Thread: Userp local laws completely

I had the privilege of overhearing a relatively affluent woman have a conversation with a younger woman who's starting out and not all together a person of means. They were discussing the abortion laws that had been passed in Kansas lately.


Though entertaining, the whole right vs. wrong conversation didn't strike me as anything novel. What surprised me and really took me back was when the older more affluent woman got bored and simply looked at the younger woman and said, "Look who do you think between the two of us this will effect?" The younger woman struggled to be polite which only bored the affluent woman more so she piped up.

"Between the two of us it only affects you. Why? Because I can get on a plane tomorrow, and I can afford to have the procedure done in a country that is more tolerant on the issue. Could you afford the flight and expenses?" The younger girl shook her head no. "Exactly" said the more affluent, and she got up and went on her way.

I always knew money was a nice thing to have so that you could buy the best lawyers and try to beat the system, but it never downed on me that affluent people can actually usurp their local laws completely lol!!

earcutter:
I do not wish to create an argument with you, and without fanning the flames on this contentious issue, I must point out that in your tale the "affluent woman" is not usurping local law(s) in any way by having this procedure performed in another jurisdiction, unless the Kansas law(s) regarding abortions follow each Kansas resident wherever they go in the space-time continuum. State law is only in effect to their borders, not world-wide. Thus by leaving Kansas to have this procedure, she is not usurping (violating, dodging, breaking et al.) Kansas law.
Now, if she paid someone to perform said procedure while in the State of Kansas, that's a whole other kettle of kibble.
Like I wrote, I'm not looking for an argument here. I just wanted to point out something you may not have thought of.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

earcutter:
I do not wish to create an argument with you, and without fanning the flames on this contentious issue, I must point out that in your tale the "affluent woman" is not usurping local law(s) in any way by having this procedure performed in another jurisdiction, unless the Kansas law(s) regarding abortions follow each Kansas resident wherever they go in the space-time continuum. State law is only in effect to their borders, not world-wide. Thus by leaving Kansas to have this procedure, she is not usurping (violating, dodging, breaking et al.) Kansas law.
Now, if she paid someone to perform said procedure while in the State of Kansas, that's a whole other kettle of kibble.
Like I wrote, I'm not looking for an argument here. I just wanted to point out something you may not have thought of.

Your point is well made, and there is no need to worry about the argument thing. This was after all just something I heard. I like the point you bring up - thanks.

I know what she's "able" to do, isn't against the law. I am not sure how I come across as I wrote it lol - but I just thought it novel how some laws really apply more to some than others. And how very aware the lady was of that fact lol. I guess the equality... or rather the lack of equality for some took me back lol.

Usurp might be the wrong term. Now that I posted this all, and thought about it a bit more, I guess I could have just said - being young and poor bites sometimes lol.

earcutter:
Would you please tell me the current Kansas law regarding abortions? Just curious since I've heard nothing about it.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

State law is only in effect to their borders, not world-wide. Thus by leaving Kansas to have this procedure, she is not usurping (violating, dodging, breaking et al.) Kansas law.

There may be some exceptions to this.

For example, here is an excerpt from the infamous Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code:
Leaving State to evade law.--If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in * 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.

Not only was miscegenation a crime, but it was felony to go out of the state to dodge the law.

This is actually an interesting area of law: to what extent are residents/citizens of one jurisdiction subject to the laws of that particular jurisdiction while they are in another part of the world. For example if I were to travel to another country and engage in activity considered legal there but illegal at home, should I still be subject to my 'home' laws? And before jumping to a yes or no answer, consider whether the scale of the 'crime' would influence your answer. Would you answer the same regardless of whether the crime in question was as relatively minor as smoking a joint in Amsterdam or as heinous as exploiting underage sex trade slaves somewhere else?

And I think that I understand the point earcutter was making regarding inequality before the law resulting from economic disparity. While the ability to travel to another jurisdiction does not necessarily usurp the law, it certainly privileges certain members of society when it comes to finding ways to escape prosecution resulting from engaging in 'illegal' activity. If I can afford to travel to dodge the law and you cannot, are we really equal before the law?

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

earcutter:
Would you please tell me the current Kansas law regarding abortions? Just curious since I've heard nothing about it.

Oh man I am not sure I want to go there lol. To be honest I am really bad with facts so take from this what you wish - As I understand it - a Doctor in KS can now lie to his patient even at the risk of the fetus and mother if he/she thinks it might cause you to abort your baby and he/she is opposed to abortions. Moreover, no pharmacy or doc has to provide any kind of contraception if the doc/proprietor feels that contraception is against their beliefs... It's a big deal down here. Heck I think the last doc who performed abortions here outside of hospitals, was murdered and no one took his place.

xuz:
Thanks for the input. However, wasn't that law deemed unconstitutional due to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
"The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from making unreasonable distinctions between different classes of people. The clause has developed into a general guarantee against arbitrary classification and discrimination in legislative and administrative acts applicable to all persons and to all kinds of civil rights. The Equal Protection Clause is construed to be binding upon both the National Government and the States. (The Constitution In Perspective p.225)".
To quote one of my favourite American presidents, "Justice Taney has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it (Andrew Jackson).

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

To quote one of my favourite American presidents, "Justice Taney has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it (Andrew Jackson).

i am just going to sit back and see what comes of this thread, but I got to say that quote is priceless lol! I really did lol.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Oh man I am not sure I want to go there lol. To be honest I am really bad with facts so take from this what you wish - As I understand it - a Doctor in KS can now lie to his patient even at the risk of the fetus and mother if he/she thinks it might cause you to abort your baby and he/she is opposed to abortions. Moreover, no pharmacy or doc has to provide any kind of contraception if the doc/proprietor feels that contraception is against their beliefs... It's a big deal down here. Heck I think the last doc who performed abortions here outside of hospitals, was murdered and no one took his place.

All medical professionals in the U.S.A. are ethically bound to provide accurate information to their patients. therefore, they can be brought before their respective state medical review/goveurning boards for falsifying patient treatment information. Just food for thought.