The Supreme’s ruling is NOT gonna stop women from getting the procedure….
One will wait for the states to try go after these companies?
Below a Op-Ed that questions if companies will be able to this….
With Roe v. Wade no longer the law of the land, women seeking abortions will soon start traveling. Could a state punish an employer for covering their costs? The issue is likely to arise: A number of major corporations have come forward with offers to pay the expenses of employees who leave the state to end their pregnancies, and some state legislators are threatening to punish them.
In a recent column, I explained why I’m skeptical about both the wisdom and constitutionality of state laws that would criminalize obtaining an abortion outside the state. (Based on his separate concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agrees.) But if the travel is paid for by an in-state actor — such as an employer — the case might come out differently….
If a state can forbid abortions, it can probably forbid significant acts facilitating abortions, just as it can with any other crime. True, as I noted in my previous column, the Supreme Court has been uneasy at the idea of allowing a state to punish a corporation for an act the corporation does elsewhere. Here, however, the act — paying the employee’s expenses, thus facilitating the abortion — would be done, or at least arranged, within the state. Thus the state might well have jurisdiction.
I’m not predicting that the courts would necessarily uphold a law forbidding corporations doing business within its borders to reimburse travel expenses of employees who obtain abortions elsewhere. But one shouldn’t regard the possibility as farfetched.
That’s not to suggest that such a law would be wise. Even the most ardently anti-abortion legislator might think twice about laws that could encourage employers to leave the state. Moreover, even if the legislature welcomes the chance to tangle with Starbucks or Amazon, practical problems of enforcement abound….