Again, Dred Scott or Korematsu (the SCOTUS decision that allowed us to round up Jand intern Japanese-Americans.)

Is that vague? Yes. There are often ambiguities in real life.

Of course, those were both Supreme Court decisions that were antithetical to our basic humanity. Now, granted, in the case of Korematsu, it merely affirmed a presidential order. But, rather clearly, said detentions were in absolute regard of the 4th Amendment.

Dred Scot was dubious but likely defensible in light of the pre-Civil War Constitution.

A conspiracy does not require that the crime itself be carried out. For example you can conspire to commit an act of terror without blowing up a building.

Crime B would stand alone, regardless of whether the actual abortion were carried out in a pro-choice state.

As for where to draw the line, I think we should draw it where we usually do: as close to the letter of the law as we can get without damaging the very polity the law was meant to preserve, or insulting basic human rights.

Again, Dred Scott or Korematsu (the SCOTUS decision that allowed us to round up Jand intern Japanese-Americans.)

Is that vague? Yes. There are often ambiguities in real life.

This is not a minor quibble over blue laws, this is highly-charged and state governments could be expected to behave badly. You're contemplating a country where American citizens acting within the laws of one state could be dragged by bounty hunters into another state to face capital charges.

Why? Because of an overblown paranoia about a dictatorship of the judiciary.

So, where do we draw the line of judges, rather than the representatives of the people, making our laws?

And, again, acts committed in New Mexico are not grounds for extradition to Texas. And, again, abortion never has been and never would be a capital crime. I'm not even advocating that should be. I merely wouldn't have any heartburn if serial abortionists, in a society where abortion were illegal, were subject to the death penalty.

This is essentially the issue that gave us the Dred Scott decision. Free states refused to enforce laws requiring runaway slaves to be returned by force to the slave state. The Supremes compelled those Free states to enforce slave state laws.

Sooner or later an abortion case would find its way to the SCOTUS which could then decide whether Texas had a right to extradite an abortion conspiracist (read: pregnant woman) from the state where she obtained her legal abortion, to the state where she formed a criminal conspiracy to abort.

As for advertising, states can now forbid a person to advertise their services as a hit man. A doctor who provides legal abortions in NM but advertised his services in Texas -- perhaps on the intertubes -- would have committed a crime under Texas law. So Texas would be able to issue a warrant and arrest that doctor as he changed planes at DFW.

In fact, if abortion is a capital crime in Texas, and if it were to take the logical step of outlawing a conspiracy to commit abortion, it would have the legal right to arrest any woman passing through DFW that Texas thought was conspiring to abort.

This is why federalism failed in slave times, and again under Jim Crow, and why it is not a solution to the problem of abortion.

It is absurd to have abortion a capital crime -- as you suggested it could be -- in one state and legal in another. It is absurd to charge a woman on a murder-for-hire charge -- as you suggested -- for doing something that is perfectly legal in other states.

This is not a minor quibble over blue laws, this is highly-charged and state governments could be expected to behave badly. You're contemplating a country where American citizens acting within the laws of one state could be dragged by bounty hunters into another state to face capital charges.

Why? Because of an overblown paranoia about a dictatorship of the judiciary.

In the abstract the argument can be made. And just as soon as we all move from the real world to abstract world maybe we can revisit it.

They already are.

If you get married in Iowa, you're married in Iowa and any state that recognizes said marriage. Currently, you're not married in Virginia.

And that, my friends, is f**ked up.

BTW, outside of teh gay marriage and abortion, are there any other areas of law in which states could (with any realistic chance of passage) differ so wildly that would cause all sorts of interstate issues? I can't think of any.

So, James, how would you apply that principle to gay marriage (e.g., Iowa and Virginia)?

If you get married in Iowa, you're married in Iowa and any state that recognizes said marriage. Currently, you're not married in Virginia.

Conspiracy to abort. Conspiracy to commit murder, as you might have it. The decision, the raising of the money for travel, the buying of tickets for same, could easily be a criminal conspiracy under Texas law. Right? And since when do states not extradite to other states? So a conspiracy to abort in Texas could easily lead to a demand for extradition from New Mexico to Texas. Is that correct or have I missed something?

IANAL but so far as I'm aware offenses committed in New Mexico are not subject to prosecution in Texas.

So just so I'm not misunderstanding: do you think a patchwork of laws in which abortion is considered a protected right in one state, and a capital crime in the adjoining state, is preferable to Roe?

Yes, I think Federalism is preferable to a dictatorship of the judiciary.

Conspiracy to abort. Conspiracy to commit murder, as you might have it. The decision, the raising of the money for travel, the buying of tickets for same, could easily be a criminal conspiracy under Texas law. Right? And since when do states not extradite to other states? So a conspiracy to abort in Texas could easily lead to a demand for extradition from New Mexico to Texas. Is that correct or have I missed something?

Arguing that the world should be X but that it's not likely to become X does not reduce your burden to explain why you would have X become policy.

And while you say you don't want to outlaw all abortions you would like to see a world in which individual states could do so. Which would have the chaotic effects I outlined. And which you avoided discussing.

So just so I'm not misunderstanding: do you think a patchwork of laws in which abortion is considered a protected right in one state, and a capital crime in the adjoining state, is preferable to Roe?

As to the tangential points, states enforce their own laws. An Alabama resident who flies to Oregon to do something legal in Oregon but illegal in Alabama isn't generally subject to punishment by Alabama.

So, James, how would you apply that principle to gay marriage (e.g., Iowa and Virginia)?

I note your careful sidestep of the thrust of my point.

How so? I address it head-on: I don't support making all abortions illegal nor do I see any popular support for such a law. I think late-term abortions except under limited circumstances should be criminalized.

As to the tangential points, states enforce their own laws. An Alabama resident who flies to Oregon to do something legal in Oregon but illegal in Alabama isn't generally subject to punishment by Alabama.

Presumably, too, the regulation of advertising of illegal practices would follow similar patterns as now exist. How do we handle, say, gay marriages that are legal in a handful of states and not most?

I note your careful sidestep of the thrust of my point. Interesting how much difficulty pro-lifers have in coming to grips with the practical, real-world consequences of their moral and legal theories.

So long as you can keep the discussion abstract you sound rational. Once you transition to the real world effects you sound like irresponsible loons.