“An Attack on One is an Attack on All’: Time for a Red-State NATO-like Alliance on Boycotts

Below is my column on recent effort to boycott states over their abortion laws, a growing push for states to punish other states with measures like travel bans. While boycotts are an important expression of free speech by citizens, it raises more difficult questions when done by states seeking to coerce other states. It can create a morass of boycotts and tit-for-tat measures. This column suggests a way to end the practice through a simple deterrent measure based on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It would be to the benefit of all states (and our federalism system as a whole) to remove state-to-state boycotts from the political arena.

Here is the column:

“An attack on one is an attack on all.” That reference to Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a virtual mantra in Washington these days as “the bedrock of peace and security in Europe for over half a century.” But the benefits of such deterrence should not be lost on another group under increasing threat for their political alliances: America’s red states.

From California to Illinois, legislators are moving to boycott any state contracts with businesses in states with anti-LGBTQ legislation or restrictive abortion laws. At the same time, many Democratic leaders are pressuring companies to boycott red states too.

This past week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called upon Hollywood production companies to stop filming in states such as Georgia or Oklahoma with strict anti-abortion laws. In Georgia, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has warned that companies will cut off ties with such states, including her own, if they do not change their laws. (Abrams previously was criticized by conservatives for fueling the boycott of her own state which led to the withdrawal of the All-Star Game from Atlanta over election reform laws.)

Such campaigns have succeeded, particularly with private companies. Indeed, in both restricting speech and boycotting states, the left has found greater success with private companies than with voters in pushing their agenda. The New York Times warned pro-life states that they risk their “competitive edge” in the market if they do not change their laws to conform with blue-state views.

The boycott threats have been growing since 2016, when North Carolina was targeted for passing a bill limiting bathroom access by biological gender.

The point of these campaigns is to pressure state officials to ignore the will of a majority of their citizens and pass laws to appeal to corporations and other states in a competitive market. Such boycotts by private citizens or groups are an important form of political speech; various state laws barring state contracts with those who support boycotts of Israel, for example, have been struck down as unconstitutional, although an appellate court recently upheld an Arkansas law.

However, states or companies engaging in such boycotts is a different matter. Many consumers do not want companies like Disney to engage in political debates over issues like transgender rights. One poll showed 67 percent opposed corporate opposition to an “anti-grooming” law, a view that appears to be impacting Disney. Consumers can vote with their pocketbooks in the “go woke, go broke” movement.

For Democratic leaders like California Attorney General Rob Bonta, official boycotts on travel are simply a case of states acting like consumers and “aligning our dollars with our values.” However, it is more than that. It is speaking as a state to isolate and punish states with opposing views on abortion, transgender rights, gun rights and other policies. In a system based on federalism principles, we embraced the model of allowing each state to reach its own conclusions on divisive questions. The result can be consensus around moderate positions that escape both parties, which often are driven by the extremes on issues like abortion.

Take this week’s vote in Kansas, which surprised many by overwhelmingly supporting the preservation of abortion rights. Although many Democrats demand unrestricted abortion rights and many Republicans demand total bans, a Harvard-Harris poll shows 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy or a more restrictive limit. When states try to coerce other states to yield to their demands on such issues, they hinder state experimentation and expression.

The result is increasingly bizarre. California college sports teams are barred from spending money to travel to any state on the liberal “naughty list” — a problem when you are USC and UCLA and just moved from the Pac 12 to the Big Ten. They now face raising private funds to be able to play in blacklisted states.

There is a way to end this madness. It is an Article 5-like alliance.

While this would ideally be an agreement by all states, red states should pass legislation barring state business or travel with any state that engages in boycotts. The key would be that the agreement must stand on principle, allow no exceptions, and trigger immediate reciprocity: A travel ban on, say, Nebraska would result in a reciprocal ban not just from Nebraska but from every state in the alliance.

In this way, when a state like California targets a state like Utah, it will shoot itself with roughly half of the country. Eventually the administrative and competitive costs of such measures would become prohibitive.

