The Right to Choose

Is it wrong for governors to penalize corporations for their political choices?

By
301
California Gov. Gavin Newsom. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Have you heard about the obnoxious governor who keeps waging culture war against local businesses in hopes of building a national constituency that might elect him president someday?

No, not that one. The other one.

Until this week I hadn’t paid attention to Walgreens’ futile attempt to elegantly navigate America’s byzantine post-Roe legal regime on abortion but was finally awakened to it by—what else?—a Twitter beef. On Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on the platform that America’s largest state will no longer do business with its second-largest pharmacy chain.

Start a Free Trial
Get unlimited access to our 10 daily and weekly newsletters, Dispatch Live broadcasts, article comments and community events. Get Started ALREADY A PAID SUBSCRIBER? SIGN IN
301
By
Comments (301)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Eh - I’m no fan of what DeSantis is doing regarding Disney, but the Newsom move bothers me more. Walgreens essentially has no good options (from a business standpoint) and he has just forced the issue upon them so that they have to make an unenviable choice. It’s egregious that he would use state economic power to attempt to dictate what corporations do in other states (ie outside his jurisdiction). And I would think that even if we weren’t talking about murder-by-mail. Red states should treat attempts to bring abortifacients from Mexico as legally the same as attempts to smuggle weapons and drugs from Mexico.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    Can we agree that both Newsom and DeSantis are wrong, without debating who is worse?

    Collapse
    1. David Agarth

      They are both wrong. One point I didn’t see covered in the Disantis/Florida case is the misrepresentation Disney fostered concerning the nature and scope of the bill they opposed. Disney joined a lie. Walgreens did not. In my opinion, that’s a big analytical miss. I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with The Dispatch.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Rlritt

    If you can't tell a woman is pregnant, it's none of your business.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      I'd argue, even if you CAN tell a woman is pregnant it's none of your business.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rlritt

        I agree. But one of the posters believes that by giving up his seat on a bus to pregnant woman would be considered not minding his own business. I would agree only if he first asked her if she were married.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Gbr0wn

    "“woke corporations aren’t going to criticize my policies and get away with it.”
    More like, “woke corporations aren’t going to LIE OUTRAGEOUSLY in order to criticize my policies and get away with it.”

    Collapse
  5. Georges

    Wow. A lot of heat in this discussion.
    I’ll leave the DeSantis/Disney affair off the table for now and focus on Newsom/Walgreens.

    Newsom is punishing Walgreens for trying to stay within the law in other states.
    Period.
    Let’s turn the tables: CA has banned magazines for firearms exceeding 10 rounds capacity (currently under court challenge but let’s set that aside).
    Higher capacity magazines are legal in many other states. Would we in CA like entities in the other states to ship higher capacity magazines here for sale? Would we like those states to penalize businesses that attempt to follow the law in CA?
    Ditto for the occasional “fruit wars” we have with other states where we claim the right to prohibit import of products believed to suffer from insect infestation or plant disease.
    Ditto for our laws that result in some plumbing fixtures being illegal in CA.
    Ditto for some automotive parts that are illegal here.
    It is a long list …

    I don’t know how the courts will come down on use of the US Mail but suggest if respect for other states’ laws is to have any meaning at all the USPS can’t knowingly participate in violating same. There is, of course, always a way around such restrictions. If those extra steps annoy you try some persuasion on the voters in other states: we live in a democratic society.

    CA - and I say this as a resident - seems to have acquired the notion they can dictate to other states. I think that is a bad idea even should it produce desirable results in one way or another.
    It’s not difficult to understand why other states might want the freedom to do things their own way.

    I’ll add to the libs whose hair is on fire that - if history is any guide - you will not always be in power, not even in CA. When that day comes you should be grateful for the protections we have against tyrannies of the majority. But then, if history is any guide you probably will not.

    Collapse
  6. Kelly Windsor

    Apparently I cannot respond to Dusty in the thread…..
    annoying

    “I don’t think late-term abortion should be sanctioned for these reasons, but wouldn’t it be amazing if we addressed those reasons rather than criminalizing the confusion, youth, lack of guidance, insight or support?”

    I’m out of room below, but I’ll take this and highlight what is a point of agreement among us.

    My point was that claims of late term abortions being only in tragic, life-threatening situations is a false one. If you’re willing to admit that such abortions do happen and that you’re against them happening, then I can agree that the root causes should be addressed and that the pro-life movement can do a better job in addressing them.“

    There seems to be a lot of confusion here. I never stated, or purported to believe, that late term abortions only happen in tragic, life-threatening situations…
    I know they happen (rarely as a percentage of all abortions), and this is the reason myself, and every other pro choice person I have ever spoken to or heard of, DOESN’T support “no limits” abortion.

    Collapse
  7. Helen

    I personally will not vote for anyone who participates in this ridiculous culture war grandstanding, regardless of what side of the aisle they are from. Enough is enough!

    Collapse
    1. Tigersrock

      Well the way things are going you may not be able to cast a vote for anyone. Sigh

      Collapse
      1. Richard Kennedy

        And this is a problem because..? Such has been my life in the last two presidential elections, considering that the three worst candidates in my lifetime ran in those elections.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kenny.Peter

    Your title, "the right to choose": makes me think of the "right" to choose abortion, at any stage of a pregnancy. And that course is what the controversy is all about.

    Is it worthwhile-- is it even possible-- to try discussing that in a serious way?

    Collapse
  9. Emma

    "Let the states decide this issue" they said. "Each state knows what's best" they said.

    Nope. This has turned into a pissing contest between (mostly male) governors. Shocker.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rlritt

      I know really. The fact is most women I know support the quick and early termination of an unwanted pregnancy. Even most Republican woman. My best friend was a staunch Republican and would never vote for a Democrat. She had two abortions because she absolutely did not want children at those times. So it's not as much a Democrat and Republican issue as a male/female or religious /non religious issue.

      Collapse
  10. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

Load More
Worth Your Time

Operation Chaos 2.0

The Sweep: What We Can Learn From Candidate Questionnaires

Fact Check: Did Donald Trump and the January 6 Prison Choir Top the Billboard Hot 100? 

Cracking the Big Egg Conspiracy

Avatar photo

About Nick Catoggio

Nick Catoggio is a staff writer for The Dispatch and writes the newsletter Boiling Frogs. He previously blogged as Allahpundit for Hot Air. ⁣  ⁣  Subscribe to Boiling Frogs here »
More from Nick Catoggio