We often hear about outside influences on state elections. In Georgia this is the situation with Hollywood working against what was first the "heartbeat" bill and now the "heartbeat" law. This law in Georgia prohibits abortion after a heartbeat from the baby can he distinguished (at 6 weeks). Alyssa Milano is leading a charge to enforce Hollywood values on the state of Georgia.
Before the bill became a law, Milano was pushing for Hollywood to boycott filming in Georgia if the bill was approved by the legislature, then if it wasn't vetoed by the Governor. It's a law now and Milano is threatening to leave the Netflix show "Insatiable" she is part of being filmed in Newnan, Georgia (in Metro-Atlanta). Milano is also calling for a sex boycott until the law is repealed. To me it seems a bit like a temper tantrum from a child wanting to get their way.
Frankly, the existence of any law in Georgia is none of Milano's business, or the business of anyone else from Hollywood. Luckily, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Actor Dean Cain (Superman on the series Lois and Clark) was interviewed on Fox and Friends saying:
The hubris of Hollywood to say to a sovereign state like Georgia, you guys have to follow our beliefs on abortion, is ridiculous,
Cain went on to say:
For Hollywood to tell Georgia voters what their views should be on abortion is a huge mistake, and I think it's a giant overstep.
There are a number of states holding elections to amend the state constitutions in manners that would go against Roe vs. Wade. Liberals will eventually push a case in front of the Supreme Court trying to overturn these state laws, this is when they will but Roe vs. Wade in real jeopardy. Possibly without even knowing it, Cain put together the Supreme Court case that could deem Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional.
There have been several cases in front of the Supreme Court since 1973 having to do with abortion and Roe vs. Wade, but none that will be like this. Our legal system works on the basis of stare decisis basing current decisions on past decisions. This helps provide a level of continuity in our legal system. Roe vs. Wade has been used as a basis for decisions since 1973 an is in fact currently the law of the land. This makes a compelling argument for those in favor of abortion.
The other side of the argument comes from one of the basic tenants of our federation called dual sovereignty on which is based the anticommandeering doctrine. Take Cain's comments and insert "the Federal Government" for "Hollywood".
The hubris of the Federal Government to say to a sovereign state like Georgia, you guys have to follow our beliefs on abortion, is ridiculous,
For the Federal Government to tell Georgia voters what their views should be on abortion is a huge mistake, and I think it's a giant overstep.
While Roe vs. Wade has been established since 1973, anticommandeering has been upheld in Supreme Court cases since 1842. Simply put, anti-commandeering says the Federal government cannot dictate laws to the sovereign states. A previous post quoted Justice Samuel Alito in 2018:
The anticommandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States … Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.
In the case of our fictitious Supreme Court case, we will have law setting precedent since 1973 against what Justice Alito referred to as an "expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution" with precedents going back to 1842. It doesn't seem like this case would take much time to deliberate.