In 2018, Attorney General Marty Jackley convinced the United States Supreme Court to allow South Dakota to enforce its tax laws outside its borders. AG Jackley is now trying to win that same extra-territorial power for South Dakota’s abortion laws. Jackley and 17 other Republican AGs have signed on to a letter from Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra arguing that the Department’s proposed HIPAA Privacy Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy violates HIPAA and constitutional federalism, stops states from chasing down illegal abortion providers, and, as a bonus, advances “radical transgender-policy goals”.
In short, DHHS wants to protect information about lawfully obtained reproductive health care from release law enforcement. If a South Dakota woman wants to legally terminate her pregnancy and she travels to Minnesota or some other suitably respectful, non-misogynist state to obtain an abortion, the proposed rule prohibit the disclosure of records of that abortion to South Dakota law enforcement. DHHS contends that subjecting reproductive health care records in states that allow abortion to snooping from cops from states that don’t allow abortion will harm patient-provider trust, quality of care, and health outcomes:
Experience shows that medical mistrust—especially in vulnerable communities that have been negatively affected by historical and current health care disparities—can create damaging and chilling effects on individuals’ willingness to seek appropriate and lawful care for medical conditions that can worsen without treatment. If individuals believe that their PHI may be disclosed without their knowledge or consent to initiate criminal, civil, or administrative investigations or proceedings against them or others based primarily upon their receipt of lawful reproductive health care, they are likely to be less open, honest, or forthcoming about their symptoms and medical history. As a result, individuals may refrain from sharing critical information with their health care providers, regardless of whether they are seeking reproductive health care that is lawful under the circumstances in which it is provided. For instance, an individual who has obtained a lawful abortion in one state may fear receiving emergency care in a state where abortion is unlawful because providing information to a health care provider in such a state could place them into legal jeopardy, even if that information is relevant to the immediate health emergency. If an individual believes they cannot be honest about their health history, the health care provider cannot conduct an appropriate health assessment to reach a sound diagnosis and recommend the best course of action for that individual. Heightened confidentiality and privacy protections enable an individual to develop a trust-based relationship with their health care provider and to be open and honest with their health care provider. That health care provider is then more likely to provide a correct diagnosis and aid the individual in making informed treatment decisions.
Similarly, if a health care provider believes that an individual’s highly sensitive PHI is likely to be disclosed without the individual’s or the health care provider’s knowledge or consent in connection with a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation or proceeding against the individual, their health care provider, or others primarily because of the type of health care the individual received or sought, the health care provider is more likely to omit information about an individual’s medical history or condition, leave gaps, or include inaccuracies when preparing the individual’s medical records. And if an individual’s medical records lack complete information about the individual’s health history, a subsequent health care provider may not be able to conduct an appropriate health assessment to reach a sound diagnosis and recommend the best course of action for the individual. Alternatively, a health care provider may even withhold from an individual full and complete information about their treatment options because of liability fears stemming from concerns about the level of privacy afforded to PHI. Heightened confidentiality and privacy protections enable a health care provider to feel confident maintaining full and complete medical records. With complete medical records, an individual is more likely to receive appropriate ongoing or future health care, including correct diagnoses, and obtain appropriate guidance, empowering the individual in making informed treatment decisions. This further enables the individual to access lawful health care—and health care providers to practice medicine—in an environment that promotes social, environmental, mental, and physical wellness.
Furthermore, an individual’s lack of trust in their health care provider to maintain the confidentiality of the individual’s most sensitive medical information and a lack of trust in the medical system more generally may have significant repercussions for the public’s health more generally. Individuals who are not candid with their health care providers about their reproductive health care may also withhold information about other matters that have public health implications, such as sexually transmitted infections or vaccinations [DHHS, “HIPAA Privacy Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy,” Federal Register, 2023.04.17].
Jackley, Fitch, et al. disregard women’s health and contend they should be able to enforce their abortion bans across their borders. They justify this radical claim of extra-territorial authority by noting that abortion-banning states aren’t prosecuting pregnant women, only the people who help them get abortions. But those bills are coming, and women seeking to exercise their bodily autonomy are already subject to legal danger.
The ACLU warns women shouldn’t be fooled by Jackley and Fitch’s assurance:
There is a simple and chilling motivation behind this letter: keeping the door open for criminalizing people who seek abortions or gender-related care beyond state lines. People have a right to access abortion and gender-affirming care in states where it’s legal. We need clear legal protection to prevent hostile states from interfering with necessary health care nationwide [Samantha Chapman, ACLU-SD advocacy manager, press release, 2023.07.19].
Legally, Jackley and Fitch’s complaint should go nowhere. If a South Dakotan travels to another state and engages in legal activity there that is illegal in South Dakota, that’s none of South Dakota’s business. Jackley can’t investigate a Pierre neighbor for driving to Denver and smoking legal marijuana. Jackley can’t investigate a Sioux Falls resident for flying to Nevada to do legal business with a prostitute. For all their fluff, Jackley and Fitch and the other 17 GOP AGs can’t establish their right to play cop outside their states.
Jackley, Fitch, and friends only believe in federalism and states’ rights when it serves their purposes. The Alito Court’s subversion of women’s rights in favor states’ rights to ban abortion on their home turf isn’t enough for them; Jackley wants the authority to march into Minnesota and enforce South Dakota’s abortion ban.
Just do it, Jackley. Open the door for we “luckily liberal” states to cross YOUR border and address the draconian laws your poor people in South Dakota live with every day.
This lawsuit is coming from the “get government out of our business” people. Apparently that sentiment is just for campaign slogans. Hypocrites.
Fascists. Plain and simple and Nick is absolutely right
Soooo true, there, Nick!
