Illinois takes a big step to protect abortion rights
Illinois has taken a significant step in safeguarding reproductive rights by passing legislation that prohibits state authorities from aiding investigations into individuals seeking abortion services within state borders. This decision comes in response to red states either passing or considering anti-abortion legislation that threatens people who seek abortions in other states. The new law prevents Illinois authorities from complying with out-of-state subpoenas, summons, or extradition requests related to abortion. It also allows individuals to sue for civil damages if their information is improperly disclosed, a direct repudiation of a proposed law in neighboring Missouri that would have allowed private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion in another state. While the Missouri law didn’t pass, other bills like one in Tennessee that bans adults from assisting minors in obtaining abortions are moving ahead. The Tennessee bill is similar to an already enacted Idaho law that swiftly came under opposition from 20 other states. Texas doesn’t explicitly allow its residents to sue someone for helping someone get an abortion in another state, but it has enacted laws that could potentially lead to such situations, and the state’s rabid Attorney General Ken Paxton seems likely to test that possibility. At least 14 states have now moved to help protect abortion providers from lawsuits and prosecution in other states. Texas' six-week abortion ban has not only generated devastating results, it also allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or who "aids and abets" the procedure. The law does not explicitly cover out-of-state abortions, but its broad language has raised concerns about the potential for lawsuits against individuals or organizations that assist Texans in obtaining abortions out of state. Illinois Senator Celina Villanueva, who sponsored the state’s privacy bill, pointed to the aggressive overreach by other states, citing a Texas man petitioning a court to find out who allegedly helped his former partner obtain an abortion in another state and stressing that Illinois must defend the right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies. All of these measures against obtaining an abortion in another state are pushing the boundaries of state authority and have yet to be fully tested in the courts. But the constitutional right to interstate travel, repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, would seem to represent a significant legal challenge to these restrictive measures. Of course, the same thing might have been said about Roe v. Wade. In September, California passed an abortion “shield law” that prohibits state officials from obeying subpoenas demanding delivery to law enforcement of anyone accused of committing a crime related to abortion or gender-affirming care from another state. It also prohibits California law enforcement and government officials from turning over private communications of patients seeking or receiving health care. Laws like the ones in California and Illinois are positive steps toward improving the safety of those seeking an abortion, and they show that blue states can fight back against the crushing of reproductive rights. A restraining order blocked the implementation of Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law in November, and the suit against that law is currently being considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But ultimately, the decision on whether states can pursue people seeking abortions across state lines and punish anyone who helps them will come back to the same institution that overturned Roe, creating this mess in the first place: the Supreme Court. Campaign Action
JoriPress
Illinois has taken a significant step in safeguarding reproductive rights by passing legislation that prohibits state authorities from aiding investigations into individuals seeking abortion services within state borders. This decision comes in response to red states either passing or considering anti-abortion legislation that threatens people who seek abortions in other states.
The new law prevents Illinois authorities from complying with out-of-state subpoenas, summons, or extradition requests related to abortion. It also allows individuals to sue for civil damages if their information is improperly disclosed, a direct repudiation of a proposed law in neighboring Missouri that would have allowed private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion in another state.
While the Missouri law didn’t pass, other bills like one in Tennessee that bans adults from assisting minors in obtaining abortions are moving ahead. The Tennessee bill is similar to an already enacted Idaho law that swiftly came under opposition from 20 other states.
Texas doesn’t explicitly allow its residents to sue someone for helping someone get an abortion in another state, but it has enacted laws that could potentially lead to such situations, and the state’s rabid Attorney General Ken Paxton seems likely to test that possibility.
At least 14 states have now moved to help protect abortion providers from lawsuits and prosecution in other states.
Texas' six-week abortion ban has not only generated devastating results, it also allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or who "aids and abets" the procedure. The law does not explicitly cover out-of-state abortions, but its broad language has raised concerns about the potential for lawsuits against individuals or organizations that assist Texans in obtaining abortions out of state.
Illinois Senator Celina Villanueva, who sponsored the state’s privacy bill, pointed to the aggressive overreach by other states, citing a Texas man petitioning a court to find out who allegedly helped his former partner obtain an abortion in another state and stressing that Illinois must defend the right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies.
All of these measures against obtaining an abortion in another state are pushing the boundaries of state authority and have yet to be fully tested in the courts. But the constitutional right to interstate travel, repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, would seem to represent a significant legal challenge to these restrictive measures.
Of course, the same thing might have been said about Roe v. Wade.
In September, California passed an abortion “shield law” that prohibits state officials from obeying subpoenas demanding delivery to law enforcement of anyone accused of committing a crime related to abortion or gender-affirming care from another state. It also prohibits California law enforcement and government officials from turning over private communications of patients seeking or receiving health care.
Laws like the ones in California and Illinois are positive steps toward improving the safety of those seeking an abortion, and they show that blue states can fight back against the crushing of reproductive rights.
A restraining order blocked the implementation of Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law in November, and the suit against that law is currently being considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
But ultimately, the decision on whether states can pursue people seeking abortions across state lines and punish anyone who helps them will come back to the same institution that overturned Roe, creating this mess in the first place: the Supreme Court.