California’s enormous economy has given leaders like Gov. Newsom a sense of impunity in targeting other states. There are now 17 states on California’s banned list under a 2016 law that automatically adds states which discriminate against or remove protections for people on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. Imagine if those 17 states had automatic reciprocity laws — add any one of us to a boycott list, and you will be boycotted back by all.

Newsom is running ads in Florida and Texas, telling their residents that “freedom is under attack in your state” — based on a majority of voters there reaching opposing conclusions on controversial issues — and urging Floridians and Texans to move to California. They appear to have two options in Newsom’s mind: Move to California or adopt its positions, so democracy will be safe from itself.

Evan Low, a California lawmaker who authored that state’s ban, put it simply: “The current culture war is not a game.” Indeed — which is why we should look to “the most successful military alliance in history” to end reckless incursions by neighboring states.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

404 thoughts on ““An Attack on One is an Attack on All’: Time for a Red-State NATO-like Alliance on Boycotts”

    1. Apparently related to the classified material that he illegally took there at the end of his presidency, when it should have been turned over to the National Archives.

      1. President Trump failed to use the proper cut outs. Obama just sent all of his papers to his library. where they cant be touched for 5 years, (if Congress hasn’t hidden an extension in the last reconcilliation bill pushing it out 50 years.)

  1. From US Constitution Article I Section 10:

    “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

    So long as the Dems control even one house of Congress, they can block approving this red state alliance. Even if the GOP controls Congress, wouldn’t the President be able to veto any Congressional approval of such an alliance\?

      1. The Constitutional text does not agree with you, viz:

        any agreement or compact with another state,

        “Any agreement” Not any agreement with a foreign power, any agreement. That’s been true since the day the Constitution was ratified. Such compacts are possible—but Congress MUST approve, e.g. the Colorado River Compact, approvaed by Congress at 42 USC6171:


        So long as the Dems control either House of Congress, such a compact will not be approved. It may even be that if there’s a Dem Prez, he could veto such a compact., though I haven’t been able to find an example of this.

        1. They should follow the Democrats lead; enter into an agreement and let the courts sort it out. Then, if/when the courts order a stop to the formal agreement, then they continue with it informally.

          1. So you’ve given up on your earlier position:

            “Article 1 Section 10 regards foreign issues. It is not regarding states forming alliances over domestic issues.”

            Now it’s “let’s be crooks like the Dems.” Start with the obvious problem: the Turley “NATO” idea, affects interstate commerce. That is definitely a Congressional area of responsiaiblity as Article I states. I think Congress would not take kindly to such power grabbing. Nor would any court uphold it, conservative judges, because it violates the compact clause of the Constitution; liberal judges because such an effort would help red states. Finally there’s your grotesque idea of continuing coordinated boycotts ‘informally.’ That’s on a par with your idea of building the top six floors of a ten story building, and THEN building the first four stories.

            1. So you’ve given up on your earlier position:

              Nope. I’m not convinced a defensive agreement between states requires congressional approval. I could argue such a compact preserves interstate commerce.

      1. “California is already doing these things.”

        What did you have in mind, specifically?

  2. Roe vs has not been overturned, but rather six weeks criteria for viability now matches granny in state, if not in process.

    There is no mystery in sex and conception. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities in a wicked solution to a hard problem: keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the bodies of evidence (e.g. rape… rape-rape, pedophilia, grooming) aborted and sequestered at the twilight fringe.

    A woman and man have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice.

    That said, civilized society has compelling cause to discourage human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather special and peculiar interests.

    Roe’s regrets. Ruth’s remorse… Human rites in lieu of human rights.

  3. For years, Democrats lectured us on how illegal immigration was a human right. To oppose illegal immigration, and want all to go through legal channels, was xenophobic and racist. Securing our border with a wall, or anything else, is racist. When illegal immigrants overflow facilities, housing them behind chain link fences was “cages.”

    After 2 million illegal border crossings within a year, TX Gov Abbott began bussing a few thousand to NYC and DC. After receiving that paltry number, they called in the National Guard, and scolded Abbott for having “no plan” for what they were supposed to do with those illegal immigrants, many of whom were members of cartels or mules or traffickers.

