Gavin Newsom’s Absurd War on Walgreen’s For Following The law

Mike Grillo

Mike Grillo is a writer who, when not writing, is working in finance and surviving the wilds of being a New Jersey resident. He does not tweet.

Related Post Roulette

35 Responses

  1. Burt Likko says:

    Has there ever been someone who wants to be President of the United States so badly without running more than California Governor Gavin Newsom?

    Yes. Ron DeSantis.Report

    • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

      BOOM! The Counselor takes it with first comment. I don’t know how anyone’s gonna top that!Report

    • Damon in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Show your work please Burt…

      Frankly I’m curious, because I think it’s close, but I’ve not been paying that much attention to either of them…Report

      • North in reply to Damon says:

        Biden doesn’t seem to feel any need to sling mud or insults at Newcom the way Trump does at DeSantis so that alone suggests DeSantis is desiring, and working, harder to be President without running than Newsom. Though ultimately it does involve reading a distant politicians heart- then again, they’re politicians, their hearts aren’t deep or enigmatic as a class.Report

        • Pinky in reply to North says:

          A sitting president can’t attack an officeholder in his own party to fend off a primary challenge. Of course, Newsom isn’t planning on running against Biden, anyway; he’s positioning himself to run in his place.Report

          • North in reply to Pinky says:

            I don’t exactly disagree with your points but even your own analysis suggests that Newsom “wants” to be President less than DeSantis does as there’s relatively no doubt that DeSantis will run against Trump whereas Newsom is, at most, simply stalking behind the old man in case he drops out and, if Biden doesn’t falter, won’t challenge him.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky says:

            Is there any chance Biden gets rid of Harris?Report

            • North in reply to Dark Matter says:

              Biden would need a really strong reason to court that kind of drama and he doesn’t have it.Report

            • My take is no. Harris checks a number of boxes that Biden needs on the ticket: person of color, female, urban westerner.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Dark Matter says:

              Biden couldn’t ditch her. He could thank her for her years of service as she left to become dean of a second-tier law school, but she’d have to
              really sell that it was her choice, and she’d never willingly step down. Also, there really aren’t a lot of good VP picks out there for him. He’d probably go with Whitmer, although Cortez Masto would be a very smart move.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

                I think either of those would actually be pretty good picks, particularly Cortez Masto. But generally agree, Harris can’t be perceived as having been removed. That said I think her WAR is basically 0.0 so it doesn’t really matter in the greater scheme of things. She isn’t helping but anyone open to voting for Biden isn’t going to change their mind over her. Getting rid of her could well be seen as a slight to some important constituencies and it’s not really the kind of error I’d forsee Biden making.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

                I think Harris is more of a liability because of Biden’s age. But Joe would have an easier time changing his age than throwing her off the ticket.Report

  2. Dark Matter says:

    Giving companies the authority to disobey State law at will is ending State Sovereignty.

    That’s a weird stance for a State Governor to take, but presumably he doesn’t expect them to actually disobey the law.Report

  3. Peter Moore says:

    I think the situation is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

    According to a Politico article: Walgreen is bowing to AG pressure “in several states where abortion in general, and the medications specifically, remain legal — including Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Montana”. I.e. the AG pressure is legally valid, but rather political. For those cases, Newsome has an equal right to apply his own counter-pressure.

    Where this might get really interesting is when the FDA starts their program to allow pharmacies apply to the FDA for permission to dispense mifepristone. The question then is whether this FDA permission overrides any state bans. The national pharmacies might want to avoid being the test case for that legal battle by simply not applying in the anti-mifepristone states. (Which I suspect is a large part of the motivation for those statements by those anti-abortion A’sG). But Newsome’s actions let them know that not applying could have its own consequences.

    But I do have to admit that even appearing to be even vaguely DeStantis-like is distasteful.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Peter Moore says:

      Expecting a company which has a large physical presence in Alabama (etc) to openly engage in illegal behavior is a bit much. I don’t see how that doesn’t end with their stores being shut down and/or their employees arrested.

      The ideal pharmacies to do this don’t have a physical presence in the states which have outlawed abortion. So a small company in California might be able to mail drugs that are legal in California but outlawed in those states. There are some fig leaves they might dance around and they’re not subject to much pressure. They might simply be out of the reach of those state laws completely.

      At a minimum they won’t end up having to defend their behavior in front of an Alabama judge.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

        When did Alabama pass a law outlawing abortion pills?Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          This is like saying outlawing murder doesn’t outlaw murder via guns.

          Alabama has outlawed abortion. They’re focused on the people who enable/perform abortions rather than the women who get them.

          A gun store owner who sells a gun to someone even though they know they’re going to kill someone with it has become a criminal. There are similar rules for banks to prevent money laundering. You don’t get to put on a blindfold and enable criminal activity which a child could see coming.

          Or if you do, you can expect to need to explain to a judge why it’s reasonable for you to be doing this.

          If you’re a California-only pharmacy, then you can claim what you’re doing isn’t a crime in California and Alabama has no jurisdiction over you. Wal-Greens can’t do that.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

            Did Alabama pass a law making it illegal to sell abortion pills?Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Given that abortion itself is outlawed? I’m having a hard time saying there’s a big difference there.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_Protection_Act#:~:text=The%20Human%20Life%20Protection%20Act,bill%20delayed%20implementation%20until%202022.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                No, it is not illegal for Walgreen’s to sell abortion pills in Alabama, or any other state besides Wyoming, which just yesterday became the first state to o so.

