ThePrivileges and Immunities Clause(U.S. Constitution,Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1,

[Smackdown2019]

"Those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State". James Madison discussed that provision of the Articles of Confederation in Federalist No. 42. Madison wrote.

So if a person travels from lets say Illinois to Texas and needs an abortion. Then that womens right to abortion in Illinois should be afforded her in Texas.

[CanonRay]

1. Very interesting argument.

Still, some states wouldn't recognize a guy marriage unless it was legal in that state, until the SCOTUS ruling overrode it.

[dchill]

2. However, current SCOTUS just ignores...

... that with which it does not agree.

[docgee]

3. I think it says the opposite.

That someone from Texas is allowed to get an abortion in Illinois.

[Raven123]

4. Same here.

That’s the argument against being able to enforce laws against abortion for women who travel to a state where the procedure is legal.

[TomSlick]

5. Sorta.

What it says is that someone traveling from Illinois to Texas is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a Texas resident.

The best argument that a Texas resident may travel to Illinois for an abortion without violating Texas law is based on the commerce clause. When SCOTUS was a real judicial body, I would have been confident that medical treatment was "commerce" and Texas could not prohibit a resident from traveling to another state for medical care.

[docgee]

7. What about jurisdiction?

How can any law be enforced outside of jurisdiction? And how can anyone sue without injury?

[TomSlick]

8. A really difficult question.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction is a complex problem.

The argument would be that it's the actions in fleeing Texas - that occur in Texas - is what is being prosecuted. I don't think it would fly once the case got beyond the Texas state courts. In the meanwhile, a poor woman will spend time in jail and spend a fortune in legal fees.

[Smackdown2019]

6. Works both ways

What people fail to see is, UNITED states means a union. As a whole, not individual states. Freedom to travel is a luxury that most countries do not possess, yet we take it granted. But now, a pregnant mom could file a case to say her rights to choose an abortion in another state has been taking away due those new state laws. Same as if a mother wanted to travel to another state to get an abortion. Freedom to travel with ones rights does not stop at a state line.

[TomSlick]

9. The problem is that by the time a case got anywhere in the courts, it would be too late.

A contest of a law prohibiting travel to obtain an abortion could only be mounted after the woman has been convicted.

[JimPJ]

10. Nah

"to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State"

IOW if Tex goes to NY with his six shooter he can't strap it on and walk around the apple, if Donna from CO goes to TX she can't expect to smoke bowls in public without getting arrested.
OTOH Donna might be able to strap on a gun and Tex can get an abortion.