Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.
We have used your information to see if you have a subscription with us, but did not find one. Please use the button below to verify an existing account or to purchase a new subscription.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content. Please use the button below to manage your account.
Verify your print or online subscription account here. Full week print subscribers are entitled to FREE unlimited online and eEdition access through The Herald-Press All-Access.
Verify your print or online subscription account here. Full week print subscribers are entitled to FREE unlimited online and eEdition access through The Herald-Press All-Access.
If you choose, as swarms of Californians are doing, to live somewhere other than California, the state will still try to govern you. Not content with bossing around its residents, California will try to force Americans elsewhere to conform to its moral and policy preferences. And other states with large shares of markets for particular products might act similarly because of a Supreme Court decision last week that encourages coercive evangelism.
In a 2018 ballot initiative, Californians emphatically (a 62.66 percent majority) expressed an arguably admirable sentiment. They did so, however, by enacting a measure that the court should have declared unconstitutional. It bans the sale in California of pork from pigs born from a sow confined, as almost all in America are, in small breeding pens that some people consider cruel. (Read Matthew Scully’s “A Brief for the Pigs” in the July 11, 2022, National Review.)
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.