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.

