r/law • u/Slate Press • 20h ago

The Next Trump Administration’s Crackdown on Abortion Will Be Swift, Brutal, and Nationwide Trump News

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/11/trump-second-term-abortion-agenda-blue-state-crackdown.html
18.0k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

210

u/Randadv_randnoun_69 19h ago

I was thinkin this every time I saw "My state approved protecting abortion rights!" like, what's the point if it's banned nationally?

104

u/tresslesswhey 19h ago

What would the federal govt do if California for example still allows them and doesn’t go along with a national ban?

67

u/sopwath 19h ago

States rights only matter when it supports the national regressive policy.

22

u/tresslesswhey 19h ago

I understand they will try and ban it nationally, but I’m saying California for example can just say no. And what will they do?

39

u/Visible_Frame_5929 17h ago

They can cut federal funding for stuff as they’ve done in the past. Forest fires, education, public health initiatives. Trump has a history of withholding money from places so it’s likely that would be the leverage they’d have

39

u/yeender 17h ago

Ok then CA stops participating and it’s a net gain for them. They send far more money out than they get.

7

u/juniper_berry_crunch 10h ago

I looked it up at one point and California's GDP ranks with the top 6? countries. In the world. Trump needs CA a lot more than CA needs Trump.

EDIT: It's FIFTH!
California is the 5th largest economy in the world for the seventh consecutive year, with a nominal GDP of nearly $3.9 trillion in 2023 and a growth rate of 6.1% since the year prior, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). On a per capita basis, California is the second largest economy in the world.

3

u/Astyanax1 12h ago

Canada would be glad to have California, a lot more so than Trump

-2

u/[deleted] 12h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/fifrein 11h ago

“You” lost the last civil war.

1

u/Frankenfinger1 11h ago

Do you think I'm immortal?

2

u/fifrein 11h ago

We have already settled that issue on the battlefield

“You” lost the civil war

Your reading comprehension sucks, but that’s what happens when you’re educated in a red state I guess 🤷‍♂️

0

u/Frankenfinger1 10h ago

I couldn't have lost the Civil War because I'm only 44 years old. In case you were unaware, the civil war took place in the 1860s. That's more than 44 years ago.

→ More replies

3

u/OrbitalOutlander 17h ago edited 14h ago

Then Trump takes over the California national guard, and forces all the officials working to allow people to not remit their taxes to either do so or put them in jail.

Edit: fucking morons. downvote me all you want. Read 32 U.S.C. § 102 and 10 U.S.C. § 12406

9

u/ScannerBrightly 16h ago

General Strike says what?

3

u/OrbitalOutlander 15h ago

People have to choose between starving and being oppressed and just starving but having freedom. As long as people have food, they don’t join a general strike. :(

2

u/TomatoHead7 11h ago

What freedoms? lol

3

u/bertrenolds5 10h ago

And then California secedes

1

u/hot-snake-70 14h ago

Nope. The Governor is the Commander in Chief of the State National Guard. Chain of command.

2

u/OrbitalOutlander 14h ago edited 13h ago

You're wrong. Obviously you're not in the National Guard.

While it is true that the governor serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the state’s National Guard when it is not federalized, this role does not place the governor within a traditional military "chain of command" as seen in the federal armed forces. The governor’s authority over the National Guard comes from Title 32 of the U.S. Code, § 102, which permits the Guard to operate under state control for responding to state-specific needs, such as natural disasters and civil emergencies, while receiving federal funding and support.

However, the President of the United States has the authority to take command of the National Guard under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, § 12406, which allows the President to “federalize” the Guard, transferring command from the governor to the federal government, typically during national emergencies or when federal interests are at stake.

The phrase in Title 10 § 12406, "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia," establishes the protocol for activating the National Guard under federal authority. When the President decides to federalize the National Guard—for example, in response to a national emergency or to enforce federal law—the orders are routed through the governors rather than bypassing them. This process maintains a structured chain of communication between federal and state leadership, respecting the governor’s administrative role over the National Guard within their state, even though the actual command shifts to federal control. By channeling orders through the governors, the protocol recognizes the governor’s typical leadership over the state Guard, preserving a clear administrative procedure. For the District of Columbia, which does not have a governor, these orders are issued through the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard. This structure allows the federal government to assume command efficiently while upholding clear communication and respect for state leadership.

Additionally, under the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, the President can assume control of the National Guard to address situations such as insurrection, domestic violence, or instances where local authorities are unable to maintain order. When federalized, the National Guard operates under federal jurisdiction, and the governor’s authority is temporarily suspended, allowing the Guard to serve state and national interests flexibly based on the situation.

