Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, March 11, 2019
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Elias Khoury
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ashley Zhang
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
The change is part of a
larger effort by the Trump
administration to push more
conservative
regulations
surrounding abortion, and
many pro-choice advocates
have denounced it as a gag
rule that prevents doctors
from
being
candid
with
patients about their options.
Overall, the Michigan Daily
Editorial Board finds the rule
inhibits doctors from doing
their jobs, prevents patients
from receiving the full-range
of family planning services
available
and
indicates
the
Trump
administration
prioritizes
the
evangelical
agenda over the health and
economic outcomes of its
citizens.
The
Title
X
revision,
first and foremost, poses an
ethical problem for medical
professionals. Dr. Leana Wen,
the
president
of
Planned
Parenthood,
expressed
in
an interview with NPR that
“it’s
unconscionable
and
unethical for politicians to
restrict doctors like me from
speaking
honestly
to
our
patients.” The doctor-patient
relationship
is
supposed
to be built on trust and
communication, but how can
this be achieved if doctors
feel compelled to withhold
their honest advice? Women
seeking advice about their
options in the event of an
unwanted pregnancy deserve
to know about all available
courses of action.
Though
the
gag
rule
specifically targets abortion
referrals, it impacts more
than just abortion services.
The policy defunds every kind
of health care these centers
provide,
including
STI
testing,
cancer
screenings
and forms of contraception.
For the women who rely on
these
other
services,
the
loss of federal funds can be
devastating. This new rule
penalizes all who use this
care, regardless of if they
actually went for an abortion.
As
this
policy
strips
federal funding from medical
facilities
like
Planned
Parenthood, it would help
finance faith-based women’s
health
centers.
Associated
with the church and often
referred to as crisis pregnancy
centers, these clinics provide
inadequate health care by
misleading
women
into
making poor health decisions.
While Planned Parenthood
typically informs its patients
of every option available,
including abortions, CPCs do
not mention the possibility
of a pregnancy termination.
When it comes to future
family
planning,
normal
clinics will provide various
forms of contraception, while
CPCs
preach
abstinence.
Furthermore,
these
CPCs
are often modeled to look
like actual health centers,
which
confuses
women
into thinking they are in a
medical clinic, rather than a
religious facility. The policy’s
endorsement of these faith-
based health centers is a step
back in women’s reproductive
health and medical care.
The
Trump
administration’s
support
of
these
abstinence-only
centers over organizations
like Planned Parenthood also
ignores extensive empirical
research on the improved
socioeconomic
outcomes
associated
with
increased
access to family planning.
In
2013,
the
Guttmacher
Institute conducted a review
of
66
studies
exploring
the
social
and
economic
benefits of women’s access
to contraception. The review
found in states where women
were
given
early,
legal
access to contraception, they
were more likely to achieve
post-secondary
education
and
higher
employment
rates. Women also earned
higher salaries, had greater
purchasing
power
and
narrowed the gender pay gap
when they had more control
over
their
reproductive
health.
In
the
realm
of
mental health, a growing
number of studies point to
a link between unplanned
childbirth and depression.
As problematic as this
new policy may be, there
are ways for both health
clinics and patients to work
around it. First, institutions
like
Planned
Parenthood
can set up specific locations
where they would perform
abortions.
However,
those
individual facilities would
not be eligible for federal
funds, nor would regular
health clinics be able to refer
patients to those other sites.
On the other hand, patients
can still ask about abortions
and doctors would be able
to answer their questions.
This means women who are
educated about their options
will still have their questions
answered, but women who
are not as aware of their
options can no longer rely
on doctors to be transparent
with them.
The overarching impact
of this gag rule is detrimental
toward any woman or man
who relies on these centers’
services, not just those who
need abortions. We hope for
the sake of these citizens this
initiative will be blocked in
court. In the event it is not,
one such way to mitigate
these
detrimental
effects
will be to promote education
of women’s health and the
clinics
that
actually
and
effectively promote women’s
health.
ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN
Threats to the rule of law
R
ussian author Leo Tolstoy
once said, “Wrong does not
cease to be wrong because
the majority share in it.” This wisdom
has obviously been lost on a growing
number of counties across the
U.S., where localities are declaring
themselves Second Amendment
sanctuaries and thereby exempting
themselves from obeying certain
state-level gun control laws. The
trend started nearly a month ago in
Quay County, New Mexico, where
Sheriff Russell Shafer submitted
a resolution to affirm his right “to
not enforce any unconstitutional
firearms law against any citizen.”
The Quay County Commission
voted unanimously in favor of the
resolution .
In a week, six more New
Mexican counties had adopted
similar measures, and by last week
most of New Mexico’s counties
were on board. The growing body
of Second Amendment sanctuary
counties joins the coalition of
sheriffs in Washington state who,
in early February, made a similar
commitment to not enforce new
state-level gun controls. Moreover,
the trend has emboldened sheriffs in
Colorado, Nevada and Oregon to defy
recently passed gun control laws in
their respective states as well.
