BootsDusty
83457
1085
9
Republican AGs demand Biden administration allow them to keep access to out-of-state medical records -
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/07/republican-ags-demand-biden-administration-allow-them-to-keep-access-to-out-of-state-medical-records/
DuckPlanetKing
And now that suits them returdicans are against state freedoms.
dennydorko
UnityInArms
Reminds me of the slave fugitive laws. Enforcing a state’s law outside its borders is not a power they should have.
TheFastpaws
Republicans love fascism in all forms.
graehall
The supreme court has got to be expanded and the bribed corrupt and lying justices legislating fascism from the bench fired
NeverEnoughFoxes
"Sure, here you are" ... "This...this is just a blank sheet of paper." ... "Precisely."
mksu
Police state can fuck itself.
DeadWhiteMale
19 states' AGs. May they rot in hell.
stickythingamajig
That's actually really fucking scary.
trippingthelightfantastic
Jace99
Do these assholes realize how fucking creepy and deranged this request is? I can’t see ANYONE being ok with this.
busterfixxitt
Prostitution is legal in Nevada, right? Can a John be prosecuted when they return home from vacation with a credit card charge?
rubypilgrim
This, and DeSantis has been trying to create his own private army under the guise of "hurricane response" - but it's not. https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/07/14/florida-state-guard-desantis-national-guard-training/
LuminoZero
You know, there was once a law about forcing states to enforce the laws of OTHER states. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. So please allow me to tell these fascist fuck sticks to go swallow a grenade.
Burke616
"Good news! It's a suppository!"
GorillaPowers
FUCKING VOTE!!! IF YOU ARE IN OHIO, VOTE AUG 8TH!!!
Chalybos
Delete those fascist motherfuckers.
BananaParagon
Remember: if someone tries to lay claim over your command of your own body, resist with extreme and deadly force.
TheGhostofElizabethShue
In what world would *out of state* records be needed to enforce *state* bans? Fuck these ghouls.
BluePaladin42
It's been the same song and dance with conservatives forever. They pulled the same kind of shit with slavery, crying State's Rights anytime any suggested just getting rid of the practice, but demanding any state that said "Nah, we done with that" be forced to enforce slavery anyway.
Sticklebrickk
Would you look at that, doctor/patient confidentiality is trying to be thrown in the fire before our very eyes.
plantpr0n
How about NO Scott.
JoshuaFalken
If an individual crosses state lines for a medical procedure that is legal in that state, would that not be protected by the commerce clause? Would it not be the same as someone traveling to Vegas from a state that bans gambling?
DevCatOTA
We in California would like to demand the records of all persons who crossed into Texas to purchase fully automatic weapons. Think that'll fly?
nangke
Be sure to hit up those vaccination records as well
SanshinDojo
Fuck that shit. Your tyranny ends at your borders.
fr0stbyte124
Sounds a little Fugitive Slave Act-y. They should probably just secede over it.
BootsDusty
endyrr
It's always states rights until they disagree, then they expect big government to step in to get what they want. They're like bullies who constantly beat on others then cry if someone is slightly mean to them.
StSword1
They expect big government to do what they want, and when that doesn't work they start whining about "states rights." So other way around.
INeverWaitForIt
It's all lies and bullshit. They don't believe in anything. They're not for fiscal responsibility, they not for law and order, they're not for small government, and they not the party of life or pro family values or any other shit they spew. They're the party of abuse of power.
cabalin
The party of power at any cost
Sechran
The issue of a person's healthcare is a concern for them and their doctor and that's it. The only role the government should have in that equation is ensuring it stays that way.
SmellingMistake
What ever ill-gotten authority you have ends at your borders.
drizz1e
So if I lived in Utah, drove to Nevada and gambled, then returned to Utah, could I be arrested for gambling?
IFoldlyGo
Wasn't there a similar Fugitive (something) Act of 1850 that was wanted by several states and 'declined' by other states?
ILikeCuteGifsAndICannotLie
And started a civil war
HonestCommentFarmer
Democrats should use this to turn the "soft on crime" label useless that Repubs like to use on Dems. "Why are Republican AGs using their time and effort to prosecute out of state abortions and trans people just living their lives when they've got [insert state crime stats here]?" Rs overreaching on culture-war bullshit is a prime opportunity to make inroads in these red states. Vertically coordinate between state party and national party.
viila
That's gonna backfire, since Rs see Ds protecting the privacy of the women as precisely being soft on crime by harboring criminals.
HonestCommentFarmer
It's not meant to convert Rs. It's meant to muddy the rhetoric for the lean Rs or lean Ds who tend to care about crime. "[Dem] has this mixed record on crime, but I keep hearing about how [Rep] isn't going after the crime that matters." You won't convert the abortion-is-murder crowd, but you can make "Dems are soft on crime" less biting to those that care about it.
RetrogradeLlama
Aside from HIPPA, this is a flat out violation of Federal Law and the US Constitution. States have zero rights to demand anything from any other state.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
They're just trying to re-enact the Fugitive Slave Act.
HoneyBunchesOfStoats
HIPAA explicitly does not shield your medical records from law enforcement inquiries.
RetrogradeLlama
With a WARRANT. Not for general perusing.