    Yes. And? Try dealing with 2 million of them in just a year. Try absorbing all those kids in underfunded rural schools. Try figuring out which kids are there with their Mom, and who’s been sold into sex slavery. Oh, but you can’t separate them to question them because that’s putting kids in cages.

    This hasn’t played well, so Biden is now adding on to Trump’s supposedly “racist” wall.

    Gee. It’s almost like there are valid criticisms and problems with illegal immigration that have nothing to do with racism. It’s almost like ending illegal immigration would protect children from sex traffickers, rape, or being abandoned in the desert. It’s like if you end illegal immigration, there won’t be anymore rape trees flaunting the underwear of the women and girls raped by cartels.

    It’s almost like that.

  4. These boycotts are being mis-used to consolidate federal power over the States – a clear & present danger to our freedom.

  5. FACEBOOK: Your message couldn’t be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive.

  6. OT

    The psycho enviro-wackjobs have come full circle.

    Comradette Jane “Vietcong” Fonda, perpetrated the “China Syndrome” in 1979.

    In California today, the Loonie-Tunes are begging to keep “Diablo” (how appropos) open to “Keep California Clean.”

    They don’t want it.

    They do want it.

    “Eh, what’s up, doc?”

  7. Governor Newsome is pressuring Hollywood not to film in the states to which it fled due to the high cost of filming and working in CA. Newsom wants them back. He even allowed “craft services”, a fancy name for catering, to operate on set while he shut down CA small businesses and restaurants. CA runs on Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Far Left policies and taxes have chased out every employer who can leave. I’ve said for years that when Hollywood and Silicon Valley leave, too, CA is toast. The liberals in both these industries reliably vote blue, but when it comes time to spend their own money, they move to red states. Or they film there. Or they buy property to claim as their tax base. They keep voting blue, however, eventually flipping those states, recreating the problems they fled from.

    1. RE:”They keep voting blue, however, eventually flipping those states, recreating the problems they fled from..” An observation that some of us in Florida taken serious note of for many months now, and suspect that our Governor does as well. Perhaps there’s something to that new license plate design after all. I’ll be on the lookout for them on the highways and bi-ways.

  8. Hollywood boycotted Georgia for a voting law similar to Delaware. It boycotts states for abortion laws similar to Europe, yet it films in Europe. It boycots states that do not promote transgenderism in schools, but it films in China, and releases films there, where the CCP is actively engaging in genocide and concentration camps of Uighur. It makes millions off of movies that feature guns, but lobbies against guns.

    Hollywood lectures us on right and wrong, yet it is infamous for the casting couch sexual assault or withholding roles for sex, and for pedophile attacks on child actors.

    We should never look to Hollywood for advice on values, ethics, or politics.

    1. Indiana’s abortion law is not similar to Europe’s.
      Texas’s abortion law is not similar to Europe’s.
      South Dakota’s abortion law is not similar to Europe’s.
      Kentucky’s abortion law is not similar to Europe’s.

      You’re in denial Karen.

  9. If California had a military, they would be doing practice bombing runs on red states, firing missiles over red state capitals, and engaging in cyber warfare.
    So far, Chairman Xi PingNewsom, will gracefully allow them to survive if they promise to change their ways.

  10. OT

    Congress may NOT tax for the Climate, Health, Tax Bill.

    The Supreme Court MUST strike down the Climate, Health and Tax Bill, immediately and with extreme prejudice.

    Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and infrastructure (i.e. general welfare – all well proceed).

    Congress has the power to regulate ONLY money, commerce and land and naval Forces.

    Most people refuse to believe it, but Americans are FREE – yes, it’s true, but you can’t handle the truth.

    Justices swore an oath to support the Constitution.

    Please do that.

  11. Question for Mr. Turley: You’re a con law professor. Do you think a successful claim against one state’s boycott of another could be brought under the Privileges and Immunities clause? I’ll give you thirty minutes to prepare your answer. Yours truly, Mr. N.I. Silver, Bethesda, MD

  12. “many medical students and trainees will not stay in Indiana if the legislature bans abortion, said Dr. Beatrice Solderholm, a fourth-year medical resident. She cited a recent survey of Indiana medical trainees, which showed 80% percent of respondents would leave the state if the bill becomes law.”

