« "Illegitimate Choices: A Minimalist(?) Approach to Consent and Waiver in Criminal Cases" | Main | US Sentencing Commission releases latest "compassionate release" data through March 2024 »
June 18, 2024
New Prison Policy Initiative briefing explores impact of Dobbs on women under community supervision
I often say to students (and sometimes highlight here) that every big legal story has some kind of sentencing echoes. This new Prison Policy Initiative briefing makes that point with respect to the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling two years ago. The full title and subtitle of this briefing summarizes its coverage: "Two years after the end of Roe v. Wade, most women on probation and parole have to ask permission to travel for abortion care. Since the 2022 Dobbs decision, 21 states have restricted abortions earlier than the Roe v. Wade standard. Now, more of the 800,000 women on probation and parole must seek abortion care out-of-state — but for many, whether they can get there depends on an officer’s decision."
Here is an excerpt from the briefing's discussion of its key findings:
To understand how this post-Dobbs landscape impacts women under the U.S.'s massive system of community supervision, we examined standard supervision conditions in each state, along with the number of women who must comply with them. We find that the one-two punch of abortion and supervision restrictions impacts an estimated 4 out of 5 womem (82%) on probation or parole nationwide. That means that for the vast majority of people under community supervision, the ability to seek abortion care out-of-state is left not to the pregnant person, but to the discretion of a correctional authority, typically their probation or parole officer.
Specifically, we find that, excluding federal probation and post-release supervision, 82% of women on probation and 85% of women on parole live in states that (1) either completely ban abortion or restrict it based on gestational age and (2) list travel restrictions as a standard condition of supervision.
June 18, 2024 at 10:29 AM | Permalink
Comments
https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2024/06/18/gop-leaders-slams-two-tiered-justice-system-after-pro-hamas-destruction-yields-zero-arrests-n2175637
Congress is getting into the act on selective enforcement.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 1:40:55 PM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2024/06/18/guatemalan-illegal-alien-baltimore-child-sex-crimes-n2640574
Some more 'rat lenience . . . . hmmmm Doug, you good with this?
Posted by: federalist | Jun 18, 2024 2:23:19 PM
Was not quite able to follow the details in the story you link, federalist, but deporting people here illegally after a serious crime seems like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by: Doug B | Jun 18, 2024 4:06:21 PM
Ladies, you MIGHT have a right to obtain an abortion in another state, but when you got convicted you signed an "appeal waiver" forfeiting that right LOL
Anyway, the Republican majority in Congress next year will fix up even that loop hole if SCOTUS doesnt. Every state is going to have to give full faith and credit to the laws of the states of Real America, from Mississippi to Idaho! MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 18, 2024 5:31:04 PM
MAGA 2024 --
"Ladies, you MIGHT have a right to obtain an abortion in another state, but when you got convicted..."
Convicted of what? Could you quote the federal statute making it illegal to obtain an abortion in another state? Or any state? I was an AUSA for a long time, and I never heard of any such statute. It couldn't just be that you're, ummmmmmmmmmm, blowing smoke? (Don't worry, I won't ask what kind of smoke).
"...you signed an "appeal waiver" forfeiting that right."
You're only bound by an appeal waiver if you get convicted UNDER A PLEA BARGAIN YOU AND YOUR LAWYER SIGNED. Of course it would be hard to be convicted at all under a statute that doesn't exist. I've dealt with some dim bulbs as defense lawyers, but I've never dealt with one who pleaded a client guilty to violating a statute that isn't there.
"Every state is going to have to give full faith and credit to the laws of the states of Real America, from Mississippi to Idaho!"
I haven't looked into it, and it's not my area, but you could be right that abortion restricting states will have to give full faith and credit to the law of abortion permitting states.
See how easy it was to turn that around?
WAKE UP!!!!
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 18, 2024 6:22:33 PM
Convicted of anything, Bill. Why not? If they can FEDERALLY take away President Trumps right to possess a firearm because he was convicted of a STATE felony (I remind the reader that this was a BS prosecution and a giant pile of witch hunting Democrat lies), then why would a woman (oh, wait, the wokes remind me to say "uterus-having person") not similarly forfiet her "right" to leave a state where abortion is ILLEGAL to get one somewhere else?
Convictions have consequences. You wanna kill babies in the nutjob places that think this is kosher, dont break any other laws.
"but you could be right that abortion restricting states will have to give full faith and credit to the law of abortion permitting states."
Not my argument at all. As with Dred Scott v. Sandford theres a correct way to apply full faith and credit. A states interest in protecting the life of the unborn trumps another states indifference to same, just as a southern states interest in protecting its citizens property rights trumped other states dodgy argument, like when a piece of your property enters their state it becomes "abandoned" in some wackjob application of admiralty law.
By contrast a woman has no property right in her unborn baby just as she doesnt in her kids outside the womb. And that doesnt change when she crosses a state line. The states interest, as state governments not run by degenerate sicko libs recognize, is generally to preserve the lives of all the children, born and unborn.
Until and unless those lives are forfiet consequent to criminal activity. MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 18, 2024 6:58:33 PM
MAGA2024, nobody has killed a baby; a foetus is not a baby. And you quote Dred Scott? pardon me while I vomit.