HoneyBunchesOfStoats
You're right that it's not allowed just for "general perusing" but no, a warrant actually isn't required. HIPAA allows disclosure of medical information in response to "administrative requests", as long as the information being sought is relevant to a "legally recognized law enforcement inquiry".
HoneyBunchesOfStoats
Mind you, I think it *should* require a warrant, but legally it doesn't.
RetrogradeLlama
I would argue in court that "legally recognized" means "warrant". The AG just can't go fishing. That was the whole idea behind the Due Process clause.
INeverWaitForIt
HIPAA*. HIPPA is actually a different thing. Also, what's sscary, is that we're one republican executive in the way from another version of the Fugitive Slave Act. Because you know that anyone evil enough to have an R next to their name will definitely allow this sort of thing.
IAmGodot
HIPPA isn't a different thing, it's just not a thing at all.
INeverWaitForIt
Yes and no. HIPPA is an acronym for something like Health Information Personal Protect Act or something like that, which is a thing loons made up during covid that they think is a law that allows them to ignore mandatory vaccinations or something like that. So it's a thing, technically, but a made up thing created by mentally ill cultists.
ArdentSlacker
Some days, I fear we are going to have another civil war. Other days, I fear we won't.
Burke616
The next American civil war won't have a nice clean line down the middle, it's going to be all mixed.
Teratoid
Until the Republican courts make it legal.
[deleted]
[deleted]
IMCastorTroy
Nah, just a loose (made up) interpretation the Constitution by SCOTUS
req4adream99
No it won’t - all it will take is SCOTUS making a decision that allows it. And this SCOTUS will.
RizzleMeThis
This will never happen because in doing so it would take away the supremacy of the federal government which is what the supreme court derives all of its authority from. In doing so, they would effectively neuter themselves and while people can debate them being activists, more than anything, they are selfish and are motivated by their own self-interest. Whether that's a pet policy or staying in control, it requires them to have power and this would remove power from them.
KennyBlankenshipandVicRomano
Given this Supreme Court’s total disregard for consistency and precedent, I could see them ruling in favor of the MAGA cases, pushing the door wide open for further State abuse of power. And then clarifying their ruling and closing that door juuust enough to retain their arch authority if and only if another case is brought that they don’t like, that relies on the broadness of their original ruling
RizzleMeThis
I too share this fear. I understand I'm putting a lot of unearned faith in people like kavanaugh and Kennedy, but I Hope based on previous opinions written that they understand the need for consistency in the court. They are already called a kangaroo court and that criticism is valid. There comes a point where they become completely illegitimate and I think that's why they're going to try to toe the line. Taking away their authority and then trying to claw back is a risky move, even for them.
KennyBlankenshipandVicRomano
I don’t think they give even 1 shit about appearance. I don’t believe they actually care at all about the criticisms and the accusations of being illegitimate - it stings their ego and questions their power and :that’s: what they don’t like - any suggestion that their authority should be questioned. They know they’re safe and secure appointed for life, they have no reason at all to toe any lines. Which, for the record, I don’t think they’ve been doing anyhow. They’ve been leaping across the line
mesogiria
States do have certain rights to demand things from other states under the Constitution, like the extradition of criminals.
Ticker1
The real problem is one state is trying to make their laws effective in another state which is against the Constitution. It's like buying pot. It's legal in Colorado but illegal in Kansas, If I go over state lines into Colorado, purchase some weed, smoke it all, and drive back the next day, Kansas can't arrest or fine me for what I did in Colorado. In this case, Missouri's laws affect Missouri, Kansas laws affect Kansas, and if someone crosses state lines, federal law applies, not state.
TielKiri
To be fair, federal law applies, *and* both state laws, to my understanding. But the act has to be done while crossing. Like kidnapping!
Burke616
I mean, kidnapping is going to be a crime in any two states you might travel between. If you go from a state where something is a crime to a state where it isn't, do the thing, and then go back to the state where it would've been a crime if you did it there... well, you didn't do it there, so Johnny Law can go fuck a lake.
Zreen
Are you implying people going out of state to get medical care criminals?
mesogiria
No, I was pointing out this interpretation of the US Constitution is flawed and inaccurate. There's also the Full Faith and Credit clause.
damion20xx
No, but the RepubliKKKlans absolutely are.
migratingotter
But if someone is getting an abortion in a state where it’s legal, no crime is committed. States can only prosecute crimes that occur within their borders. If outside their borders, then it’s outside of their jurisdiction.
epithymetic
Their argument is that the act they are criminalizing is “traveling with intent”. It’s the same argument the US uses to prosecute pedos who travel to their countries where pedophilia is legal. Basically, the state/country of citizenship passes a law saying it is illegal to travel to another country to commit an otherwise illegal act and allow themselves to prosecute such people.
migratingotter
This is something a country can do. In US, only the federal government can make treaties with other countries. It is illegal for states to do this. It took a federal law to make all states recognize each other’s marriages. So no, this doesn’t apply here and going out of state to have medical treatment of any kind can’t be prosecuted by states that want to make women property like in muslim countries.
epithymetic
44 countries have passed extraterritorial jurisdiction laws allowing them to prosecute their own citizens (or people who commit crimes against their citizens) no matter where the actual crime takes place. A particularly strong example is France which “asserts general jurisdiction over crimes by, or against, the country's citizens, no matter where they may have occurred”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction