Its not immediately obvious to me why this would not fall afoul of regulating interstate commerce being left to the federal government.
Abortions (like all healthcare) are indisputably a commercial activity. And if somebody is traveling across state lines to do it, then it is obviously interstate commercial activity.
States are not allowed to regulate interstate commercial activity. (This is the so called "Dormant Commerce Clause").
Like a Texas law passed last year, the bill puts enforcement in the hands of residents, who could file lawsuits against those they believe have violated it.
It gets around the state regulating interstate commerce by having residents—not the state itself—enforce it, which is what Texas has been doing for 10 months now.
>Like a Texas law passed last year, the bill puts enforcement in the hands of residents, who could file lawsuits against those they believe have violated it.
So, even if they win the lawsuit, how will collection be enforced? Will individuals have the right to levy income or place liens against property?
Right, but which employee of the court actually goes after collection? (That's why I asked about levies and liens). It's not a fine payable to the state, but rather to the plaintiff. Just because someone gets a bill doesn't mean they will pay it. The IRS goes after tax delinquents, but they are not a court. The county tax assessor goes after delinquent property tax, but they are not a court.
Abortions (like all healthcare) are indisputably a commercial activity. And if somebody is traveling across state lines to do it, then it is obviously interstate commercial activity.
States are not allowed to regulate interstate commercial activity. (This is the so called "Dormant Commerce Clause").