                The 21 AG’s were, to use the legal term, “full of crap”, trying to use prohibitions on drug abuse to cover mifepristone.
                The California AG can send a letter to sporting goods stores telling them that all guns are illegal in California, but it doesn’t make it so.

                Which is a small point, since Walgreen’s is free to discontinue the sales for any reason, or no reason. But I felt the need to push back against the repeated invocation of ‘openly engaging in illegal behavior”.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Activity [X] is illegal.

                You know this, you supply tools to let [X] happen, the only thing those tools can be used for is [X], you know the person you’re going to be supplying the tools to is going to do [X].

                I am not a lawyer, but my strong expectation is aiding and facilitating [X] is already covered under existing laws.

                It’s possible you’re dancing right up to the edge of the line but not over it and those 20 AGs are wrong… but I’m really hard pressed to think of other examples which fit the paragraph I laid out above that aren’t obviously illegal.

                Driving the getaway car? Selling weapons to someone you know will kill someone with them? Supplying Alcohol to someone you know is going to be driving home?

                Can you think of any examples?Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Dark Matter says:

                What if we knew of other uses for it?

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8212859/Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                What if we knew of other uses for it?

                That’s one study for a potential other use.

                Bleeding edge science is good, but it doesn’t overlap well with approved FDA dosage/duration guidelines for treatment. We’re not even in “off label” prescription territory here.

                If you start handing out one abortion pill to one woman on a one time basis, complete with the other drug it’s paired with, then I don’t see how we can call this anything other than an abortion pill sold for the purpose of having an abortion.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I was actually looking for something else but ran across that. I was perusing Reddit and a woman commented on there that her doc had prescribed it for some condition she had. I wish I could remember what it was.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                It treats Cushings disease.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                I’m sure there’s extremely rare conditions where it would be useful.

                However if WalGreens sells 100k of these pills, close to all of them will be for abortion.

                The reverse is true for guns, pretty near all guns sold aren’t used for murder. Illegal use is a tiny fraction of the legal trade. Ditto cars and knives.

                If every gun sold resulted in a murder victim, then we’d have no debate on what to do about gun control.

                If you’re selling these drugs then you are an abortion provider and you shouldn’t be shocked if these states treat you as that.

                The concept that WalGreens can openly sell these drugs without the legal establishment taking notice and arresting people strikes me as deeply farcical.

                These states have criminalized this activity. That means men with guns and badges will be enforcing it.

                Whether that’s a good idea or a bad idea is a different issue. Pretending that this isn’t where we are is ignoring reality.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I am not a lawyer, but my strong expectation is …

                You should have started with that, then stopped.

                You’re making an interpretation of the law, widening it to cover things not expressly covered by the enabling legislation.

                Whether this could be effectively argued by a state AG or not, this is a far cry from “openly engaging in illegal behavior”.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Whether this could be effectively argued by a state AG or not….
                …this is a far cry from “openly engaging in illegal behavior”.

                First, your first statement disagrees with your second.

                2nd, It would be stunningly incompetent for the CEO of a $28 Billion dollar company to have his employees engage in behavior that is going to have them arrested and tried in 20 states.

                That the expected result is for them to be arrested and tried in 20 states with the AG arguing this to judges works very nicely as an example of “openly engaging in illegal behavior”.

                This would be insane behavior for a CEO even if none of his people end up in prison for decades. And with 20 states trying to do exactly that, imho odds are good at least some of them would end up doing serious time.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Dark Matter says:

                IMHO what Newsom is doing is NOT “political pressure” since because of these risks there’s no way Wal-Greens can do what he wants.

                What Newsom is doing is political grandstanding at Wal-Greens expense.Report

      • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

        I am not the biggest Newsome fan but Peter Moore is right in that what’s going on is political pressure and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

        The larger matter is how this situation works with interstate commerce, which I expect to be playing out in the courts for years. Of course that is among the many reasons that what SCOTUS did is so radical and irresponsible. You can make some sound arguments that Roe was a step too far the day it was decided but trying to eliminate a negative right (in the legal sense) that’s existed for half a century is like trying to put toothpaste back in a bottle.Report

  4. which returned laws regarding abortion back to the states where it belongs

    As witness a Texas judge being encouraged by anti-abortion groups to ban mifepristone nationwide. As usual, states rights means they haven’t get the feds on their side yet.Report

  5. LeeEsq says:

    TLDR How dare a Democratic politician advocate for liberalism and use the power of office to advance liberalism.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq says:

      I’m more comfortable with individuals (or tiny companies that we can just shut down) openly disobeying the law than Fortune 500 companies. Walgreens is #18.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

        Um no. This is a legal, FDA approved drug. In this instance it’s being used on label for its original use. While some states might want to assert that they can regulate it the same way then can marijuana, as of right now none has declared it statutorily illegal to prescribe for its on label use.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

          none has declared it statutorily illegal to prescribe for its on label use

          The on label use has been outlawed in about 20 states.

          I don’t see how you can claim that abortion (and providing abortion services) is legal in places where it’s illegal.

          Basic civics suggests that’s not correct. I.e. local communities can outlaw various things and use local (but not state or federal) cops to enforce those rules. States can do the same and enforce rules with state and local authorities.

          So if you’re going to be breaking [State X] laws, you’d better not be doing so where their cops have justification. Walgreens, with a physical presence in every state, can’t avoid these laws.Report