Banning Missouri women from abortions in other states will bring chaos if Roe falls

Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman’s plan to prohibit women from seeking abortions in other states is a travesty that should never become law.

It’s unconstitutional. It’s unworkable. It violates the privacy rights of women and men. It would provoke an avalanche of similar laws in other states, turning our federal union into chaos.

It would not stop abortions. It would, however, threaten the health and privacy of women who seek them. It must be rejected.

Coleman’s proposal was first reported by The Washington Post. She’s offered an amendment in Missouri that would give private citizens the right to sue anyone who helps a Missourian obtain an abortion in another state.

Coleman’s amendment is clearly aimed at restricting Missouri women who seek abortions in Kansas and Illinois, but it would presumably apply across the country. If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade — as it is widely expected to do — abortion regulations would return to the states, which would make their own decisions on the procedure.

Coleman can’t stand the idea that some states would choose to keep abortions safe and legal. “If your neighboring state doesn’t have pro-life protections, it minimizes the ability to protect the unborn in your state,” she told The Post.

Let’s start with the obvious: How could this possibly work? How would a private citizen know if a neighbor or acquaintance traveled to another state for an abortion, or was counseled to do so, without invading her privacy? Does Coleman anticipate a private anti-abortion police force snooping into the lives of every woman of child-bearing age?

The mind reels at such an authoritarian idea. It must be what Coleman has in mind.

Who would gather evidence? Would doctors, counselors, providers — and families — face extraordinary legal bills because someone thinks an abortion has been performed in, say, Chicago? Would providers deny services to Missouri women after the mere threat of legal action?

The courts would be clogged with cases. And what would the penalties be? Who would pay them? Fines might be imposed, and court costs assigned.

It’s also unconstitutional. Article IV of the Constitution requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states. Trying to prevent a Missourian from obtaining a legal service elsewhere violates that clause.

It could hardly be otherwise. If Coleman’s idea were legal, Missouri could enable a lawsuit against a travel agent who recommends a trip to Nevada to gamble, or a friend who tells you recreational marijuana is legal in Colorado. The idea could spread to other states, who would seek to limit other cross-border activities.

The whole concept of interstate trade and travel would collapse.

And there are First Amendment rights at stake as well. The state can’t tell counselors and advisers what they can and cannot say without impinging on the right of free speech.

Coleman’s proposal is shocking and weird, but it isn’t a surprise. The Republican from Arnold is running for the state Senate, where anti-liberty fever is common. In the Missouri House, she’s already offered a comprehensive anti-abortion bill modeled on the Texas fiasco.

Yet Texas’ draconian legislation is hardly the success story its proponents tout. The supposed 50% reduction in abortions there is a lie: The vast majority of Texans needing the procedure ordered abortion pills online or traveled to another state. Two new studies show the actual rate fell by only 10%.

Coleman’s isn’t the only worrisome abortion bill now in Jefferson City. Another from state Rep. Brian Seitz, a Branson Republican, would make it a class A felony in some circumstances for a woman to end an ectopic pregnancy, where a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus. This serious condition can cause severe injury or death to the pregnant woman. They are never viable.

Sometimes, though, the hypocrisy is just too much to ignore. Coleman has called school mask requirements “COVID tyranny.” At the same time, she wants to inhibit women from seeking a legal medical procedure in another state.

Apparently, Missouri can interfere with a woman’s fundamental health care choices outside its borders, but can’t tell a student to wear a paper mask in a pandemic. It would be laughable were it not so shameful.

There’s a whiff of the Dred Scott case in the air. Missourians must reject this ghastly idea.

This story was originally published March 9, 2022 at 12:05 PM.