Two young women are driving toward the Alabama border. The driver is seeking an abortion, which is illegal in Alabama. My friend in the passenger seat reassures me that I won’t get caught because I’ll be leaving the state soon. But less than a mile from the border, blue lights flash and law enforcement officers approach the car with pregnancy tests.
This is not a real story. It’s the fever dream of an ad campaign California Gov. Gavin Newson launched this week in Alabama. In an alarming example of state political interference, Mr. Newsom has launched similar campaigns in Arizona and Tennessee, where state legislatures have passed bills that would penalize women who help women travel out of state to obtain abortions. While deliberating, he specifically targeted the state of Alabama. Mr. Newsom may be playing the long game for the Oval Office, and this move would certainly suggest that, but his state also has a high demand for abortion tourists, especially from neighboring Arizona. They also stand to benefit from the This raises the question of whether there are limits to the governor of one state’s ability to influence the politics of another state.
It’s hard not to see a bigger picture being formed here. Leaving abortion decisions up to the state is sounding increasingly impossible. Just this week, the Biden administration announced new rules expanding the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to hide abortion medical records from law enforcement investigations. This is not only a strategic move for Biden’s re-election campaign, but it will also inevitably hinder pro-life victories at the state level. As the politics of abortion become increasingly contentious and January seems like a long time before any substantive action is taken, the political left is seizing power everywhere to bring this debate to the national stage. and is convinced that abortion is pro-abortion. Death’s Strongarm will win.
Expanding HIPAA means that women who obtain abortions in states where abortion is illegal are effectively exempt from those states’ efforts to enforce their own laws. Since the creation of HIPAA, personal health information has been protected under most circumstances, but has always been available to law enforcement in special cases, such as criminal investigations. Currently, an administrative declaration exempts women from disclosing information about abortion even in criminal cases, making it virtually impossible to prove that an illegal abortion occurred. Of course, national rules take precedence over local laws, meaning states that ban abortion are powerless to counter the Biden administration’s new rules. The only recourse is through the presidency or federal law.
This is one reason why national laws are inevitable. The left has already begun a national movement. Therefore, the question is not whether abortion should be regulated nationally, but who should regulate it. Will the righteous answer these movements? So far, Republican leaders have preferred to stay out of the competitive arena, fearing President Trump will hurt the party’s chances in November and insisting that abortion should be left to each state to decide. is. And, fair enough, most polls on abortion regulation don’t favor Republicans. The left, on the other hand, is not afraid to make national abortion laws a major goal. Some have gone so far as to say that “candidates who do not explicitly commit to protecting abortion rights at the federal level through aggressive legislation are not considering the ‘will of the people.'”
Subscribe now to receive daily emails in your inbox
However, the story doesn’t have to end there. Forty Days for Life’s Sean Carney recently compared the pro-life movement to the gay rights movement, which has seen a dizzying rise in the last decade from sleazy fringe to corporate-backed dominance. The pendulum was forced to swing. Even after the referendum, supporters of same-sex marriage did not disappear. They went penniless. On June 26, 2015, just three years after winning the first referendum, the Supreme Court – incorrectly in my opinion – redefined marriage for Mr. Obergefell and all 50 states. Then they won a complete victory. ” In other words, even if the fight seems to be an uphill battle, you don’t necessarily have to lose and it doesn’t prevent you from fighting back even harder. Needless to say, this is not how the Republican Party traditionally operates, but it is painfully clear that today’s Republican results are further from the mark than ever before.
Abortion tourism appears to be trying to force the issue before Republicans are ready to answer. This practice raises many questions regarding national sovereignty that require higher authorities to resolve. Does the state have the right to prohibit the eviction of residents? Is it permissible for other countries to intervene? Typically, doctors must obtain additional licenses to work in another state, but California already offers reciprocity to Arizona obstetricians and gynecologists who travel to the Golden State to perform abortions. The country has begun efforts to encourage the exodus of doctors from the desert. Can Arizona protect itself from such predatory actions by neighboring states, or can the federal government protect Arizona? These are questions for constitutional scholars, but they are being answered in real time by real political actors who care little about parchment walls.
The New Right has made waves by arguing that state institutions can and should be used for the common good. Here we address issues where such privileges can be used without shame.