You seem to forget the 6 jokers in the deck…Roberts, Alito, GoSuck, Kavernmouth, Uncle Tom Clarence and the wasicu bimbo.
I’ve yet to see the GQP fly the state flag over the Merikan flag in accordance with their ‘Fed’s can’t tell us what to do’ bull…
So what’s Marty’s plan? Set up manned checkpoints on every road in and out of South Dakota, to stop every car with a woman or a child under 18 in it and have her prove that she’s NOT leaving the state to seek an abortion? Or the kids are NOT being taken somewhere for gender-affirming care? (1) That’s gonna cost a lot of money for more law enforcement personnel – try at least double what we have now in the entire state; (2) it’s going to create endless traffic snarls everywhere; (3) there will be lots of lawsuits. Not to mention really screwing up going home to Grandma’s for family holidays.
I would say more, but I would be wandering into F Major territory.
South Dakota ought to give the medical refugees it creates at least the same level of privacy it extends to the owners behind the curtains of its trusts.
P Aitch raises a good question: why do one state’s prohibitions carry more weight than another state’s protections? Shouldn’t the same reasoning of this lawsuit guarantee abortion access (legal in MN) to Minnesota residents crossing the border to SD?
South Dakota’s newly enacted statute at SDCL 22-17-5.2 provides;
.
The article linked by Cory about prosecutions flowing from an illegal abortion identifies a potential problem with this protection for women. Cory’s linked article “already subject to legal danger” describes findings about prosecuting women and people who help women under laws that are not anti-abortion laws:
Our own blog commenter onion recently linked a story about a Nebraska teenager that was prosecuted, convicted, and jailed for an offense like mishandling human remains after she obtained an abortion.
Currently in SD although a woman no longer can be charged with an illegal abortion, it seems clear that she could be charged with other crimes similar to the Nebraska teenager, including homicde. For example, a woman could be charged with any potential crime so long as an abortion was not an element. And under Cory’s link that apparently could include homicide so long as the method used to kill was not a required element of proof in the particular homicide statute. In most SD homicide statutes it is enough to prove that someone intended to kill, regardless of how they did it, unless the killing was lawful, such as in self defense. And in SD killing a fertilized egg is not legal.
A woman’s defense attorney would surely raise SDCL 22-17-5.2 as a defense to a homicide charge, but given the experiences in other jurisdiction as well as existing case law defining elements of crimes, coupled with the narrow language of SDCL 22-17-5.2, it seems doubtful whether that defense would even be permitted in a homicide prosecution as a matter of law. So, that makes Jackley’s extra-jurisdictional inquiries that much more dangerous to the women of South Dakota, and any one that might assist them in terminating a pregnancy contrary to SD law.
In SD if a Catholic Bishop says, “Charge her with murder!” your laws are written in such an ambiguous manor that murder can be alleged, charged, and tried at the will of the “Holy Father”.
Your South Dakota Catholic Church has the best investigators and lawyers that a “promised salvation” can obtain.
The question isn’t what women and kids are doing in their doctor’s office. The question needs to be why these guys are so obsessed with women and kids’ privates. Marty Jackley and his panty sniffer pals are all covering for something each one of them is doing in their own closets that I suspect is profoundly depraved.
Good goddess, South Dakota is one sh!t show after another, init? What happened to all the good Republicans in my home state? Oh, yeah: Bill Janklow had them all killed when Governor Mickelson’s plane went down.
Enforcing tax laws outside the jurisdiction remains an abomination to sovereignty. Republican monopolists cannot not tolerate competition.
Jackley, like Alito, is a man of the 17th Century. What follows next is a version that women are property, mere vassals.
Marty Jackley would be correct, while he cannot enforce our statewide Abortion Ban in Minnesota directly, he can enforce the S.D Abortion Ban where S.D domiciled citizens go to Minnesota to have abortions. “WE” as domiciled citizens of the State have JURISDICTION of all commercial activities related to S.D Citizens, just as we do with the Sales Tax…Because of the fact, that S.D Citizens are directly beholden to the S.D Constitution, and the Commercial Laws of our State, those same laws restrict your activities in Minnesota as well. Meaning, where a WOMAN consents to allow a Minnesota Doctor to precure an abortion, an activity the woman can only partake in under specific reasons. the Minnesota Doctor must abide by, and honor the rules set forth upon a S.D Citizen. Would this be challenged in the Supreme Court? Yes. Can we win this challenge in the Supreme Court? Yes. Lets remember, Marty Jackley won a huge case related to our Sales Tax laws in 2016, if he presents the case correctly, constitutionally, he has the right to enforce the S.D Abortion Ban in Minnesota where a S.D Citizen is concerned, thanks to the “STATE” having political jurisdiction over that S.D Citizen, of which he or she is bound to our laws. Like Sales tax, if the S.D CITIZEN leaves our borders, entering into the borders of a Foreign State to engage in a foreign transaction, that citizen is delivring the goods and servies back to her “S.D Registered Domicled Address” to which the contract is finalized, and obligated to. He would have to make the same argument he did with the sales tax matter, and he would win this in a supreme court case. And it would be a landmark case.
What he cannot do, is enforce the S.D Abortion Ban on any Minnesota “Domiciled Citizen” of whom is BOT bound to the S.D Constitution, Laws, and Rules of Siouth Dakota.
Remember, when you enter into a transactional agreement with another, your “ADDRESS” becomes the point of origin in all commercial matters, and that is what gives the S.D Attorney General the jurisdictional authority..
Jackley’s next move will be the Barbie movie cancel effort. Jackley and the rest of the 16 wanabe gonads hate women with a dangerous passion.