    The bill HAS become law. Indiana is going to have trouble recruiting new Ob-Gyns, when they already have a shortage in parts of the state. This will probably also be the case in other states with laws outlawing almost all abortions.

    1. The law makers in Indiana could care less what the voters or doctors and anybody else thinks, or needs or wants.

      1. RE:”The law makers in Indiana could care less what the voters or doctors and anybody else thinks, or needs or wants.” Some 40 years ago, when I was a resident, there was a shortage of nurses because working conditions were abominable. Only when the employers made drastic changes did the numbers improve. The same was true for the resident medical staff in the NYC hospital particularly following the death of the daughter of well know journalist. Changes in working conditions were forced by circumstances. If Indiana can attract physicians perhaps the legislature will adhere to the will of the electorate and not their own personal beliefs.

        1. But most of the legislators were elected “by the electorate” on a campaign platform outlining their positions on issues. I take no position on the issue, but I suggest that most legislatures reflect the will of their electorate when they legislate; otherwise they would be thrown out, tusche over teakettle, in the next election. And of course that has happened.

          1. RE:”but I suggest that most legislatures reflect the will of their electorate when they legislate..”That’s a reasonable assumption but as yet a difficult one to accept in the light of the consequences from the ‘No Cash Bail’ reforms passed in New York State and sentencing reforms elsewhere. If Indiana’s legislation truly has the support of the majority of the electorate, and the doctors vote with their feet, the consequences will be interesting to follow.

    2. You mean like all those people that fled to Canada when Trump was elected? Talk is cheap. Uprooting your life for something will almost certain never effect you is difficult.

      1. You have no idea just how many people that said they would leave the United States if Donald Trump was elected, and wound up not leaving, how many my wife and I was hoping, wishing so bad that each one would, and pack 2 more under each arm!!!!

      2. Medical residents often move after their residency, just like Ph.D.s often move after finishing their degree.

        And if you’re an Ob-Gyn, whether abortion is legal will absolutely affect your medical practice.

    3. ATS,
      Are these the same med students who would also violate their Hippocratic Oath and deny someone medical treatment based off of political stance? Or even inflict pain via a invasive procedure?
      I know I would not want them as my GP, or care giver not knowing if they were prescribing or providing the best care in my best interest.
      I would not put it past them to inflict pain or discomfort on me.
      That is how they think.

        1. ATS,
          I base my observations off things that have happened, and a poll you point out.
          Someone needs therapy . . . it is not me.
          I would respect my Hippocratic Oath, and give care and aid to anyone to needs it.
          Not based off of political points of view, as you would.

          Is this not the very definition of the difference between the Left and the Conservatives? One provides care based off political alignment. The other provides care regardless and never asks.

          I am not going to use Dems vs GOP as I know more than a few Dems whom see the Leftist who have taken over their party with wokeism and abject horror.

          1. You have delusions about doctors inflicting pain on you. Delusions suggest a need for therapy.

      1. RE:”Are these the same med students who would also violate their Hippocratic Oath..” The ‘Hippocratic Oath’, both classic and contemporary, is symbolic, and becomes argumentative when the law intervenes between doctor and patient. Its worth reading the link to appreciate why in light of the arguments given in support of the findings in Roe which were overturned. Roe, in part actually violates the Oath. I don’t want to broach that argument. What we are merely saying here is that, given Dobbs, and the penalties which might be imposed on physicians by state legislature in promulgating law which permits or prohibits, doctors may be obliged to relocate, in particular, as already noted, if their area of practice embraces the likelihood that they may either prescribe or perform therapeutic abortion.



    Article I, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;



      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” or infrastructure, omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.

      Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

      “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

      – James Madison

        1. Congress may NOT tax for the Climate, Health, Tax Bill.

          The Supreme Court MUST strike down the Climate, Health and Tax Bill, immediately and with extreme prejudice.

          Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and infrastructure (i.e. general welfare).

