Assemblyman Charles Lavine, D-Glens Cove, debates extradition rules for abortion-related investigations during floor debate Monday.

Debate between Assemblymen Andrew Goodell and Charles Lavine over changing New York’s extradition rules for abortion-related requests turned testy Monday.

The chapter amendment (A.1005) Goodell, R-Jamestown, and Lavine, D-Glens Cove, were debating deals with legislation passed in 2022 making it illegal for New York law enforcement agencies to arrest anyone for performing an abortion or helping a patient obtain an abortion and protecting people in New York from extradition if they are being charged in another state for their part in an abortion in New York state.

Lavine sponsored the chapter amendment to create additional exceptions in New York law that a demand for extradition for a person wanted in another state based on the provision of an abortion lawfully performed in New York won’t be met unless the person was in the other state when the alleged crime was committed.

Lavine also proposed broader language prohibiting police to arrest those performing or aiding in abortions performed under New York law if charges are filed in another state as well as broader language for cooperation with out-of-state investigations.

The chapter amendment passed the Assembly 94-44 with Goodell and Assemblyman Joe Giglio, R-Gowanda, voting against. A companion amendment (S.1351) passed the state Senate on Jan. 30 by a 43-20 vote with Sen. George Borrello, R-Sunset Bay, voting against.

TESTY DEBATE

Goodell and Lavine had a lengthy — and at times pointed — debate over U.S. Constitution requirements for extradition, with Lavine arguing the U.S. Constitution also at one point included rules governing the extradition of fugitive slaves.

“That’s a little different proposition from what you just referred to. If someone has fled from a state, that is another story. That’s what the U.S. Constitution requires each state to do to honor extradition requests from other states. This does not apply,” Lavine said as Goodell began asking a related question. “May I finish answering the question, Andy. This is of tremendous significance. If it’s a request to extradite someone who has fled pursuant to the Constitutional requirement of another state we will honor that request. This particular provision of the law says anyone acting legally within the state of New York is not going to be surrendered to an unfree state that punishes women and others who have assisted them from receiving abortions, necessary medical care.”

The extradition debate didn’t get much further before Lavine lambasted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“So you and I are on the same page, and I think we are, if someone in New York state violates New York’s law and flees to another state, the other state has a constititional obligation to respect our request for extradition with certain conditions on due process,” Goodell asked.

“Generally speaking you are correct,” Lavine responded.

“And likewise if someone violates a foreign state’s laws while in the foreign land and they flee to New York we likewise have the same obligation to honor an extradition request subject to those due process criteria, correct?” Goodell asked.

“That’s Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2,” Lavine said. “That’s been the law for generations and generations. Just as the right to an abortion was a right for generations and generations and generations and every American ought to be outraged at what Alito and his confederates on the Supreme Court did.”

“You mean they should be outraged because they gave that decision to people like you and I who are elected,” Goodell said before Lavine interrupted.

“They robbed Americans of a constitutional right,” Lavine said.

At that point Jeffrion Aubry, acting speaker, asked Goodell and Lavine to keep their questions on the bill as well as to follow the recognized Assembly rules regarding debate.

“This portion of our discourse — ask a question, answer a question,” Aubrey said. “So we’re going to go to a question now, and when a question is asked would you pause and allow the gentleman to answer that question. And if he will again go back to the time honored tradition you will ask him to yield for the next question. That keeps us in a more appropriate pattern of order.”

EFFECT ON MEDICATION ASSISTED ABORTION PRESCRIBED VIA TELEMEDICINE

Debate then continued over how the chapter amendment would impact the use of telemedicine in abortions, particularly in the use of over-the-counter prescriptions written in New York and sent to states where abortions are illegal. Lavine said the situation is not dealt with by the provisions in the chapter amendment.

“I’d be very happy to debate that with you if and when we would do a bill on telemedicine,” Lavine said. “That has nothing to do with this. This provision has to do with maintaining New York’s status as a free state, a state that protects a woman’s right. Now that was a fundamental national right up until several months ago. We’re parsing Alito’s decision in such a way as to say that this is a good thing for the women of America because now their local elected state representatives can determine their right? To me, Andy, I don’t know.”

Goodell disagreed with the chapter amendment’s effect on telemedicine prescriptions for medically assisted abortion for women living in states that have banned or limited abortions.

“If you’re seeking extradition of a person that violated your laws we’ll honor it as long as you say that violation occurred while you were in the other state,” Goodell said. “I get that. I support that. I applaud my colleague for that language. But then we go on to say we won’t cooperate in any investigation, including an investigation over whether New York physicians using telehealth or any other means, was practicing medicine in a foreign state in violation of their laws. Now imagine how outraged we would be here in New York state if we found out there were physicians in our neighboring states that were practicing medicine here in New York state without a New York state license using telehealth. We would be outraged, wouldn’t we? Yet this bill purports to authorize that type of behavior when it comes to terminating the life of a fetus. This debate’s not over whether you’re pro choice or pro life. This debate is about pro respect for other state legislators. Last year we had 49 no votes. The amendment doesn’t make it better. It simply makes it worse.”