Eve,
NO, the S.D AG does not have to set up check points, it does not work that way, the “Foreign Transaction” between the Woman and a M.N Doctor would be of public record, and if, and where South Dakota Attorney General gets word of the transaction occurring, which would be considered an unlawful activity, which would allow someone in SOuth Dakota to submit a complaint against the woman, most likely a husband, a boyfriend, a parent, etc, the S.D.A.G would be tasked with bringing a lawsuit vs the WOMAN, which could in fact be found to have entered into a Conspiracy to Have an Abortion, which would in fact find her guilty of homicide in a 2nd Degree Manslaughter case. Someone would have to first submit the complaint that a DOCTOR performed an abortion on the woman, of which would set up the process of upholding a S.D Law, that governs over the S.D Domiciled Citizen.
BCB- your comment made me wonder if a woman or girl could use self defense to justify an abortion..? Seems ok to shoot someone and kill them if you feel threatened by them even to defend another person’s property. Well, females may feel threatened being pregnant by an abuser or maybe she just can’t take the pain and it feels like pregnancy is killing her….
SCOTUS created a split country. Those aholes sullied everything and caused all these what-ifs that cannot all be covered by laws. And should never need to be! It’s none of the government’s business!
The sanest argument comes from George Carlin.
Mr. Zitterich- you sure go through an awful lot of trouble to impose your hatred onto women. It’s effed up and sick. I have been meaning to tell you off but won’t because I respect Mr. H too much.
Wrong, Mr. Zitterich. The Assistant was asked, Is it correct that, “We as domiciled citizens of the state of South Dakota have jurisdiction of all commercial activities related to South Dakota citizens?
The Assistant answers, “No, that statement is not entirely correct. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court or legal system to hear and decide a case. Domiciled citizens of a state typically fall under the jurisdiction of that state’s laws, but jurisdiction over commercial activities involving citizens of a specific state depends on various factors such as the nature of the activity, the location of the business, and any applicable federal laws. It is always advisable to consult a legal professional for accurate information regarding jurisdictional matters.”
Maybe Minnesota will use open records requests the way South Duhkota does.
Good eye, epo. Why AG Keith Ellison hasn’t sued the spit out of South Dakota for CAFO pollution and emissions from the Big Stone Power Plant dumping in the Minnesota River remains a mystery.
Marty, you’re tip toeing on the edge here. Come to your senses before nobody wants to be a resident of SD.
Corey mentioned
Vegas… arrest anyone from SD that goes to Vegas for a weekend if you’re gonna be consistent with your thinking
You democrats never fail to amaze me by your ignorance… Everything I said above was true, correct, and proper. A “Woman” domicled in South Dakota is 100% regulated, governed, and controlled by all commercial activity she does in both inside our borders, and outside our borders, where the STATE has political jurisdiction of such activity. My sentiments have no bearing on how I feel towards women, a woman has the right to freely engage with others as do men. So dont even go there with me.
Under S.D Law, which governs over all Commercial Activity partaken by all Domiciled Citizens of the State, if a woman (or man included) go across our borders to precure an abortion, it would present a case, of which, SHE, or alongside her accomplice had engaged in a conspiracy to partake in an unlawful activity, of which upon notice, or complaint, the State Govt by means of its powers given to it by the State Constitution, and of the laws we adopt, is granted permission and authority to hold the woman and all persons accountable.
The public matter would be brought into a S.D Court Room, in the county of record, giving the State Govt the ability to proscecute the violation.
There are two sides to all commercial transactions, and while the MN Doctor is liable under Minnesota’s constitution and laws, the woman would be liable under S.D’s constitution and laws governing the activity.
Like me, I do not have, nor am I forced to pay Minnesota Sales Tax, I am exempted from the tax, only to report, and submit payment to S.D
I am not forced to pay Sioux Falls sales tax if my domicile is held within Rapid City’s, i only owe Rapid City sales tax…
There is no reason to be rude, nor disrespectful, we are simply discussing the matter. Besides, there is a L.R.C Research Paper online that agrees with me on this topic.
11. States that ban women from going out of state for their procedures or medications are violating the Commerce Clause enumerated in the United States Constitution.
P.Aitch’s AI is pretty much correct that, as with his other claims regarding the meaning of law Mr. Z is again way off base. An example used in law school criminal law classes describes this hypothetical:
Now if the South Dakota Defendant was standing in Minnesota and shot the victim in Minnesota the answer would be clear: Minnesota law applies and the South Dakota Defendant could only be prosecuted in Minnesota, never in South Dakota. See e.g.,
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/out-of-state-criminal-charge.htm#:~:text=Dealing%20With%20Out%2Dof%2DState,will%20apply%20to%20your%20case.
The reason this hypothetical is used in law school is to help students learn about the jurisdictional limitations for criminal prosecutions. Obviously, this is not something studied by Mr Z, although P’s AI seems to have a correct grasp of this legal concept.
AM, I too have wondered about a possible self-defense claim. After all, men and women alike have a right to keep all other people away from the unwanted touching or use of their bodies. Any argument that a fetus is essentially another person would logically mean that a woman should have the right to defend her body from such person’s unwanted use. I am unaware, however, of any cases that have tested this theory, but I would think a competent defense counsel would raise it as a potential defense to any homicide charge, along with the statutory defense under SDCL 22-17-5.2.
Already maternal deaths have increased since these strict abortion laws have been passed. And of course, infant deaths. Abortions aren’t always used for unwanted pregnancies. A baby developing with half a brain will not survive. Physics.
