Newsom's ads against red states' abortion travel bans aren't just a stunt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, the issue of abortion travel bans was addressed, and conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was clear: They are unconstitutional.

That didn’t stop local travel bans from popping up in Texas less than a year later. Since then Idaho has passed a law, and Oklahoma and Mississippi are debating following suit. Tennessee officials not only want to make taking a minor to get an abortion a felony if a parent did not consent, they also want to make sharing information about abortion laws of other states illegal.

It’s clear Republicans are comfortable ignoring Kavanaugh’s opinion on the constitutionality of the matter, and so California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking up the issue with voters in those conservative states.

This week he announced an ad campaign targeting red states where lawmakers are debating whether to make traveling for out-of-state reproductive care a crime. Normally I don’t like when Newsom sticks his nose in other states’ business — you know, given all of California’s own problems — but he is spot on using his platform to raise the alarm on this issue. (He’s not using California taxpayers’ money; the ads are financed by a political action committee.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/granderson-newsom-s-ads-against-red-states-abortion-travel-bans-aren-t-just-a-stunt/ar-BB1iXFLJ

[Lunabell]

1. Can we drown those CONservative governments in the bathtub yet?

Such hypocrites.

[MadameButterfly]

2. If sharing information about abortion becomes illegal and that doesn't infringe on freedom of speech because,

well, laws, then when do we get to start charging Conservatives for sharing information on how to defy of the constitution and install a dictatorship?

[Igel]

3. Was Kavanaugh's opinion majority?

Or a singleton statement in a concurring opinion?

If a majority of justices included it in their opinions, then they bans are likely going to be easily struck down. But a "majority of 1" is a non sequitur.

And not dealing in the details of Dobbs, I'm assuming Kavanaugh was concurring and not dissenting.