The law can be a funny thing when it comes to crossing state lines. It used to be that if one state allowed some action or deed while another state prohibitied it, the legality and protections of the law would be based on the particular state where it occurred. However, in this day and age it is possible for someone to do something that is legal in the state wherein they said legal thing, but involve someone in another state where it is illegal. Excluding questions of Federal jurisdiction, be it law or courts, would the state where the alleged perpetrator acted not only in a legal manner but in a protected manner allow for said person to be extradited to the state where it was illegal?
This is a general and broad question that law students might be asked to ponder, but it does impact actual actions by people who are accused of committing a crime in a state that they’ve never potentially even been in—a crime that is not a crime is the state wherein they reside.
For example, a New York physician was fined in Texas and charged in Louisiana over prescribing abortion pills for women outside of New York. The Governor of New York told ‘em to go pound sand. Now in this case one can easily take a side based on their view of abortion. But the logic and precedent would apply both ways. In many states “conversion therapy” is banned in some states to the degree where it is pretty much illegal to suggest that a “transgender” patient is the biological sex they actually are. Would in such cases of “conversion therapy”, a state be able to extradite a therapist who lives in a state where such topics are legal, if not explicitly protected?
If there is a difference between the two, what is the generic rule or means of determining whether an alleged perpetrator is extradited or instead protected? Is it just just a belief or preference, and if so, what is to invalidate others who would impose their instead over yours?
Nevada is such a state where the actions of pediatricians, as it pertains trans-gender “treatment”. A proposed law would prohibit the extradition of pediatricians who are legally protected in Nevada for “transitioning” kids. It is easy to say that of course the Governor should be able to extradite such people for breaking the laws of other states. But wouldn’t is similarly be OK for the current Democratic Attorney General of the Nevada to extradite a practitioner of “conversion therapy”, which is illegal in Nevada? Should a Governor be allowed to punish someone that they can no punish themselves by outsourcing that punishment to another state?
What, exactly, is the precedent that should be set that you would be willing to live under when your ideological enemies are exercising their judgement with the power of law as you would do here?