Z is what the rooskies have on their tanks and stuff cause they can’t spell russia. The ghost of Mike Lee is just a typical trumper, hate the wonen’s cause they are too powerful in his mind. The ghost of Mike Lee so wants to see Barbie it’s killing him, but he can’t cause woke and stuff.
Thanks, bat. Did you just infer that a murder from a bullet shot across state borders would go to federal court?
You’re wrong, Mike Zitterich. No gain in trying to convince you. You’re wrong whether you acknowledge it ,accept it, or disagree with it. Wrong is wrong and that’s the truth.
larry, such an inference was not my intent. Federal court jurisdiction over homicide cases is pretty limited and to the best of my knowledge it would not include a homicde committed within any of the 50 state borders, unless it involved a federal official or took place on federal land or an enclave like a military base located within a State. If the border was between South Dakota and the Pine Ridge Reservation, that too would be a different question as the feds have jurisdiction over homicides committed in Indian Country under the federal Major Crimes Act.
Thanks. So is a person seeking an abortion outside the state of residence is protected by the Commerce Clause?
larry, this scholarly article in the Columbia Undergrad Law Review is worth a read, and it seems to answer your question as follows:
https://www.culawreview.org/journal/the-post-dobbs-legality-of-out-of-state-abortion-travel-bans
✌🏽
Much obliged, BCB.
Intrinsically adverse to AG Jackley’s yucky motives makes it impossible not to seek ways around his sick authority. For most murder suspects, no witness, no body; no case. I doubt MN women’s healthcare providers hang onto biological hazardous material…. therefore AG Jackley would have no hard evidence of a crime… only sickos would go rummaging around for it.
I also like Jerry and sx123’s comments
There was a 20% increase in abortion procedures performed in MN in 2022.
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/health-dept-reports-20-increase-in-abortions-in-minnesota-from-beginning-of-2022-to-end/
If any SD woman of modest means needs a place to stay when in MN getting an abortion procedure done, just look me up. Cory H has my email.
Back off you red commie states, women are going to come here for their reproductive autonomy rights and you can’t stop them.
under the Z theory of jurisdiction, a Minnesota doctor ought to be able to come to SD and petform abortions as long as the doc maintains Minnesota residency. Fascinatin’ idea. Apparently wouldn’t be illegal for the SD woman either
jakc, do you have a source or link explaining what the “Z theory of jurisdiction” is? That is a concept I have not encountered before and did not find in a cursory web search. The proposition that a Minnesota doctor could come to SD and petform abortions as long as the doc maintains Minnesota residency seems incorrect. To the best of my knowledge a defendant’s residency in one state, such as Minnesota, has never been considered a legal defense to violating the criminal laws of a neighbor state, such as South Dakota.
I do note that I have seen media reports that law enforcement backed off on marijuana arrests at the Sturgis MC rally after SD voters legalized recreational marijuana by passing Amendment A. Unfortunately, once the SD Supreme Court declared that constitutional amendment unconstitutional (an absurd and oxymoronic legal concept by the way), drug arrests, presumably including for marijuana possession, reportedly more than doubled.
https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/end-of-sturgis-rally-shift-begins/article_ae42c0bb-7867-5daa-9e9c-ded63fc0666a.html
the Mike Zitterich (Z) theory of jurisdiction, as referenced in the comments
Thanks, now I get it.
Interesting Topic – Can a “Woman” who is domiciled, and claims her citizenship in South Dakota, where she takes an Oath to, and of which all of her “commercial activity” is bound to S.D Statutes, may she hop across the border, into Minnesota to have an abortion?
Like “Sales Tax”, if you make your domicile to be a S.D Address, you do not owe, nor can be forced to pay sales tax owed to any other state, in all transactions, you are to deliver the goods and services back to your “Recorded Domiciled Address” which becomes the point of reference…
This was the argument used in the South Dakota v Wayfair Case.
Now, knowing, that Abortions are to be banned in South Dakota except for a very, exact stated purpose, and specific procedures must be met first, prior to the abortion itself – Does S.D have jurisdiction over any such “woman” who transacts, in a commercial construct to a Minnesota “Doctor” licensed, and permitted to perform such commercial activity in Minnesota?
My thoughts: While the “DOCTOR” is in fact, licensed, and permitted to perform abortions in Minnesota, under their State Constitution and the Statutes of that Minnesota, the “Woman” however is not permitted to do such activity without first taking steps to conduct Medical Examinations, obtain Counseling, and to get Medical Clearance that her life, or the unborn child’s life is threatened…
Therefore, it could be seen, as “Intent” of entering into a “Conspiracy with two or more persons where she crosses over the “Border” to have an abortion, where someone submits a complaint, or files a court motion in a S.D Court that unlawful activity took place.
Keep in mind, the WOMAN cannot be held liable for Homicide where she willfully, consented to such act, however, where she cooperates, and intentionally engages in unlawful activity presenting a case where she is participating in an act of murder, or unlawful activity, ‘she’ could be held accountable for her actions.
Who may be the person to bring forth such a lawsuit against the woman in this case?
Her Husband, let alone her boyfriend, or sexual partner, of whom may have a lawful right, and reason in protecting the Unborn Child.
Some are saying that “The State” interfering in the womans right to go to another State to engage in commerce -they are claiming it violates the “Commerce Clause” in the U.S Constitution, let alone the immunity clause…
However…
The “Commerce Clause” does not violate a “State’s Right” to govern over its own activity, let alone the people bound to that ‘state law’.
In the Supreme Court case, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 1 (1824) – the court ruled, that congress can regulate any source of commerce or trade that gives to Americans, the exclusive right of navigating the waters of that State with steamboats are in collision with the acts of Congress regulating the coasting trade, which, being made in pursuance of the Constitution, are supreme, and the State laws must yield to that supremacy, even though enacted in pursuance of powers acknowledged to remain in the States.
**what this is pertaining to, “YOU” as a South Dakota Citizen have the right to leave your “State” to partake in commercial activity of which to transact with other Americans giving to you the “Continuity” of purchasing goods and services. However, this does not give to you, the right to violate ‘commercial laws’ of your State.
Meaning, if you have a “State Law” that binds you to owing a Sales Tax to your State or City, you owe a tax on such transaction to your “State”. Meaning, South Dakota has jurisdiction over you, and the activity of which you partake in…
Again, the Supreme Court came back to rule, within the Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) case:
The scheme as a whole seems to us to be within reach of the law. The constituent elements, as we have stated them, are enough to give to the scheme a body and, for all that we can say, to accomplish it. Moreover, whatever we may think of them separately when we take them up as distinct charges, they are alleged sufficiently as elements of the scheme. It is suggested that the several acts charged are lawful, and that intent can make no difference. But they are bound together as the parts of a single plan. The plan may make the parts unlawful. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194, 195 U. S. 206. The statute gives this proceeding against combinations in restraint of commerce among the States and against attempts to monopolize the same. Intent is almost essential to such a combination, and is essential to such an attempt. Where acts are not sufficient in themselves to produce a result which the law seeks to prevent — for instance, the monopoly — but require further acts in addition to the mere forces of nature to bring that result to pass, an intent to bring it to pass is necessary in order to produce a dangerous probability that it will happen.
Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Massachusetts 267, 272. But when that intent and the consequent dangerous probability exist, this statute, like many others and like the common law in some cases, directs itself against that dangerous probability as well as against the completed result. What we have said disposes incidentally of the objection to the bill as multifarious. The unity of the plan embraces all the parts.
**What the court is saying here, is that the “Person” may freely engage in commercial activity in another State, so long as it is in continuance of participating in a single transaction, however, parts the transaction may be found to unlawful, where an unlawful combination has taken place.
An injunction may be rewarded awarded in this cause, to restrain the said defendants and each of them, their respective agents and attorneys, and all other persons acting in their behalf, or in behalf of either of them, or claiming so to act, from entering into, taking part in, or performing any contract, combination or conspiracy, the purpose or effect of which will be, as to trade and commerce in fresh meats between the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia, a restraint of trade, in violation of the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1890.
Therefore, where the “State of South Dakota” has made an act, or activity unlawful in its borders, the “Woman” has no right to go to another State” to transact, or perform such activity, without first following the law itself, prior to completing the transaction. While she has the right to engage in interstate commerce, with a doctor in Minnesota – parts of the transaction can be found to be unlawful in South Dakota, upon her return to the State of South Dakota.
Furthermore, you have the Immunity Clause of the Constitution, which says, and was also defined by the Articles of Confederation:
It simply was an attempt to build a league of friendship between states, and the citizens of all states in an attempt to create one union. The intent was to protect a person’s life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, let alone the safety of all Americans as they ‘pass through’ each State. Its sole intent was to be Judicial, providing to all Americans the ability to sue, or be sued in order to file a grievance, or to settle a dispute or claim made against them.
In this light, does the Immunity Clause protect the woman of South Dakota from being sued for committing a violation of S.D Law if she crosses the state border to conduct an abortion?
No. If the “Woman” is a domiciled resident of South Dakota, and she with intention goes to Minnesota, contracts with a doctor, to have an abortion, which, yes, she has the right to do, however, another person has the right to sue her, for violating their rights, or damaging or injuring their property of which is protected within another State itself.
South Dakota Attorney General, Marty Jackley has signed on with other Attorney Generals, that would allow the “State” to utilize a Womans medical records to proceed with bringing forth a criminal case presenting that the “Woman” violated state laws in her quest to have an abortion in another State.
Attorneys general, Mike.
OK-Mr. Z, it all seems to hinge on those Medical Records which are not the pervue of egomaniacs like Jackley, And should never be….
Mike Zitterich. Your analysis is a mess.
A fetus doesn’t become a child until it’s born, and God blesses it with a soul.
Before God blesses a newborn with a soul any decisions are fully up to the host woman.
It is the way, Mike Zitterich.
May God have mercy on your soul.
Mr. Zitterich, there are no “souls.” Tighten up your bloggings.
Pretty obvious a citizen of ine state trtavels to another state and makes sales tax applicable purchases then they pay the sales tax to the state they purchased items, not South Duhkota. Near as I can figure Wayfair applies only to E-Commerce.
Nope, we can legally exempt our transactions from Minnesota or Iowa anytime by claiming our Soveriegnty as a S.D Citizen. I do it all the time. I AM NOT going to pay more than 6.2% sales tax, and only to S.D I know I am right, cause I have done it, and have NOT had any issues.
Tight blogging, Mr. Zitterich. Good on you.
As a Sovereign myself, grudznick does appreciate your resistance to the People’s Republics of Iowa and Minnesota.
Mike Zitterich – Conflating a monetary transaction and a perceived human felony is unestablished and dubitable.
Explain what legal principle links these two completely nonrelated issues.
Never mind. You can’t.
Go hate on women’s rights some other way, cynical misogynist.
Your act has become putrid.
Since many of you do NOT know, nor undestand how the “Sales Tax” works – the fact is, you only owe a “Direct Tax” assessed on property to the “state” of which you are domiciled in. I DO NOT owe any sales tax to any foreign state whether it be Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Norh Dakota, or D.C. If I pay a ‘tax’ in any of those States, I would be doubled tax, since I lawfully owe 4.2% to The State of South Dakota, and up to 2.0% to my local government. Where I do pay a sales tax to any foreign state, I would have a tax credit inside South Dakota.
