Your last paragraph is true, but the former are not. States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel, and they must uniformly apply the law. And they cannot punish you for a thought-crime, meaning they cannot arrest you under the supposition that your travel is arranged with intent to get an abortion outside their jurisdiction.
> Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place?
The Constitution is exactly what gives Texas the power to regulate abortion. It does so by not explicitly enumerating that power the the federal government.
> States are not allowed to restrict interstate travel,
States can restrict interstate travel for...well, lots of reasons, and preventing what state law defines as murder is certainly one of them, but there are limits on the burdens they can impose on travel.
> And they cannot punish you for a thought-crime, meaning they cannot arrest you under the supposition that your travel is arranged with intent to get an abortion outside their jurisdiction.
States absolutely can punish for the combination of intent and action.
They can also punish under their laws a crime whose culmination happens outside of their borders when some part of it occurred within their borders.
If a state can define a fetus as a person who can be murdered, they can absolutely make it illegal for someone to transport that person to any place (inside or outside the state) for the purpose of killing them.
> The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state.
Furthermore, of the abortion is performed in the destination state, the citizen would be covered by the privileges and immunities of that state, and the former would have no recourse.
> States would have to prove intention, which would be very difficult.
Its not all that difficult, there are plenty of specific intent crimes and states prove intention all the time.
> States cannot restrict interstate travel as mentioned in the Articles of Confederation.
Your link supports the existence of the right to travel, but that’s not in dispute; the right to travel is not an absolute; like other fundamental rights, the test applied in the strict scrutiny test, such that state actions impinging on it must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
> Texas can do whatever the US Supreme Court allows them to do, and if you think well-established Constitutional precedent is a firm guide on that...how do you think they have the ability to ban abortion in Texas in the first place?
The Constitution is exactly what gives Texas the power to regulate abortion. It does so by not explicitly enumerating that power the the federal government.