          Justices swore an oath to support the Constitution.

          1. RE:”The Supreme Court MUST strike down the Climate, Health and Tax Bill, immediately and with extreme prejudice.” Gerorge!! Please!! Harangue if you must. However, in order for SCOTUS to hear a matter at law, you are well aware of the process.

            1. “ However, in order for SCOTUS to hear a matter at law, you are well aware of the process.”

              You beat me to it. As I was reading his comment the same thing was formulating in my mind concerning the process for SCOTUS to be able to move not only on this matter, but other matters.

            2. The FF’s neglected to put a “truth in labeling” law in the constitution. They never saw the democrats coming.

          2. Yes the Supreme Court does not automatically review federal laws for constitutionality so you need an actual case or controversy. If there was a case, I would think taxing for the general welfare is broad enough to cover health care and climate.

            1. What “you would think” carries enormous weight and force, I’m sure.

              Alternatively, we can read the clear and manifest English words of the Constitution.

              General means all; not to put too fine a point on it.

              Those mentioned are distinctly not “general” concerns.

              They address specific and particular groups of “entitled” “beneficiaries.”

              No one uses many-multiple-discipline “healthcare” or physicians in the same way that everyone uses definitively focused and singular roads, electricity, internet, trash pick-up, water, post office, sewer, etc.

              The Climate is God’s and God has ALWAYS changed the climate – good luck with that one.

              The Tongan volcano spewed water into the atmosphere recently, which may raise the global temperature; let’s get those pesky Tongans.

              The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!

              1. My interpretation of general welfare is consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Helvering v Davis (1937).

                1. The Supreme Court of 2022 overturned the egregiously erroneous, nay, treasonous Supreme Court of 1973.

                  Chief Justice Taney told “Crazy Abe” he was plain — wrong.

                  To wit,

                  “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

                  “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

                  “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

                  – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

                  You willfully persist in what you know to be error.

                  Good for you.

            2. If you extrapolate only sightly you can claim that all people live on the same planet and, therefore, every desire, function and need constitutes “general Welfare.”


              If you grasp the language and intent, the Constitution makes people maximally free to pursue happiness while government provides merely the bare minimum for the purpose of facilitation.

              People are maximally free; government is severely limited and restricted under the Constitution.

      1. RE:”The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional ” One wonders where on this planet George would feel most comfortable putting down roots. It’s unlikely that which he finds fault with in these ‘Untied States of Aremica’ is subject to change within his lifetime.

        1. Where’s Aremica? I think George like the the majority of AMERICANS want DC to adhere to the constitution?

            1. ZZdoc – I think maybe I’m living in Anemia-ca which would be suffering from a lack of RED blood cells but hopefully that deficiency will be remedied at the midterms?

          1. Obama fundamentally transformed the United States of ARE-MICA, evidently, to ZZDoc’s delight and pleasure.

            And, just imagine, Obama wasn’t even eligible.

            Only in ARE-MICA.

            What a great country!

            1. RE:”Obama fundamentally transformed the United States of ARE-MICA, evidently, to ZZDoc’s delight and pleasure.” Now there’s an assumption you have no way of substantiating in fact.

          2. No, actually, George has said repeatedly that he dislikes parts of the Constitution, including the Amendment giving women the right to vote. Wake up, he’s a misogynist.

        2. Thank you so much for asking.

          My roots were “put down” in Popham Beach, Maine, in 1607, and later, on the paternal side, crossing the Delaware with George Washington’s mighty fleet.

          Subsequently, along came the Constitution of the United States, you may have heard mention of, which provided the power to Congress to tax for ONLY debt, defense and infrastructure, aka general welfare.

          Where in that limited refrain do you find a compulsory, comprehensive, womb-to-the-tomb, communist welfare state?

          Next question.

          1. RE:”Next question.” My first question was clearly stated and, given that you did not answer it as constructed, my next question is simply a repeat of same.

          2. George, now we know where you might have gotten the name George, Ft George. If you have your detailed history what did your ancestors do when the colony was abandoned?