This trend marks a disturbing
departure from the Washington
sheriffs’
disobedience,
which
I
previously reflected on, in that it
demonstrates a widespread appeal
for illegitimately seditious conduct
before now implausible. In upending
the respect for the law crucial to
robust governance — what James
Madison referred to as the ability
of “the government to control the
governed” — Second Amendment
sanctuary counties invoke a false
analogy for legal justification. In
doing so, they also exemplify the
tendency
of
extremist
Second
Amendment ideology to ignore
norms critical to the rule of law.
The resolutions’ nomenclature
is a tongue-in-cheek jab at the
sanctuary city (and state) measures
adopted by numerous localities
and states in recent years, aimed at
protecting illegal immigrants from
the specter of federal immigration
authorities. To the sheriffs and
counties defying state gun control
measures, their “opting out” of
statewide gun policy is legally and
morally akin to the cities and states
that “opted out” of the Trump
administration’s
nationwide
enforcement of federal immigration
law. Policy aside, the subtext of
partisan divide is readily apparent.
This argument, however, is
flawed at its core. There is little
equivalency between disobeying
state gun control laws and allowing
for sanctuary cities. For one, there
is no “opting out” of statewide
policy for local law enforcement.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee stated
in regard to his state’s disobedient
sheriffs, “No one has the ability
to pick and choose which laws to
follow.” Sanctuary city laws, on
the other hand, command state or
local law enforcement officers to
not comply with requests by federal
immigration officers to go above
and beyond normal police duties
in pursuing detained immigrants.
In the former case, subordinates
are ignoring direct commands
from superiors to enforce laws on
the books. In the latter, authorities
are made not to assist agents who
enforce a completely separate set of
laws.
To reiterate: State legislatures
and the laws they pass displace local
authorities and their prerogatives.
By way of example, last month, the
largely pro-gun Montana House
passed bills prohibiting certain gun
controls from being enacted by local
governments. Should these bills
become law, would pro-gun control
sheriffs in Montana be justified
in labeling their counties as gun
control sanctuaries, where new gun
control laws would be allowed in
violation of higher, state law? The
answer, for anyone who recognizes
the prerogative of any state over its
constituent counties, would be no.
Furthermore,
the
growing
acceptance of Second Amendment
sanctuary counties demonstrates
a worrying dismissal of the rule of
law in America. America’s system
of governance is revered because
judgments are dictated by laws, as
opposed to the whimsical biases or
selfish preferences of those at the
top. And the only thing that makes
these laws durable is the respect
the people have for them. Women’s
suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton
recognized that a republic should
find it “very important the people
… respect the laws.” Likewise, laws
must be universally applicable to
engender respect. Former U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justice
Felix
Frankfurter remarked, “If one man
can be allowed to determine for
himself what is law, every man can.”
Viewing state laws as somehow
subservient to authoritative decree
or county-level vote rejects both
these fundamental tenets.
This
is
not
to
say
that
civil disobedience is under no
circumstances
justified.
Martin
Luther King, Jr. himself spoke of
disobeying unconscionable laws
as “expressing the highest respect
for law.” But the justifications for
defiance put forth by sheriffs in
Second
Amendment
sanctuary
counties offer nothing compatible
with this exception. In Quay
County,
where
the
movement
started, the sheriff intended to
resist
“unconstitutional”
gun
control laws. Yet, he provided no
explanation for how New Mexico’s
new mandatory background check
laws, legal in many other states, were
unconstitutional.
In
Washington
as
well,
no measures included in the
opposed gun control law violated
the
standing
Supreme
Court
interpretations
of
the
Second
Amendment, rendering invalid the
argument for disobedience of the
law. Klickitat County Sheriff Bob
Songer’s demand that the Supreme
Court first declare the statewide
gun control measure constitutional
before he enforces it was equally
ludicrous, contradicting concepts
as fundamental and entrenched
in
American
governance
as
preemption and judicial review. The
sheriffs’ respect for the rule of law
clearly does not match their bravado.
What can we as Americans
take away from the rise of
so-called
Second
Amendment
sanctuary
counties?
At
first
glance,
the
sanctuary
county
trend demonstrates a misplaced
faith in the power of superficial
analogy. By implying via namesake a
justification for disobedience, sheriffs
in four states communicate their
inability to understand the nuanced
difference between failing to follow
a direct order and choosing to assist
authorities of separate jurisdiction.
But there are more troubling
problems
illustrated
by
the
trend than mere ignorance. The
sheriffs and counties in question
have trampled on laws, passed by
legitimately elected officials, by
non-judicial means and without
moral justification. Their dereliction
of duty demonstrates a greater
disregard for the rule of law than was
previously imagined in America.
Ethan Kessler can be reached at
ethankes@umich.edu.
