Yeah, you can't make postfacto laws.

Sure, the government might make it illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood in the future but per the constitution they can't make prior donations illegal.

The sentencing guidelines (which direct the sentence a judge will give you) get changed ex post facto all the f'ing time. So yes, you can be given an ex-post facto sentence, it's just that it's been 'lawyered' to be constitutional (we didn't change the criminal law, just the sentencing guideline that dictated the sentence you were given for commiting the crime) even though the rule is 'Every law that makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or that inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution'.

The sentencing range wasn't changed, just the sentence the judge was required to give, but the range isn't a rule so it's ok. And if the judge sentences outside the guideline the prosecutor can challenge for 'sentence outside guideline range'. The constitution has been lawyered into oblivion.

Unless you find that abortion was never legal because the state statute on "murder" is vague. For instance, if the court re-interprets a murder statute then I believe that would apply to prior cases and then prior donations to any establishment assisting in abortion could be pursued as conspiracy.

There's a lot of room to re-interpret laws that were already on the books in ways that make prior "crimes" illegal today when they wouldn't have been interpreted that way when they happened.

There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal.

That's not how our constitution works. Roe v Wade is binding for any actions a person carries out before it got overturned in Dobbs.

Even if a court ruling or legal interpretation gets overturned later, that doesn't allow you to prosecute people who were relying on that legal interpretation.

Judges aren't mindless machines and they realize the importance of avoiding postfacto prosecutions.

You have more faith in judges than I do. I've seen judges act as mindless machines.

and below still stands:

>There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal.

If the powers that be want to punish those who contribute to abortion, they will find a way to do it, even ex-post-facto.

> If the powers that be want to punish those who contribute to abortion, they will find a way to do it, even ex-post-facto

In that case there is no room for crypto. Totalitarian regimes can execute anyone suspected of holding it.

You're right, I should have said if the powers that be want to punish those who they find out contributed to abortion. I thought that was obvious, but leave it to HN for me to actually have to explain if privacy and crypto prevents a regime from finding out someone has it, then they won't be able to punish them for it (although of course they could always punish for the mere possibility, just as a totalitarian regime could execute their whole populace).

You sound like a white person from a middle class or better upbringing.

So do you.

Does that somehow invalidate your point?

a) Interesting choice of words b) Donating to PP is aiding murder (née abortions), it's a small step to abetment.

Personhood is a prerequisite to murder. No jurisdiction has granted this to the unborn, but it's an interesting thought experiment if some chose to: thinking up "unforeseen" second- and third-order effects is a fun exercise (life insurance, HOV lanes, tax deductions, censuses & electoral maps, broken websites which assume all persons have names, birthdates in the future, null birthdays on death certificates)

It's hysterical in both senses of the word.

Various states already prohibit using public money to fund abortions, a prohibition on private funds for an act they consider extremely illegal and equivalent to murder is not a stretch.

"12 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that provides abortions."

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family...

And you believe it will be legal for them to arrest you for donations you made before those laws were in place?

That's assuming you're correct they would try to ban private funds. A big assumption.

IANAL.

No, ex post facto laws aren't legal.

If the state law says so, yes, you could get an out-of-state charge for providing financial aid to an abortion operation after contributing to an organization that funds them. With Roe v Wade gone, I am not sure there is a federal precedent for how to handle crimes relating to committing a murder in one state that is not considered a murder in another state.

If planned parenthood isn't performing any abortions in a state where it is illegal, how could funding them ever be made illegal? None of this makes sense.

People from illegal states already cross state lines to get abortions and then return to their home states. While it's not presently illegal, without Roe v Wade, I think that may quickly change.

> No state has yet enacted a law to ban this travel. But it has been attempted: In Missouri, a bill is pending that would enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits if the abortion is administered outside the state.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish...

> enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits

I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS kills off these attempts to use civil litigation to end-run the Constitution. The Texas law matched the court's ideology, so they let it stand, but now that Roe is overturned I expect the court to dispense with the law before places like California can use it to render the 2A moot.

If they let this continue, the court will become irrelevant in a hurry. They may have granted themselves sweeping authority a long while back, but that can be changed easily via legislation.

You can prohibit public money for any reason - and we do all the time, eg forcing the state to buy only US made cars.

You can't prohibit private money use in a situation like this - especially not for a political funding thing. That is actually a freedom of speech issue.