            1. George died. The succeeding colony president inherited and returned to England for that purpose.

              1. Yes, but my understanding was that the people died or went back to England. I was asking what your ancestor did. Did he move from Popham elsewhere in the colonies or did he return to England and then back to the United States?

  14. The Blue state’s are bleeding the working class population and growing the dependent population looking for freebies because of their laws. They are making every attempt to quell the flow of middle Americans from their state. Americans want opportunity, free of crime, support police, low taxes (of which everyone will be paying because of the latest law by Democrats), legal elections, a secure border. Can you imagine Newsome trying to get Floridians to relocate to California, seriously Gov? He obviously is auditioning for a spot at some comedy club. Republicans may not be the cure for your problems but Democrats are surely the source of your problems. Let’s hope the midterms are free of Democrat meddling, maybe some of this stuff can be reversed?

  15. America today, two diametric opposed sides, with one side insistently pushing adherence to their World view, using whatever subversive action necessary for acceptance. What is appalling is their world view leads to constant strife when they propose to cause harm to their fellow citizens. These fools must be shunned.

  16. Jonathan: So you think inter-state relations should be based on successful “military alliances”. You can’t be serious? Germany, Italy Spain and Japan had a military alliance and how did that end? Not well. During the Civil War southern states had a military alliance and we know how that ended. Utter devastation for the South. States like Texas and Florida are already talking about a second succession. Their mantra is now: “Save your Confederate money, the South will rise again!”. Your proposal would make matters even worse–probably a second Civil War.

    You complain about boycotts of states with anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion and “open carry” laws–led by states like California. Over many decades boycotts have been effective in changing policy. The boycotts against South Africa were successful in finally eliminating the country’s racist apartheid policies. And boycotts are proving effective here. Indiana is a prime example. The state just passed probably the most draconian of the anti-abortion laws. Eli Lilly, based in Indiana with over 10,000 Indiana based employees. has just announced it is moving production out of the state. In a statement Lilly said: “We are concerned that this law will hinder Lilly’s-and Indiana’s- ability to attract diverse scientific, engineering and business talent from around the world”. Lilly, like many other large companies, has already expanded its employee health program to cover travel expenses for its employees seeking abortions in other states. Back in November Lilly announced it would invest $2.1 billion in two of its manufacturing plants in the state. Those plans are now on hold. Indiana’s abortion ban is now prompting doctors and other medical professionals to leave the state. The state already has a shortage of health care workers so Indiana’s GOP is shooting itself in its economic/health care foot with its ant-abortion law.

    And what is your proposal to solve the problem of boycotts? Not “comity” among “red” and “blue” states. No. You propose “red states should pass legislation barring state business or travel with any state that engages in boycotts”. In other words, anti-boycott boycotts! Tit for tat. Now that will be helpful! Do you really think an anti-California boycott by Utah will force the Golden State to change it’s abortion policies. The Mormon Church may rule in Utah but it is insane to think the Church’s anti-woman policies will be adopted any time soon in California. A lot of talented people are already leaving Texas for California. That will be California’s gain and the “Lone Star” state’s loss. I live in a “red” state. We have new neighbors in our cul de sac who moved here from Hawaii. They are both talented computer engineers. When our state recently passed its abortion ban they decided to move to Washington state. We are helping them pack. Their employers even offered substantial pay increases to keep them here. No matter. They value the abortion friendly Northwest over money. You know, “quality of life” issues.

    As one who complains constantly about our “age of rage” you haven’t a clue about how to solve the divide between “red” and “blue states. Your proposals would make things even worse. “Military alliances” and anti-boycott boycotts? You can’t be serious. Now, I have another proposal. Support legislation in Congress to make Roe part of the Constitution. That would go a lot farther in promoting “comity” among the states than anything you have proposed.

    1. Dennis, please answer a very simple question: What is your opinion of groups like the NBA that boycotted NC over the “bathroom bill” as they took teams and publicity to places like China and various bigoted nations in the middle east?

      We will have companies like Coke and Disney screaming about American Laws as they go to China (Coke, Disney), Russia (Coke) and various other hell holes.