And you love Trump. Let’s see: Trump is proud to have taken away the 50 year right of women to choose whether to carry a child. Trump, in his own words, loves to grab women by the p---y. Trump was found liable by unanimous jury for sexually assaulting and defaming a woman to the tune of $95 million; He has reportedly assaulted many other women; he had adulterous affair with porn star Stormy Daniels while his wife was nursing his child; found liable for business fraud to the tune of $450 million; settled “Trump University” fraud case--now a 34-time convicted felon by unanimous jury. And still facing one more state trial and two federal trials: one for concealing and refusing to return top secret national security documents; and one for instigating an insurrection and obstructing the peaceful transfer of power.
Trump: A perfect role model for our children and grandchildren?? Right up there with Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr, and Jefferson Davis.
Posted by: Amy | Jun 18, 2024 8:08:37 PM
Amy --
Everything MAGA writes about Trump is sarcasm.
I can't tell if he thinks Dred Scott is authoritative. It has the same reputation now as Buck v. Bell or Korematsu, but it's also the foundation case for substantive due process, a doctrine I suspect MAGA likes.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 18, 2024 10:42:14 PM
Amy :
"foetus"? Go back to Canada and pick on Pierre Pollievre. Plenty of places to puke in the Hudson Bay. Or upchuck in the Fraser River, its not like anyone will notice.
"And you quote Dred Scott?" No, I CITED Dred Scott. These are distinct actions. Typical lib fuzzy thinking.
And I stand by it, since it is standing precedent that no SCOTUS decision ever overturned. Yes its incidental application to negro slavery was obviated by the 13th amendment but its reasoning about Article IV Section 1 remains binding. Like Comstock, this aspect of it has simply been waiting to be rediscovered and redeemed by savvy parties before the court. Originalists on the Court have rescued us many times from welfare state socialism.
Finally you cant take Bill Otis seriously about some things. He's pretty good on the law but has a burr in his saddle about some people on this blog including me. Living far too long in the Beltway he has lost touch with the rural point of view if he ever had it. Like George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer he wont recognize the patriotism of ordinary Americans until we roll coal in his face. But if he stays on Team Trump he will come out all right.
Fair weather friends who desert our President in our time of need? Things wont go so well for them. MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 19, 2024 7:39:46 AM
I don't like the idea that a pregnant woman on probation might not be allowed to get an abortion due to her probation status.
For that matter, I don't like the idea that a pregnant woman might need to travel to another state to get an early-term abortion.
I don't read MAGA's stuff because I have zero interest in trying to sort through what is sarcasm and what isn't.
One bad thing about Roe was that it tended to polarize people, since anti-abortion types did not have to live with the rules they were advocating.
My hope for a resolution to this is that after things have had some time to sort themselves out in the new non-Roe world, states will mostly realize that they are better off allowing abortion until late in the term.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Jun 19, 2024 1:20:44 PM
William,
Are you against laws for murder too? After all, “anti-murder types” don’t have to live with the rules they were advocating.
It’s hilarious to watch the left gnashing their teeth at Dobbs when our abortion laws are far left of even the beloved Europeans. The same is true of transgender ideology.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 19, 2024 5:13:25 PM
William Jockusch --
"I don't read MAGA's stuff because I have zero interest in trying to sort through what is sarcasm and what isn't."
Yup. It's unfortunate. He's pretty far Left as far as I can see, but he's not unintelligent and could make a straightforward argument if he wanted. But the way things are, it's like trying to read a pretzel.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 19, 2024 9:50:27 PM
TarlsQtr --
Two things are often overlooked in the abortion debate: (1) there are more abortions now than before Dobbs, and, relatedly (2) virtually anyone who wants an abortion can get one. These are not happy-making facts from the pro-life point of view, but there they are.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 19, 2024 9:54:08 PM
Tarls,
I'm not the left.
I recognize that abortion is a genuine moral dilemma. I think both positions are morally defensible. I think "at what stage does a fetus become a person" is a difficult question of line-drawing.
But I also think that it's a bad idea to ban early-term abortions. Just not practical or sensible to force a woman to carry a child she does not want to carry.
If a test were to reveal Down's syndrome, I would suggest to my partner to abort my own child. Fortunately, that hasn't happened to me.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Jun 19, 2024 10:22:39 PM
William,
“At what stage does a fetus become a person,” is not a moral question at all.
It’s a scientific one and any embryology textbook is clear on the point.
You apparently have been around more Nazi eugenicists and scumbags like Helen Keller or GB Shaw than Downs kids. The happiest and sweetest kids on earth.
Let’s abort the eugenics supporters in their 80th trimester and keep the Downs kids.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 20, 2024 1:17:35 AM
TarlsQtr --
The sure tipoff as to when a fetus becomes a human being is when it gets harvested to sell its body parts. The body parts only bring a worthwhile price on the market if they're HUMAN body parts.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 20, 2024 9:11:20 AM
MAGA 2024 | Jun 18, 2024 6:58:33 PM --
"Convicted of anything, Bill. Why not?"