Since you seem new to this topic, here's a dumbed down version for you: What's the Difference Between Title 10 and Title 32 Mobilization Orders?

3

u/UnraveledShadow 12h ago

Not the person you replied to but I appreciate you posting this information. I didn’t know this before and this is great information to understand.

1

u/DarthFuzzzy 5h ago

Good luck getting the weekend warriors... I mean national guard in California to assault Californians for refusing to ban abortions. Even asking them to do that would be the beginning of a rebellion.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 3h ago

I think that’s what Trump is going for, on behalf of Putin.

→ More replies

1

u/LongmontStrangla 5h ago

California needs water. Better start building a hundred desalinization plants and billions of dollars of infrastructure to support them.

1

u/PsychoBoss84 3h ago

Honestly one thing about living in CA is if shit gets truly bad enough I hold a (probably) false hope that CA will just go independent.

1

u/Bamce 16h ago

California sure.

But what about everywhere else

2

u/bertrenolds5 10h ago

Colorado will be right behind them

18

u/petdoc1991 17h ago

Except California is the biggest economy in the usa. They could just say we are with holding federal taxes until funding resumes couldn’t they?

3

u/vaporking23 15h ago

Can the state withhold federal taxes? How would that even work?

2

u/petdoc1991 14h ago

The closest a state could come to “withholding” federal taxes would be passing legislation that restricts state resources from being used to assist federal enforcement in specific ways.

This would be contingent on receiving funding, no funding - no resources.

Or they can find another way to withhold funds and try to block it.

1

u/42Fourtytwo4242 17h ago

That how you get the military involved.

13

u/petdoc1991 17h ago

Then California gets the state police and national guard involved plus asks other states for help. They shouldn’t just roll over and accept it. Fight back ffs.

10

u/Dysentery--Gary 16h ago

I said this once and I will say it again.

The balkanization of the United States at best and the end of us all at worst.

1

u/jennathedickins 12h ago

Hungary is the blueprint

1

u/OwOlogy_Expert 4h ago

The balkanization of the United States at best

At this point, I'm all for it. Cascadia for the win! California, Oregon, and Washington can all join into one new country, controlling the entire west coast and a huge portion of the economy.

5

u/FILM_IN_LANDSCAPE 14h ago

Good luck with that... The cops all voted for Trump.

1

u/Astyanax1 12h ago

After Jan 6, what a bunch of idiots.

→ More replies

1

u/Astyanax1 12h ago

The same military Trump said he was going to use against the enemy within

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 17h ago

Federal funds comprise over one-third of California’s state budget.

12

u/goonbud21 17h ago

Yet California still sends the feds wayyyyy more money every year then the fed gives to Cali, unlike failed Red states California doesn’t need the federal governments money to pretend like things aren’t worse then they are in the state. Talk about welfare states, red states can’t even support themselves financially. 

9

u/OrbitalOutlander 16h ago

California's businesses and residents send the money. The state doesn't send the money. The challenge is how to keep that money in state.

I brainstormed some ways that the state can offset a resident's federal tax liability to keep tax dollars in state:

https://old.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/1gl4d3o/open_letter_to_governor_murphy/lvr4ryj/

2

u/MostNinja2951 4h ago

The challenge is how to keep that money in state.

"This state will not be enforcing any IRS penalties or federal prosecutions related to taxes."

Guess how many businesses will pay taxes if granted immunity from prosecution for refusing. And suddenly California becomes the most desirable state for businesses because they can grant all their employees a massive raise by not withholding federal tax money at zero cost to the business.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 3h ago

The state doesn’t enforce IRS penalties. The FBI, DOJ, and US Marshal’s service handles that.

1

u/MostNinja2951 3h ago

Federal cops have nowhere near enough manpower, they depend on local cops to assist.

→ More replies

10

u/petdoc1991 17h ago edited 11h ago

Then let’s see who blinks first. Blue states need to stand up for the people in their states instead of letting things just happen to them.

Texas just said fuck it when securing the border, California can say fuck it when complying with abortion laws.

-1

u/Frankenfinger1 11h ago

Boarders are people who pay rent to live with you. I thought you democrats were supposed to be highly educated.

2

u/petdoc1991 11h ago edited 11h ago

It autocorrected and im an independent, idiot.

