VALENTINE, AZ – The City of San Francisco recently banned any of its employees from making work trips to, or doing any (presumably city related) business with, the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin because the city doesn’t agree with these state’s, well, it’s not clear exactly what the city doesn’t agree with. San Francisco only says that these states have severe anti-choice policies. San Francisco also doesn’t say what choice the states in question have “anti” policies about, but I think it is safe to assume that the choice San Francisco is referring to is the choice to abort a fetus.
I don’t get it. Roe v. Wade clearly holds that all Americans (although practically speaking, only American women) have a constitutional right to abort any fetus they want. And, last time I looked, the twenty-two states in question were still in the Union and were still complying with all the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, since anyone (again, I mean any woman) can get an abortion in any state, including the states subject to the ban, what’s the fuss?
Here is the fuss. All of the states subject to the ban have placed one or more restrictions, most inconsequential or designed to protect the health of the potential mother, on abortion. This pissed off the city fathers (and mothers) of San Francisco. To correct this horrendous inequity, and to also (actually, to mostly) assure that the city fathers and mothers of San Francisco “feel right) the above ban has been enacted. (For a further explanation of why San Francisco mothers (and fathers) acted this way, see THE CRITERIA OF CRITERION post)
Interestingly, San Francisco already bans travel to, or doing business with nine other states – Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. This ban has something or other to do with the state’s LGBTQ laws and policies; the actual reason is also, not clear.
These two bans mean that San Francisco city employees will not be travelling to, and the city itself will not do business with, 31 states. Damn, that’s 62% of the states in the Union!
To recap, the City of San Francisco, in order to illustrate their policy of inclusion, is excluding 62% of the United States as travel destinations or business partners!
I hope the 31 banned states don’t provide visitors with inexpensive vacations or the City of San Francisco with inexpensive goods or services. If they do, the bans will be cost city residents and the city itself a bundle! On second thought, never mind. I’m sure the employees and taxpayers of San Francisco wouldn’t mind paying more for everything. After all, these bans will repudiate and ridicule the “offensive” laws of the banned states and allow the people of San Francisco to “feel right”!
Of course, besides being expensive, these bans, like most things liberal, won’t work and are silly.
They also face some legal problems. The ban on travelling to the banned states violates all American’s (this time, including men) right of ingress and egress to each state (commonly known as the constitutional right to travel – this right is explained more fully in the post “EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL IN THE LAND OF THE FREE”) and the ban on doing business with the banned states violates a passel of Civil Rights laws, (among others, discrimination due to citizenship) and infringes in the Federal Government’s right to regulate trade between the several states. But to a liberal, none of this matters. They have made their point and they can now “feel right”.
 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
 As long as the fetus they want to abort is theirs, the right to choose to abort another woman’s fetus is not yet recognized by any state.
 By “feel right”, I mean feel good and comfortable, not feel conservative.
 By city, I mean the city’s taxpayers.
 Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869).
 Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824).