What a bizarre perspective on things. Never heard that one before.
You continue, writing (numbers in parentheses added), "If they can (1) FEDERALLY take away President Trumps right to possess a firearm because he was convicted of a STATE felony (I remind the reader that this was a BS prosecution and a giant pile of witch hunting Democrat lies), then (2) why would a woman (oh, wait, the wokes remind me to say "uterus-having person") not similarly forfiet her "right" to leave a state where abortion is ILLEGAL to get one somewhere else?"
Ummmmmmmmmm, because there's a statute that provides for (1) but no statute that provides for (2)?
Sometimes you do get carried away.
"Convictions have consequences."
As they should. But the legal consequences don't extend to anything that pops into your head; they are defined and limited by the terms of statute of conviction.
I said, "...but you could be right that abortion restricting states will have to give full faith and credit to the law of abortion permitting states." You respond, "Not my argument at all. As with Dred Scott v. Sandford theres a correct way to apply full faith and credit."
What I wrote was not what you said, that's true, and did not purport to be. It was, however, the inescapable logical extension of what you said. If you care to dispute that using the "wisdom" of Dred Scott, well, uh, don't let me stop you.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 20, 2024 9:32:14 AM
TQ,
Like WJ, I'm not the left, either (and neither's my wife!).
Bill,
"Ummmmmmmmmm, because there's a statute that provides for (1) but no statute that provides for (2)?"
I refer you back to the OP.
"we examined standard supervision conditions in each state, along with the number of women who must comply with them. We find that the one-two punch of abortion and supervision restrictions impacts an estimated 4 out of 5 womem (82%) on probation or parole nationwide. That means that for the vast majority of people under community supervision, the ability to seek abortion care out-of-state is left not to the pregnant person, but to the discretion of a correctional authority, typically their probation or parole officer.
So a woman who is convicted of any offense involving supervision conditions, 4 times out of 5, does not have a right to access an abortion in another state. She has to ask permission from a government official. Defenders of the 2A understand this logic perfectly. If the government can turn you down for a firearm, what you have is not a constitutional right.
"the legal consequences don't extend to anything that pops into your head;"
And they dont here. They are already extant, supra.
"they are defined and limited by the terms of statute of conviction."
It is quite clear that legislatures can and do pass categorical prohibitions attaching to conviction status. States that prohibit felons from voting don't stick a codicil on every paragraph of the criminal code. They make a blanket statement that all felony convictions forfeit one's voting privileges, possibly with some carveouts (maybe for non-violent crime, or with restorability by the governor, etc)
I'm saying the states of Real America, that is, not the liberal sh!tholes that stole the election from President Trump in 2020, should pass laws bringing that 82%-85% up to 100%, at least for their own residents.
And that's where Article IV, Section 1 comes in. A resident of the U.S. is resident (primarily domiciled) in only 1 state at a time. When a state passes a law banning baby killing, as with the murder of adults, that law attaches to all of its residents, and other states have a constitutional OBLIGATION to honor that prohibiton. So not only should states like California and New York extradite non-resident baby-killing women back to their home states, they should extradite the doctors performing them, too, as accessories at the very least. And if the various review boards and medical regulatory organs that a state empanels are lax in their regulation of baby-killing providers such that they effectively contribute to the killing of babies, well then that state should be civilly liable to Mississippi, Idaho, et al. for their contemptuous disregard of bona fide law in those states.
SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction for such a case. This is where the still living heart of Dred Scott still beats. And I think the Dobbs majority would agree with me. Let Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson look on THAT prospect with "Dred" hahaha
If a woman wants to kill her baby, she needs to change her state of residence. Costly and inconvenient? Sure. Premeditated murder should be.
The reckoning is coming. Get Right or get out! MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 20, 2024 10:41:58 AM
MAGA --
As you implicitly acknowledge, not a single state categorically bans ALL abortion. Even the reddest states continue to allow early term abortions, which is the huge majority of them, and yet more have additional exceptions allowing for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life/serious physical health of the mother.
With this as the state of play, I invite you to cite a single case in this land of 336,617,000 people where EVEN ONE previously convicted woman has gone to another state in violation of the domicile state's terms of probation, obtained an abortion, and then has either been (1) banned by either the feds or the domicile state from possessing a firearm, or (2) indicted or otherwise prosecuted by the domicile state for impermissibly having traveled out of state in order to obtain an abortion.
I am not aware of any such case. Indeed, I'd bet good money it does not exist.
And what does that leave us with?
Scaremongering about something that hasn't happened and, as I strongly suspect you know, isn't going to happen.
Why bother?
We live in a country with over 100,000 drug overdose deaths, caused in significant part by the immorality, greed and lawlessness of drug pushers. That kind of stuff was what I had to worry about as an AUSA, not fantasyland scenarios about things that don't happen.
But again, if you have a case to cite, I think we'd all like to see it.
"This is where the still living heart of Dred Scott still beats."
OK, MAGA, whatever you say. If you were my opponent in litigation, I would get down on my knees and pray that you enlisted Dred Scott in your brief.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 20, 2024 11:42:13 AM