      PS. Let us all remember Stacey Abrams stealth editing her column about having MLB boycott GA over the voting rights bill.

      1. Hullbobby: My answer to your Q? I applaud the NBA position as I do Eli Lilly’s decision to ,move jobs out of state to show their their opposition to Indiana’s abortion ban. And I applaud SF quarterback Colin Kaepernick for kneeling to protest racial injustice. He lost his job but he took a principled position. I also saluted Juan Carlos and Tommie Smith when they raised their clenched fists during the National Anthem at the Olympic Games in Mexico City in 1968. Have you ever taken a principled position when all around you were marching in the opposite direction? Sometimes you would be surprised by all the good feelings and peace of mind it brings when you go against the grain and, despite the odds, take a principled position.

    2. Turley writes to and for the Trump base. Turley has found his calling with defending the indefensible with constant grievance for his right-wing rage-o-sphere.

      1. Turley writes to and for the Trump base.

        Well, he does love our country and our constitutional rule of law. Everything he writes and speaks about is rooted in that. I’m certain that correlates well with the Trump, DeSantis, Noem, Haley and a host of others who believe in that.

    3. Outstanding post! In Indiana, State Senator Sue Glick, an obese elderly woman from the farm community of LaGrange, IN, the main sponsor of Indiana’s draconian anti-abortion bill, was asked about polling reflecting Hoosiers’ views on the right to choose, which are in line with those of most Americans–abortion should be allowed up to 15 weeks. Her reply basically was that she didn’t care what polls show–she was elected to carry out her mission to prevent all abortions. It wasn’t just Eli Lilly that complained before the law was passed–Cummins, Inc., with 10,000 Indiana employees, along with representatives from Lilly, went to the Ind. Governor before the bill was passed and asked him to veto it because it would be bad for business, bad for recruiting new talent (not just women, but men who are married to women who might need an abortion–Lilly and Cummins provide generous health care benefits to families of employees), and that they opposed it. The Governor didn’t care. So now, Lilly is not planning on carrying out expansion in Indiana. Way to go Gov. Eric Holcomb! Glick also made clear there would be NO referendum on the topic. See, it’s an election year, and Republicans who take away womens’ right to choose are a sure – bet vote from those “unborn baby saving” Evangelicals. Republicans care about retaining power–not about representing the will of the majority, and not even about the positon of the state’s largest employers. Pandering to Evangelicals will get them a guaranteed number of votes, and that’s all that matters.

      Turley likes to pretend that when Republicans pass these outrageous limits on womens’ rights, that they are just carrying out the will of the voters. He DOES know better. Indiana is one of the most-gerrymandered states in the country. Indiana used to be blue–it elected Democratic Senators Vance Hartke and Birch Bayh, as well as his son, Evan Bayh, multiple times. That was before gerrymandering. If state legislatures really wanted to be fair and really wanted laws to reflect the will of the people, they would put a referendum about abortion on the ballot in November. They don’t want to be fair because they know what the outcome would be–just like that in Kansas. They’ll do anything to maintain that reliable Evangelical vote, and they don’t care what the fallout is. This is why boycotting such states is very appropriate, just like boycotting Russia and other countries with totalitarian regimes that deny people basic human rights. Boycotting sends a message. That’s what I do when considering purchases on Ebay–if the seller is from one of the Carolinas, I pass. So far, Indiana hasn’t tried to criminalize providing information to women wanting an abortion, or assisting her in traveling to a state where it is allowed, but other states have proposed doing so.