For example, where I pay 5% Sales Tax in California, I would conitinue to owe the balance of 1.2% in South Dakota where the tax is lawfully due.
Therefore, knowing my ‘rights’ – I can lawfully ‘exempt’ myself from paying any sales tax in all foreign states, and in D.C thanks to my domicile being South Dakota. Thus, I ‘report’ my transaction to the S.D DOR no later than the 20th of the following month, while making the payment by the 30th of the month (due date). So every goods or services that I purchase today, I am lawfully mandated to report those transactions next month, August 20th, whereas the tax is due to be paid on August 30th…
“Your Legal Address” is the point of reference – all goods and services you purchase, regardless of where you bought them are being delivered to that address. Meaning, where you travel from your address to the store or service station to buy goods and services, you are therefore, you are considered enroute, (continuation), where the goods are to be delivered back to the destination point, where the tax now becomes due.
Knowing this fact, during that continuation process, I am lawfully allowed to “Exempt” myself from any foreign State’s sales tax by presenting at the time of purchase my S.D Driver License, Social Security Card, or any offical government document that presents my ‘domiciled address’. At that point, the Retailer is tasked with providing to me a “Exemption Form” where I fill out, providing my name, address, reason for exemption, giving to them all my documented info, for the event they get audited by their “State” Department of Revenue, of which if that “State” wishes, they may follow through to audit further, your information, requesting from South Dakota, proof or fact of your domiciled address. However, at this point, South Dakota would further be on notice, and would send you a “tax bill” where you have not yet reported the transaction. By law, S.D would not give to any foreign State your information, other than to provide a YES or NO answer that you are in fact a S.D Domiciled Citizen.
This is how the ‘sales tax process’ works, and this would be how S.D would gain documentation that you have made a ‘foreign transaction”. Which is what the “USE TAX” was established for back in the 1960’s. It desigtned to catch all ‘tax’ not reported by S.D Retailers, meaning, you purchased an item, delivered back to your address, used the item, the tax is owed upon the consumption of the item itself. South Dakota would have jurisdiction over that Transaction, just as they have jurisdiction over all “Activity” where a woman has entered into a transaction to abort her unborn child – where the Minnesota Doctor has the right to do what he did, the woman was lawfully restricted to do so, and where the “unborn babies” father submits a complaint to DSS or to the State, the State of South Dakota would have jurisdiction to audit, investigate, and prosecute the woman for partaking in a conspiracy to commit murder of an unborn baby without due process of performing an abortion, furthermore, protecting the family documents, medical records, and information relative to the medical history of both the mother and the father.
Marty Jackley is most likely NOT brining a case forward that he believes he cannot win, knowing his history of winning the landmark S.D v Wafair case proving who holds jurisdiction over the transaction, he is most likely correct in bringing on this case related to “Abortion”
The Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution only restricts S.D in allowing the continuation of the transaction, allowing for S.D Citiens to travel freely outside the state to buy, goods and services, however, it does NOT escape the “individual” from being held responsable to S.D laws governing the transaction itself where the “Citizen” is lawfully mandated to report or do something once they get back home.
The Immunity Clause does not matter in this case either, since it only gives you the right to have the same equal protection of due process in both states, however, each “State” would have to present its case of who has jurisdiction as part of the transaction itself.
As “The Nature Boy Rick Flair” would say, “ Woo! Well, Mr. Zitterich, I’d like to take a moment to thank you for sharing your opinion on women’s rights. Now, it’s important to remember that opinions are just that – opinions. And they don’t hold any legal precedent, brother! So, while everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, let’s keep in mind that women’s rights are an essential part of promoting equality and fairness for all. Woo!” – The AssIsTant
For those of you who think Mike Z is a off his nut, you’re correct.
Despite the ramblings of the far white wing of the Republican Party none of these attorneys general have any legal standing so the letter they signed is simply a political stunt designed to raise money for their re-elections and nothing more.
Mr. Zitterich – As a white nationalist do you agree with compromise?
In discussions as sensitive as this one, it’s essential to foster open dialogue and respectful engagement. Acknowledging and understanding diverse viewpoints can help promote understanding and empathy, even if we may not always agree.
Mr. Z ignores the fact that for decades Las Vegas was the one city in the one state that had legal prostitution and legal gambling.
Or that, back in the 1920s, during Prohibition, people went regularly to Mexico to drink their fool heads off (and engage in sex acts with prostitutes, etc.)
With regard to both Vegas and Mexico, no home state ever had jurisdiction about what their citizens did there, and never charged them with crimes by going there and committing acts that were illegal in said home state.
We are not chattels of our states: we are free, remember?
Mr. Z’s comment that “the woman was lawfully restricted” from having an abortion is no longer accurate under SD law. South Dakota no longer makes it a crime for a woman to have an abortion – SDCL 22-17-5.2 states “A female who undergoes an unlawful abortion, as set forth in § 22-17-5.1, may not be held criminally liable for the abortion.” With no possible criminal liability there is no crime.
For anyone helping her, it is a different matter, they may be killed or jailed for life by the Stgate in SD. And the woman could be held criminally liable under non-abortion statutes, such as the 1st degree murder statute and the various other potential crimes unrelated to having an abortion, but for the woman having an unlawful abortion is not a crime.
And as previously explained, SD criminal laws only apply to acts taking place within SD’s borders, just as other states’ laws do not govern conduct in SD. So if a woman can get an abortion without committing a crime in SD and if a Minnesota doctor can provide an abortion without committing a crime in Minnesota, there can be no “criminal conspiracy” if the woman goes to Minnesota for the abortion because there is no crime either in SD or Minnesota. (And even if there was a crime in SD, that criminal law only applies to acts taking place in SD, not acts taking place in Minnesota or any other state).
