Donations Make us online
from the governors-shouldn’t-punish-companies-for-speech dept
There has been some back and forth over the past week regarding Walgreens and how it’s handling the distribution and dispensing of the pharmaceutical Mifepristone, which is prescribed by doctors for early term abortions. In February, a bunch of anti-abortion Attorneys General sent Walgreens a letter threatening the company if it chose to make the drug available. In response, Walgreens sent a short reply letter saying that it wasn’t planning on dispending Mifepristone in any state where it was illegal.
But, there were some confusing statements, including implying that it also would not distribute the pills in states where it was legal but where the state Attorney General objected to the distribution (which would be the case in states like Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana).
This resulted in further blowups of people on both sides, and Walgreens keeps changing its story trying to keep both sides of the debate from getting too angry.
Jumping into all of this was California governor, Gavin Newsom, who announced that the state would end a $54 million contract with Walgreens over its decisions. He was fairly explicit that his decision here was because of Walgreen’s unwillingness to speak up:
Newsom said he was nixing the contract in part because Walgreens could not provide clear answers about its policy.
“They were unwilling or incapable of doing anything more than repeating a statement that only reinforces the ambiguity,” Newsom said. “That made me conclude they’re not serious about this, and we are.”
Personally, I think Walgreens is making a mistake in how it’s handling this, but I think none of the politicians look good here. I tend to believe that medical decisions should not be political at all, and such decisions should be left up to the patient and doctor and no one else. And, as nice as it would be for Walgreens to stand on principle and defy the law, that’s unlikely to happen. The decision to avoid states where the drug is legal, but disfavored by the AG is, just generally, a bad decision, but the kind of thing companies like Walgreens are likely to do to avoid the risk and liability associated with having a state AG going after you.
And, yes, the AGs own actions here are shameful, but this is state AGs, it’s kinda what they do across the political spectrum.
And that brings us to Newsom’s actions. I get that people who are pro-choice are cheering it on, and I understand why. But, it strikes me as pretty similar to Florida governor Ron DeSantis deliberately punishing Disney for coming out against one of his bills.
In both cases, it appears to be governors taking actions against companies for their speech. And, as we keep having to say, it’s wrong for elected officials to punish companies for speech no matter who is doing or what the speech is.
So, even if you are mad at Walgreens for its policy — hell, even if you personally support a boycott of Walgreens — you should still be concerned that politicians are looking to use state power to punish companies that get caught up in these ridiculous battles. Because, of course, it’s not going to stop here. Newsom may be supporting a position you agree with, or DeSantis may be supporting a position you agree with. But the next governor to do this may not be.
I get that everything is now politicized. And I don’t mind the idea that companies these days may often need to be more transparent about where they stand on political issues, no matter how ridiculous. But, cheering on one governor for punishing a company for staking out the “wrong” position seems dangerous. It’s endorsing this kind of activity from others, who will use it against companies you do support.
The 1st Amendment is there for a reason. Individuals, and other companies, have every right to make their own voices heard, and to boycott companies like Walgreens (or Disney) should they so choose. But the 1st Amendment is there to prevent state actors from doing so in their official capacity.
And yet, here we are, with Newsom appearing to do exactly that. Indeed, in some ways, Newsom’s action here is more extreme than DeSantis’, in that DeSantis at least worked with the Florida legislature to get a bill to punish Disney for its speech (which still should be unconstitutional). Newsom, on the other hand, did this unilaterally.
I get that many people won’t agree with me, mainly because they disagree with Walgreens position and support Newsom, but that’s kinda the point I’m trying to raise. This shouldn’t be about who you support and which “side” you’re on, but the general principle, as laid out in the 1st Amendment, that the government shall not engage in punishing anyone for their speech.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, abortion, california, debates, florida, free speech, gavin newsom, mifepristone, punishment, ron desantis
Companies: disney, walgreens
Source link
