West Virginia’s near-total abortion pill ban upheld by federal court

[Zincwarrior]

Because they are practicing medicine in a state where they do not have a license to practice medicine.

Actually they are practicing medicine in their own state, and NY has a shield law to protect them.

Sig Sauer is specifically protected in New Hampshire via a shield law to protect them from lawsuits, including those in other states attempting to get them in NH.

 

[Rawley]

They would have to extradite, else it would have to violate Fed Law.
Your argument that this is a phone scam is...interesting. You should tell the Texas AG of your theory.

It's the essence of their argument. You are doing something that is illegal in my state using the phone system.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It's the essence of their argument. You are doing something that is illegal in my state using the phone system.

This is a fair argument.

 

[Rawley]

Actually they are practicing medicine in their own state, and NY has a shield law to protect them.

No they are not. WHen they are diagnosing someone in Texas and prescribing medicine for someone in Texas, they are practicing medicine in Texas.

Sig Sauer is specifically protected in New Hampshire via a shield law to protect them from lawsuits, including those in other states attempting to get them in NH.

Don't see how that is relevant.

 

[martybegan]

Wow. You're in a snit. Why am I in a shit for protecting state's rights? We're having a discussion here and I am not insulting you, or even NY.

And other medical stuff, and guns, and ammunition, and EVs/ICE engines.

But Cali cannot prosecute the pork producer in the other state, yes?

States rights stop at the State border. Once they send something outside that border it's no longer a States right issue.

Cali sets the Standard, and being the largest market in the country, force the manufacturers outside the State to comply.

the SC decided wrongly on the case in question.

Would you be OK with States preventing women from leaving said State for abortions over States rights, or you only care when it supports your abortion fetish?

 

[pknopp]

No they are not. WHen they are diagnosing someone in Texas and prescribing medicine for someone in Texas, they are practicing medicine in Texas.

Don't see how that is relevant.

If a gun is illegal in state A but a citizen orders one in a state where it is not, should the gun store owner get expedited to face charges?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Would you be OK with States preventing women from leaving said State for abortions over States rights, or you only care when it supports your abortion fetish?

Already happened.Texas and jurisdictions in Texas have already made that a crime to aid a woman seeking an abortion in another state.

States rights stop at the State border.

This is NY's argument.

Cali sets the Standard, and being the largest market in the country, force the manufacturers outside the State to comply.

Incorrect comparison. Thats not directly going after them in another state.

 

[martybegan]

Already happened.Texas and jurisdictions in Texas have already made that a crime to aid a woman seeking an abortion in another state.

This is NY's argument.


Incorrect comparison. Thats not directly going after them in another state.

And that is an unconstitutional law, same as the NY law shielding someone when they do something in another State.

No, it isn't. Their argument is as long as someone does it in their State, they can break the laws of other States with impunity, even when the acts occur in that other State.

It's an end run.

 

[Rawley]

If a gun is illegal in state A but a citizen orders one in a state where it is not, should the gun store owner get expedited to face charges?

If it's illegal to ship it into the state? Absolutely.

 

[pknopp]

If it's illegal to ship it into the state? Absolutely.

So much for states rights..........I never really thought anyone ever actually cared about that anyway.

 

[Rawley]

So much for states rights..........I never really thought anyone ever actually cared about that anyway.

Huh? What does "states rights" have to do with this?

 

[pknopp]

Huh? What does "states rights" have to do with this?

NY made it legal for doctors to send these items out of state.

 

[martybegan]

NY made it legal for doctors to send these items out of state.

That doesn't make it legal for them to send it to people in Texas.

 

[Rawley]

NY made it legal for doctors to send these items out of state.

OK. And I'll ask again, what does that have to do with "states rights" which is an argument of a state versus the Federal gvt, not another state.

 

[pknopp]

That doesn't make it legal for them to send it to people in Texas.

In NY it does.

 

[pknopp]

OK. And I'll ask again, what does that have to do with "states rights" which is an argument of a state versus the Federal gvt, not another state.

No, state rights are state rights.

 

[Rawley]

No, state rights are state rights.

OK. Whatever.

 

[martybegan]

No, state rights are state rights.

Simple answer from a simpleton.

 

[martybegan]

In NY it does.

That usurps the federal governments constitutional authority to regulate actions between States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And as Texas found out, there is nothing they can do about it. Its not illegal in NY.

it is illegal if a doctor mails it to a Texas patient in Texas