And P, your “woo” comment brings back memories as Ric Flare (Rick Fliehr) and I were in school together in 6th-9th grade – Meadowbrook Elementary for 6h grade, then Golden Valley High School in 7th-9th grades, in Golden Valley, Minnesota. We were pretty good friends as kids, spending time together at each of our homes. I recall spending the night at Rick’s place on New Year Eve in 7th grade I think and enjoying a bottle of non-alcoholic wine his folks gave us, although at the time we thought it had alcohol. Rick celebrated with a “woo, the moon is high and so am I” cheer. We were also on the same junior high B squad wrestling team and wrestled the same weight class – 154 lbs. Rick left for Breck High School in either 9th or 10th grade and we drifted far apart and went our seperate ways, although he attended my wedding in 1968 and apparently got in a fight during the reception (my bride and I left early and missed that action). Ric became a rich world famous entertainer/wrestler and I became a mere commentor on DFP trying to provide accurate info in response to off the wall claims about the law.
Mr. Flair trained with Verne Gagna, and his boy.
*Gagne
Good story, BCB. Ric was adopted into a doctor’s family who were upper middle class, huh? There’s an in-depth documentary about Naitch on Peacock. More good stories, there. He even lived through getting hit by lightning. Went through him and killed a guy standing right next to him. It still freaks him out. At times he was an out-of-control alcoholic and is currently a slightly more in control alcoholic. Doesn’t deny it and doesn’t try to stop anymore. Believes waiting until late afternoon to start drinking is enough discipline. And yes, grudz. He trained with Verne in his wrestling academy. Yes, it’s true, Ric has a penis the size of a donkey. And not a miniature donkey, either. ha ha ha
One other Rick Flair story made me laugh. In one of Rick’s TV interviews he described his younger days as what he characterized a pretty wild teenager, and talked about some of the quasi-delinquent acts he used to engage in. Although he didn’t mention his days in Golden Valley, he did tell the interviewer that “I even played strip poker once as a young teen,” looking rather sheepish if you can believe it I broke out laughing when he told that story since I had been there for that poker game. Rick, I and 2 local girls played strip poker game at my house in Golden Valley one afternoon in 7th grade (I believe, although it could have been 8th grade) when my parents were out. And to top things off when all the clothes had come off we heard someone drive up, so we panicked and dressed as quickly as possible! It turned out not to be my parents, however, but a laundry guy picking up our weekly family laundry, so we didn’t get caught. Rick did not go into those details in his interview, but I remember it well.
One more OT comment: Rick, I and the gang used to watch wrestling on TV together and Vern Gagne was the local good guy, clean wrestler hero. One of the bad guys was a fellow that went by “The Crusher,” a butch cut blonde barrel chested loud mouth. from Milwaukee if I recall correctly (Not the infamous black stringy haired Krusher Kolawski). The Crusher was Rick’s favorite wrestler and Rick used to do a funny imitation of Crusher’s antics and copied his growls and roars.
Good one, BCB – I was a Crusher (Reginald Lisowski) fan, too but even a bigger Mad Dog Vachon (Joseph Maurice Régis Vachon) fan. If you’re the same age as Rik then you’re about four years older than me. Thanks for the stories.
Been a wrestling fan (I watch probably ten hours of pro wrestling a week.) since fifth grade when Verne Gagne ran his northern territory. Always been in awe of how Vince Jr. had the innovation skills to see that cable tv could unite all the wrestling territories into a single group that he could control from thousands of miles away. Lost all the awe though when Vince got cancelled for acting like Sam Goldwyn and Harvey Weinstein with his young female talent. Behavior like that from a rich guy in his late 70’s is as despicable as that unmentionable President before Joe Biden. Vince sold WWE to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia a few months ago for untold billions. I like AEW better now. It’s on in fifteen minutes, so so long. #grins
grudznick was a big James Raschke rooter.
I’m guessing Mr. Zitterich followed Jerry Blackwell. Closely.
Greg Gagne and Jumping Jim Brunzell, the “High Flyers” tag team. The “Hulkster” Hogan began his creer with Gagne if memory serves.
and Jesse “The Body” Ventura and his feather boa.
East-West Connection. Just like Mr. Zitterich and grudznick. Mr. Zitterich is, of course, the plump Adrian Adonis, from the east.
Hope I’m not breaking sad news to ‘ya grudz but The Baron passed last January. The Clawmaster was a popular talent, and The Aitch was also a fan.
Mr. Platypus Onion knows. We’ve got a blog full of good wrasslin’ fans here.
grudz seems more like a Kurt Angle wannabe, with the silly little straw cowboy hat. ha ha – P. Aitch is laughing. Laughing, I tell ‘ya.
E platypus –I believe it’s Vern Gagne…Greg Gagne was a shortstop for the Twins…also, rassling fans, let us not forget “the very capable Kenny G” who died this past year….estimated by experts his lifetime record was something like 32 and 485.
Mr Blundt, Verne Gagne did indeed have a “rassler” son named Greg and the Twins had a Greg Gagne (Gagknee). Adonis was said to be a longshoreman from New York when introduced at events.
Jerry Fatwell hailed from Stone Mountain Georgia.
Seems like the “Nature Boy” spelled his name RIC,
I am reminded of the old English case of Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus (since we are quoting case law in this thread) wherein we learn that Flo and Flossie were circus midgets crushed by a rampaging elephant . . . I leave it to BearCreekBat and others to explicate the relevance of the holding of the case to the present discussion.