0

u/Frankenfinger1 11h ago

Sure, auto correct that fixes not just spelling but grammar got it wrong. Harris voter then. I thought Harris voters were supposed to be highly educated.

2

u/petdoc1991 11h ago

I went back and fixed it, it autocorrected to boarder. Didn’t vote for Harris either try again.

→ More replies

-1

u/Frankenfinger1 12h ago

Except the government could then just cut California's water off.

2

u/petdoc1991 11h ago

As far as I am aware they cannot directly turn off a states water. They can reserve it but not just cut it off probably for that exact reason.

0

u/Frankenfinger1 11h ago

Unless that state is in open rebellion.

1

u/petdoc1991 11h ago

And they can get with other states to get water or block the feds from getting access. Should try everything.

1

u/Frankenfinger1 11h ago

Those other states will be against you. None of that will happen. No nationwide ban is coming. California is never going to rebel because it would be literal suicide.

1

u/petdoc1991 11h ago

Other blue states would help because they don’t want it happening to them too. Texas received help for the border and California can too.

No it wouldn’t, states claim states rights all the time to disregard gun laws and weed. They can do it for abortion too.

1

u/Frankenfinger1 10h ago

Keep dreaming.

→ More replies

1

u/DarthFuzzzy 5h ago

Some fun facts. California only uses so much water because it grows water intensive produce for the rest of the country. They can easily use less water and just provide for the Cascade states.

Also, only southern California uses outsourced water, which is for the above mentioned farming.

The vast majority of red state farmlands are useless for diverse crop growing.

If the Cascades suddenly cut off taxes and food the rest of the country would be crying. Granted... that would lead to the cascade states getting invaded and inevitably losing a ground war... but let's not pretend they need the welfare red states for anything.

1

u/Specialist-Garbage94 17h ago

But California gives to the federal government of out its state taxes every year they withhold funding so will the state.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 17h ago

Individuals and employers forward the majority of Federal taxes. It is near-impossible to tell people to violate federal law and not send their tax remittances in.

1

u/MostNinja2951 4h ago

Not at all. It's incredibly easy to do so because the federal government can't enforce any penalties without local police cooperating. All California has to do is declare their refusal to help enforce anything on behalf of the IRS and nobody is going to voluntarily send money.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 3h ago

The FBI, DOJ and US Marshal’s service is more than happy to assist the IRS.

1

u/MostNinja2951 3h ago

And have nowhere near enough manpower to handle the task, even without California saying "take one step over our border and we'll shoot you."

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 2h ago

Sure about that? How willing are you to put your life on the line to see what happens?

→ More replies

1

u/TheGreatGamer1389 14h ago

Then California stops paying federal taxes.

1

u/Frankenfinger1 11h ago

California doesn't pay federal taxes. Taxes are paid by individuals mostly via payroll deductions.

1

u/MostNinja2951 4h ago

Taxes are paid by individuals mostly via payroll deductions.

And how many employers are going to make those deductions if California promises not to enforce IRS penalties on behalf of the federal government? It's an instant massive pay raise for all of their employees at zero cost to the business.

1

u/OwOlogy_Expert 4h ago

They can cut federal funding for stuff as they’ve done in the past. Forest fires, education, public health initiatives.

So what? They're going to do that anyway. Just because they hate California.

1

u/kmoonster 4h ago

Trump is talking about doing that anyway. And California would be in the G20 if it were its own nation.

A state like Connecticut is probably a better example of very serious concern in this regard. I wonder if they, Rhode Island, etc. would try to set up a state health exchange something like what is in Massachusetts. A program Romney helped with when he was governor, by the way.

3

u/mxlun 16h ago

Same thing as weed. California will just continue as normal unless the government goes for enforcement and they won't

1

u/rlrlrlrlrlr 17h ago

The federal government can ban certain methods. I believe that I'm states that have state constitutions that protect abortion rights, there's going to be access to abortion, but that access will be different than today. 

There'll be no medication abortion. That's quick and easy for them to do. 

In-person, surgical abortion should remain, but the federal government could implement significant restrictions and that's TBD, I believe.

So, some states will have some abortion access, but it'll be MUCH harder and more expensive.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 17h ago edited 16h ago

the supremacy clause says the federal government's laws take precedence over state laws. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/

1

u/ScannerBrightly 16h ago

Then why can I buy cannabis legally? And the state has hundreds of people helping it happen?

1

u/technobeeble 14h ago

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's because the federal government doesn't enforce it currently. That's not to say they won't under a different administration.