FROM THE DAILY
Title X revision will limit adequate health care
I
n
late
February,
President
Donald
Trump’s
administration announced its final rule on a revision
of the Title X family planning program that could
potentially divert millions of dollars from Planned
Parenthood to faith-based health care organizations.
Under the revision, health care providers hoping to
receive Title X funding will no longer be able to “refer
for abortion as a method of family planning, or to
perform, promote, or support abortion as a method of
family planning.”
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300
words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words.
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation
to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
NOAH ENTE | COLUMN
The real emergency for conservatives
I
n season two of Netflix’s
original series “House of
Cards,” the show’s main
character, fictitious U.S. President
Frank
Underwood,
tells
the
audience, “The road to power
is paved with hypocrisy, and
casualties. Never regret.” In the
past few weeks, President Donald
Trump has shown he is taking a
similar approach in his quest to
fund his most sought-after agenda
item: a wall on the southern border.
On Feb. 15, Trump declared
a national state of emergency
for the current situation on the
United States border with Mexico.
Amid his fears of increasing
illegal immigration, the president
has continuously proposed the
construction of a wall on the border
in an attempt to dissuade unlawful
crossing of the U.S. border. After
weeks
of
partisan
deadlock
in Congress and the ensuing
government
shutdown,
Trump
announced he intends to use this
national
emergency
to
direct
federal funds toward building the
border wall he has championed
throughout his presidency.
The move drew expected
criticism from those who have
been opposed to the construction
of the wall, with many of those
critics
being
outside
of
the
president’s core base. Critics like
newly-elected
House
Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, most of whom
come from liberal opposition and
conservative skeptics, have long
cited both their moral concerns and
questions about the effectiveness
of the wall as justification for their
stance. However, aside from any
humanitarian concerns, questions
about both the character of the U.S.
as a country and doubts about how
effective a wall would be in stopping
illegal
immigration,
Trump’s
decision to use an executive order
to declare a national emergency
is cause for a different type of
opposition.
Some
conservatives
see
Trump’s use of an executive
order to achieve his political goals
as a harmful precedent. Some
are especially concerned for a
future when a liberal executive
occupies the Oval Office and
wishes to implement his or her
policies without going through the
constitutional procedure. In a Feb. 4
conversation with CNN, Sen. John
Cornyn, R-Texas, noted, “The whole
idea that presidents — whether it’s
President Trump, President Warren
or President Sanders — can declare
an emergency and somehow usurp
the separation of powers and get
into the business of appropriating
money for specific projects without
Congress being involved, is a serious
constitutional question.” For a
president to simply push a desired
political accomplishment into action
via executive order to influence
the outcome in the constitutional
process, is a vast and sweeping
use of executive power. And to
disregard the power of Congress,
one of whose main functions is to
decide the budget of the country,
is equally as alarming. Political
motions such as the appropriation
of government funds are intended
to pass through both houses.
The potential use of this case in
justifying authoritarian measures
is certainly concerning to many
conservatives. Even Democratic
leaders have openly addressed such
a possibility in their criticism of the
president’s decision.
Furthermore, the use of this
precedent by a leader of any party
is at the very least a constitutional
question — if not a nightmare —
for conservatives like me who are
wary of the powers of government.
Trump’s national emergency serves
as an example of a gross misuse of
federal power and an especially
grand overreach by the executive
branch. This implementation of
an executive order, especially for
the rapid redirection of funds that
can occur under a national state of
emergency, is troubling. It bears
resemblance to the monarchical
orders and decrees our founding
fathers sought to abolish in order
to create a free country with free
citizens.
A national state of emergency,
and the executive power that
comes with it, should be used in
the event there is truly a pressing
problem Congress does not or
will not have the time to address.
Former President George W. Bush’s
declaration of a state of emergency
following the terrorist attacks on
Sept. 11, 2001, is a proper example
that meets such qualifications. In
this case, though Trump may not
be happy with the settlement that
was reached, Congress has taken
steps to at least temporarily address
the issue at the border. As Jonah
Goldberg, author of “Suicide of the
West” and a writer for National
Review, wrote, “the lack of a
political triumph for a president
isn’t a national emergency,” and it is
inappropriate for Trump to use this
last-resort measure to force “his
desired policy through the political
system.”
What
is
also
concerning
is
the
president’s
willingness
to employ this order to direct
military personnel and funding
towards the construction of the
controversial barrier. Trump has
publicly discussed the idea of not
only utilizing military supplies
and funding, but deploying active
military as construction workers
to build the border wall. These
measures
would
take
funds
intended for military relief in places
with natural disasters and other
true emergencies such as California
and wwPuerto Rico, as well as
projects designed to improve the
infrastructure of our national
defense, like Navy SEAL training.
Noah Ente can be reached at
noahente@umich.edu.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-
8:30 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All are
welcome to come discuss national, state and campus
affairs.