas LEO is going into NY to execute an extradition warrant, but it still wouldn't surprise me to see a state enact crazy shield laws in response if NY were to actually prevail.

nai06 said:

---

lb3 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

NY doesn't have jurisdiction in Texas and can't stop a Texas prosecution. Texas can issue an arrest warrant, NY has to honor it because of full faith and credit clause.

---

NY has a shield law in place that prevents the state from cooperating with Texas. So this will likely come to the supreme Court. I'm guessing the doctor tells Paxton to pound sand. What's he going to do about it?

Likely nothing because he isn't going to be able to go and arrest the doctor unless she comes to Texas. Also likely nothing because that's his MO. File a lawsuit which looks good for the cameras and his base then do nothing to follow up on it.

---

If New York were to prevail, I could see Texas implement shield laws protecting Texas law enforcement from prosecution form NY DAs after apprehending NY citizens in their homes.

---

Tx Leo's aren't going to be able to go to NYC and arrest people in their homes. They have no jurisdiction. Same with Louisiana. The governor can sign the extradition warrant bit out means nothing unless NY agrees to extradite the doctor or she travels to the state.

---

No, but should the doctor travel to Texas, Louisiana, or one of the states willing to extradite, she could be in a spot of trouble.