Opinion | Dobbs Overturned Much More Than Roe v. Wade


Most of my writing this week was on the recent elections in Iowa and New Hampshire, but most of my reading was focused elsewhere. In particular, I want to highlight this report from Jessica Valenti, published in her excellent newsletter, on proposed travel bans for abortion care in Tennessee and Oklahoma. The Tennessee ban, proposed by State Representative Jason Zachary, would make it a felony to take a minor out of state to obtain an abortion. As Valenti notes, “That means a friend, aunt or grandmother who helps a teenager get an abortion could be sent to prison for 15 years.” The Oklahoma bill, if signed into law, would punish anyone who helped a minor obtain abortion care with up to five years in prison.

I have written about how abortion bans implicate a broad set of rights tied to our personal and bodily autonomy, including the right to travel between states. And I have analogized this dynamic to the legal and political conflicts over slavery, which were about not just labor but also the right of free citizens to enjoy the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship, wherever in the country they happen to live.

One thing to recognize about the scope of states’ power from the founding to the Civil War is that it was broader and more expansive than we tend to recognize under modern conceptions of constitutional law. States, as most Americans understood them at the time, were governments of general jurisdiction with far-reaching police powers that gave them almost total discretion to regulate internal affairs. The federal government, by contrast, was a limited government of enumerated powers — a government that could take only such action as allowed by the Constitution.

The police power, the historian Kate Masur notes in “Until Justice Be Done,” “was grounded not in the idea that a government’s duty was to protect individual rights but, rather, in the conviction that government’s most important obligation was to secure the health, safety and general well-being of a community.”

“Laws concerning paupers and vagrants,” she continues, were “all ‘police’ laws, designed to ensure public peace and protect a community’s coffers. In the slave states, people frequently described as police laws measures designed to prevent slave uprisings and otherwise safeguard the slaveholding order.”

The Civil War and the constitutional amendments that followed brought a fundamental transformation of state and federal power. The states were now subordinate to the federal government in a way that wasn’t true before the war. And state police powers were now bounded by the rights established in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. One way to understand the 20th-century expansion of national rights is that those constituted further restrictions on the police powers of the states. The constitutional right to an abortion, for instance, put real limits on the ability of states to regulate activity within their borders.

Seen in this light, the conservative judicial attack on reproductive rights and voting rights and other breakthroughs of the 1960s and ’70s is about not just those rights but also freeing states to take a heavier hand in regulating their internal affairs.

Let’s look again at Tennessee and Oklahoma. These states (and others, like Texas, Florida and Missouri) are dominated by conservative and reactionary Republican lawmakers who are doing everything in their power to impose traditional patterns of domination under the guise of parents’ rights or family values. In the past, strong national rights, guaranteed by the federal Constitution, put limits on what they could do and how far they could go. What the Supreme Court is doing — and what it will continue to do — is giving conservative lawmakers the power and license to go further. To take the federal brake off the police power and give state lawmakers the right to do as much as they would like to maintain “public order.”

For as much as it is important to defend reproductive rights — and other key rights — on a state-by-state basis, this is why it is also important to defend and protect them at the level of the federal government. The goal is not just to secure rights but also to restrain the states.


My Tuesday column was on the fate of Ron DeSantis and why his campaign was doomed from the start.

The fact is that the only way DeSantis — or any other Republican candidate — could have prevailed is if Trump had not been in the race to begin with. If Republicans had joined with Democrats to bar the former president from future office after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, they might have been able to do just that, and DeSantis might have had a path to the presidential nomination. As it stands, he’s just the latest Republican presidential candidate to bend the knee to Trump after a ritual humiliation at the polls. Nikki Haley will probably be next.

My Friday column was on the results of the New Hampshire primary and why Donald Trump is much weaker than he might appear.

Trump is running, essentially, as an incumbent. And the results in New Hampshire are evidence that, compared with a typical incumbent president running for re-election, he is weak.


Maureen Tkacik on Boeing and the 737 Max for The New Republic.

Sam Adler-Bell on Marvel Studios for Dissent magazine.

David Cole on cancel culture for The New York Review of Books.

Isaac Chotiner on the Hindu right for The New Yorker.

Laura Kipnis on Janet Malcolm for BookForum.


On a whim, I bought an Olympus Pen FV, which is a half-frame 35-millimeter camera from the 1960s. It’s a beautiful piece of machinery and a pleasure to use. Now, the point of the half-frame format was to get more photos out of a roll of film. But you can also use the format to be a little experimental with still photography. For me, I think it is fun to use the split between frames as a cut, like in film. It’s an opportunity to tell a story or capture more details. That’s what I did with these photos, which were taken in Beaufort, S.C. The first frame tells you the story of the man, and the second frame shows you the man.


I think my goal this year is to persuade as many people as possible to eat more beans. They are a delicious, versatile and easy-to-use protein, and they work in all kinds of cuisines and are rich in all the good stuff like fiber (and protein). I’m a huge fan of beans with seafood, and this recipe is a great showcase of the pairing.

Some quick recommendations: Be sure to add a nice pinch of red pepper flakes to the foaming butter, and don’t hesitate to go heavy on the garlic. In addition to chopped parsley, I would also add some chopped chives if you have them on hand. The toasted bread is essential.

Ingredients

  • 1 teaspoon fresh lemon zest and 2 tablespoons juice

  • 1 teaspoon sweet or smoked paprika

  • 2 garlic cloves, grated

  • Kosher salt and black pepper

  • 1 pound peeled large shrimp (veins and tails removed)

  • 4 tablespoons unsalted butter (½ stick)

  • 2 large leeks, trimmed, then halved lengthwise, white and light green parts sliced crosswise ½ inch thick (or 1 large onion, minced)

  • 1 can (15 ounces) cannellini beans or other white beans, rinsed

  • 2 cups chicken stock or vegetable stock

  • 2 tablespoons finely chopped fresh parsley

  • Toasted bread, for serving

Directions

Combine lemon zest, paprika, garlic, ¾ teaspoon salt and ¾ teaspoon pepper in a medium bowl. Add shrimp and toss to coat.

In a large pot, melt butter over medium-high heat. When butter is foaming, add shrimp and cook, stirring occasionally, until pink and starting to curl, 2 to 3 minutes. Using a slotted spoon, transfer shrimp to a plate; set aside.

Add leeks, season with salt and pepper, and cook over medium until leeks are soft and starting to brown on the edges, 4 to 5 minutes, stirring occasionally. Add beans and chicken broth and bring to a boil over high.

Lower heat and simmer, 8 to 10 minutes. Stir in reserved shrimp and any juices from the plate, parsley and lemon juice, and season with salt and pepper. Serve with toasted bread.



Source link

Leave a Comment