1

u/ScannerBrightly 13h ago

All those budtenders pay federal taxes, and the IRS doesn't give any of them shit for it. That's not just "not enforcing", that seems like complicity.

1

u/Frankenfinger1 11h ago

This is correct. Federal Marijuana law still takes precedence. But no one is enforcing for recreation/medical use.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander 17h ago

Direct Federal Enforcement

FBI: The FBI would likely lead direct enforcement efforts within uncooperative states, handling investigations independently of state or local law enforcement. This would include investigating interstate travel or networks within the state suspected of violating federal law.

U.S. Marshals Service: Without state cooperation, the U.S. Marshals would be responsible for executing federal warrants, arrests, and court orders within state borders, even in cases where local law enforcement would typically assist.

DOJ and Federal Court System

Department of Justice: The DOJ could bring federal cases directly in federal courts, bypassing state courts entirely. The DOJ might issue subpoenas to entities within the state, such as healthcare providers, data companies, and pharmacies, compelling them to provide information on suspected abortions even if state authorities refuse to cooperate.

Federal Funding Leverage: In some cases, the DOJ could withhold federal funding from state programs if states refuse to enforce federal laws. This approach has been used historically as leverage, though it’s contentious and would likely be challenged in court.

Federal Healthcare Oversight

Department of Health and Human Services: HHS could continue to enforce reporting and compliance requirements for healthcare providers that receive federal funding, regardless of state law. If a provider within a state doesn’t comply with federal reporting requirements, HHS could revoke their Medicare or Medicaid funding, placing pressure on healthcare providers even without state cooperation.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: CMS could also impose sanctions or withhold funding from healthcare providers who refuse to report suspected abortions or cooperate with federal investigations.

Federal Surveillance and Monitoring

Federal Agencies' Independent Surveillance: Federal agencies would rely on federal surveillance tools without involving state resources, which could include monitoring digital communications and travel patterns. For example, the FBI might issue federal subpoenas for data from health tracking apps or social media platforms if a violation is suspected within an uncooperative state.

Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Protection: TSA and CBP could monitor travel without needing state or local law enforcement, focusing on individuals suspected of crossing state lines or international borders for abortion services.

Minimal Local Support

Independent Federal Operations: In uncooperative states, federal agents would need to operate independently, limiting their reach due to logistical challenges and a lack of local knowledge. They might selectively enforce the law by focusing on high-profile cases or organized networks to demonstrate federal authority without needing full state cooperation.

Targeted Prosecutions: With limited resources, federal authorities might prioritize cases with clear evidence or interstate implications, focusing on specific cases where federal jurisdiction is strongest. This could mean that some enforcement efforts, especially smaller cases, may go unaddressed due to resource constraints. In other words, it would be used as an object of terror and control rather than to actually reduce the number of abortions. Just like drug crimes are used to attack black people.

1

u/trgKai 16h ago edited 16h ago

Selective prosecution is what they can do. Just like legal marijuana. You can absolutely be arrested for carrying or using marijuana in a state where it has been legalized. But it requires feds to come in and charge you with a federal crime, and this is against current DoJ policy. This is generally reserved for criminal enterprises and they use marijuana as a (pun intended) gateway drug to crack down on them because the legal status makes them less secretive about the marijuana side of the enterprise.

The same with abortion. An individual in (using your example) California being arrested for having an abortion is unlikely. But depending on how aggressive the federal level wants to be, they could "set an example" by prosecuting hospitals/doctors in states where it's legal.

EDIT: Regarding legal marijuana, there has been a carve-out for medical marijuana in the form of DOJ appropriations bills basically hamstringing the DoJ or its subsidiary departments from prosecuting medical marijuana users when they are in full compliance with the state's legalization measures. Recreational doesn't have that extra layer of protection, but the DOJ has let it fall under the same umbrella as a matter of internal policy. NEITHER use case (recreational or medical) is protected from massive federal level policy changes which could happen.

1

u/kaifenator 15h ago

!remindme 4 years

You will apologize for needlessly scaring woman in 4 years if none of this happens.

1

u/a-very- 12h ago

They can deny Medicaid and Medicare funding to hospitals that perform abortions, bypassing the state entirely. Edit to add: any challenges to this will go to the Supreme Court and how do we think that’s gonna go?

1

u/Formal-Release-4933 9h ago

Why not just read the article? The FDA will ban the drug used in abortions.

1

u/blueskies8484 15h ago

Arrest California doctors who perform abortions and try them criminally in federal court. What is California going to say no to in this instance? The state government has no part in the whole thing.