I am intrigued by Mr Z’s refusal to pay sales tax in Iowa, and I would urge our friends in the Riviera of the Dakotas (North Sioux) to drive across the border, purchase food at an Iowa grocery store and then announce to the clerk that they will NOT be paying any sales tax. I suspect it will work. If only the strategy worked so well on food purchases in South Dakota.
Wow, you folks just keep getting cooler and cooler. I liked the Tx Rattlesnake when I got into pro wrestling. .WOW aka Women of Wrestling is on on Sunday nights. It cracks me up. I felt so relieved when I checked to make sure Stone Cold Steve Austin wasn’t a MAGA. In fact, he opened up a can of whoopass on antiLGBTQ haters.
The Rock and Trump sure have a lot to thank wrestling for. Trump even put Vince McMahon’s wife in his cabinet. Wrestling is where trump got his trucker hat idea too. The chanting wrestling crowd is his heaven. Vince taught him he can win over the people by putting on that stupid hat because they forget it is worn my a millionaire. Nuts
jakc, what a great 1957 English law case citation. It looks like you may have gotten the names of the injured people wrong. The video linked summary below says that the individuals injured were Emmy Behrens and her husband Johannes, who claimed to be the shortest man in the world. Whether Emmy was also short is not mentioned. She, however, apparently played guitar for their act. The true culprit was a small Pomeranian dog that spooked an otherwise tame elephant. The dog and it’s owner escaped liability, but the owner of the elephant was on the hook based on a strict liabilty legal principle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frYLhhnIU54
Any relevance to this discussion seems a stretch, but I’ll take a shot. Perhaps DFP commenter Mr. Z’s theory is based on some sort of strict liability concept similar to that which let the barking and trespassing Pomeranian and his owner off the hook but held the Elephant and it’s owner responsible for injuring Emmey and Johnannes. The elephant could represent the pregnant SD woman frightened by the barking SD anti-choice laws and the owner her Minnesota doctor that tried to help her by providing needed medical help while thinking that no rational court would punish inflict punishment on someone lawfully helping an otherwise woman in need that had been frightened by a barking SD law.
I may have gotten the names wrong though perhaps those were stage names.
I took a quick look and could not find the actual case on line, though my memory of reading it is that the judge starts the opinion, ” x and x, being circus midgets crushed by an elephant” or something close to that. Roberts and Alito can’t write like that.
On-line stuff just wants to cite the holding, though that could be useful as a legal principle:
The owners of elephants (whether stampeding or rampaging) will be held strictly liable as elephants are inherently dangerous.
Seems like there ought to be a lesson for SD voters.
True that!
Nebraska teen who took abortion pills escapes jail time. Her Mother, who aided and abetted her daughter’s abortion faces five years.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/07/27/nebraska-teen-got-90-days-in-abortion-case-not-5-years-fact-check/70478149007/
onion, according to the story in that link the teen was sentenced to 90 days in jail, followed by a lengthy period of probation. So she didn’t escape jail time – she actually did get jail time, although not the full 5 years her mom faces for identical charges, but still awaiting sentencing.
Now I is really confused since there are a couple points in the story claiming the girl got no jail time. Must be more than my scatter brain can handle,bcb.
onion, the story is pretty confusing as it repeatedly says the girl doesn’t face prison time. What it was apparently trying to say is that the girl was already sentenced and no longer faced a five year prison sentence. It was apparent;y responding to a Facebook story that said the girl still faced a sentenced of up to five years in prison. This is what the fact check story says that indicates she did get a jail sentencew, just not a five year sentence:
Thanks, bcb, My addled brain thanks you, too.
MIke Z, your obsession with the term “domiciled” does not validate your flatly wrong read of the law. Your conduct is regulated by the state you are in, not the state you are from. See BCB’s succincy Monday link on the Commerce Clause and immunities.
As I said in the original post, your ability to buy marijuana depends on where you are standing, not where your house is.
You can’t vote in Minnesota, because you live in South Dakota, but that’s not because South Dakota law binds you to vote only in South Dakota. That’s because Minnesota says you can’t vote in Minnesota if you are registered to vote in South Dakota. Minnesota could pass a law to allow a person in Minnesota with a South Dakota address to vote in Minnesota elections. The state where the vote happens governs who can vote, not the state where the voter may have a house or registered RV.
Alabama prohibits electioneering within 30 feet of a polling place door. South Dakota bans electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place door. If you visit Alabama and shout about Trump 31 feet from a polling place door on Election Day, Marty Jackley can’t prosecute you when you get home. He can, however, prosecute an Alabaman who stands 31 feet from the doors of the Minnehaha County Admin Building shouting about Biden on Election Day.
Here’s a rel corkerforTexassmagats whoargued all the way to theSCOTUSthat a fetushas human rights and now find themselves denying those rights to a stillborn fetus.
https://apnews.com/article/texas-fetus-rights-prison-lawsuit-6c4fa19793cd56e5edade436d1392d90
From AP News……. DALLAS (AP) — The state of Texas is questioning the legal rights of an “unborn child” in arguing against a lawsuit brought by a prison guard who says she had a stillborn baby because prison officials refused to let her leave work for more than two hours after she began feeling intense pains similar to contractions.
The argument from the Texas attorney general’s office appears to be in tension with positions it has previously taken in defending abortion restrictions, contending all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court that “unborn children” should be recognized as people with legal rights.
It also contrasts with statements by Texas’ Republican leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott, who has touted the state’s abortion ban as protecting “every unborn child with a heartbeat.”
magats are lying hypocrites and the scum of the Earth.