      1. Natacha: Please, please. Your compliments are going to my head! But you also deserve plaudits for flushing out the details on issues Turley often ignores. I do have a Q though. On NPR today a local reporter in Indiana complained that Lilly did not complain to GOP legislators as the abortion ban was being discussed. His complaint was that had Lilly been out in front ahead of the vote it might have swayed some votes to oppose the abortion ban and maybe defeated it. Do you have more info on the position of Lilly and Cummins and whether they voiced their concerns in advance? The problem is that most corporations are often reactive rather than being proactive. They don’t want to jeopardize the tax and other benefits they get from states in which they operate. I remember back in the 80s there was a huge public backlash against the US government sending refugees back to El Salvador during the civil war where they faced death squads upon their return. I worked for an airline that participated in flying refugees back to El Salvador–often to face certain death. Some of us in management were opposed to US policy. So we organized and presented our position at a Board of Directors meeting considering whether to continue our company participation after our executive offices faced frequent demonstrations and sit-ins that got a lot of TV coverage. Bad optics and PR. Fortunately, the PR department backed us because they argued to the Board that our continued participation only brought us bad press and it was not worth what we were paid by the government for each flight. For PR it was an “image” issue. For us it was a “human rights” issue. Sometimes you have to take your allies where you find them. Anyway, to our surprise the Board voted to cease our participation in the state department program. I expected some blowback from my bosses–but nothing happened. I think this case illustrates that sometimes employees can have a positive impact on company policies. Whatever Lilly’s motivation we should applaud their forth right opposition to Indiana’s abortion ban. I would have loved to be the Lilly board room when the issue was discussed!

        1. I was under the impression that Lilly, at least, contacted the governor to express its concern about the effects of the anti-abortion bill before it was signed. The fact that something very draconian was coming was clear–the only question was just HOW extreme the final version of the bill was going to be. Early on, there was not going to be any leeway even to save a woman’s life, or in the case of rape or incest. I’m not sure that Lilly’s displeasure was made public before the bill was signed. Both Lilly and Cummins have issued public statements after it was signed indicating their displeasure with the bill and the adverse effects it will have on recruiting talent. This sort of thing happened when Indiana tried to outlaw marriage equality, but the bill failed when Obergefell was passed. Lilly and other companies took a strong stance against this because talent and leadership are not dependent on sexual orientation. I look for outlawing marriage equality to rear its ugly head again.

          Before the abortion bill was passed, I do know that multiple OB GYNs publicly expressed their concerns about their ability to care for women with pregnancy complications and their fear of being prosecuted unless they waited until the woman was at the brink of death, which is contrary to everything they’ve been taught. Doctors are trained to be pro-active when it’s clear that the pregnancy must be terminated when its clear that aversion measures don’t work. One provision that was proposed was that AG Todd Rokita prosecute women and their physicians if the local prosecutor refused to act. Ryan Mears, the Marion County Prosecutor (where Indianapolis and Indiana University School of Medicine is headquartered) said he wouldn’t enforce the ban. I’m not sure whether Rokita’s proposal made it into the final bill. Much of the lobbying activities of large corporations take place behind closed doors and off the record, but it seemed to me that Lilly was saying they indicated their position before it became law. It was also clear that nothing Lilly, Cummins, OB-GYNs said would make any difference, regardless of what anyone in the Indiana Legislature says now. And, BTW, a Democratic state representative introduced a bill to outlaw Viagara, claiming, tongue in cheek, that this would help avoid unwanted pregnancy.

    4. I agree with Dennis’s comments and criticism of JT’s proposal, including the potential consequences of it.

      1. Concerned Citizen: Thank you. Sometimes I think I am tilting at windmills–like Don Quixote — in trying to point out the absurdity of some of Turley’s thinking. His loyal supporters almost invariably accept his “wisdom”. He is, of course ,an attorney, a law professor and academic, prominent in conservative circles. When the GOP needs someone to testify on any issue who do they call upon? Prof. Turley. If you really analyze Turley’s position on any subject–say “free speech” issues– he almost always supports conservatives. That’s Ok but he ignores other important issues–like book banning in many southern states. When school districts in the south start saying there are unacceptable books for kids to read you know we have entered Gorge Orwell’s nightmare! So I keep repeating that Turley is not the “free speech absolutist” he claims to be. I think he aspires to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court one day and tailors his views to reflect what he thinks will appeal to the Federalist Society that selected all of Trump’s nominees. He’s young and thinks time is on his side. The problem is that many in this chatroom don’t bother to really analyze what Turley has to say on any given subject–the obvious inconsistencies and counter intuitive positions That’s the part I will continue to point out.

Leave a Reply