Welcome to the Columna Blog
A space for deeper reflections, timely commentary, and reader engagement on politics and public life.
Columna
Invigorating public discourse, emphasizing the importance of bipartisanship, and inspiring the next generation of citizens and leaders to engage in this, the public square.
Columna
State vs State and Federalism
September 9, 2025
Since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion three years ago, states have diverged sharply in policy. Conservative states moved quickly to impose bans and criminalize access, even extending liability to those outside their borders who provide abortion pills via telemedicine and mail. Texas, for example, allows citizens to sue for at least $100,000 anyone who manufactures, distributes, prescribes, or mails abortion medication to its residents. To them, the growing practice of doctors in permissive states treating patients remotely is an unlawful circumvention of their bans.
Blue states have responded with protective measures, setting up what amounts to a counter-legal shield. New York, Washington, Colorado, Maine, and Massachusetts have passed laws preventing cooperation with out-of-state abortion prosecutions. They refuse to arrest doctors, share information, or enforce subpoenas. Some states go further: California allows abortion pills to be mailed without patient or provider names, a move that insulates doctors and patients from detection. With California pharmacies central to national medication abortion services, this approach could widen access despite red-state prohibitions.
The constitutional clash hinges on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which normally requires states to respect each other’s laws and judgments. Red states argue that abortion shields are a hostile refusal to comply, while blue states counter that the clause doesn’t obligate them to enforce laws that contradict their own public policy. This standoff—pitting state sovereignty against interstate enforcement—appears destined for the Supreme Court, setting up another high-stakes ruling on abortion and federalism.’
Columna
Briefing: Party Competitiveness and Illinois Governance
September 4, 2025
Illinois’s political balance is increasingly at risk of one-party dominance. While Republicans may again fall short in the next gubernatorial contest, the election still represents a potential inflection point for the party’s future. The central challenge is whether it can reposition itself as a credible statewide force or continue on a trajectory of diminished influence.
Sustained competitiveness requires more than symbolic or protest-driven campaigns. It requires leadership that appeals to a broad, statewide electorate, rather than relying on narrow factions. Rebuilding will demand time, financial resources, and organizational focus. Without this commitment, Illinois risks settling into a political environment where a single party dominates unchecked.
Such an outcome has implications beyond partisan dynamics. A lack of credible opposition can foster complacency, discourage innovation, and increase the likelihood of corruption—issues with which Illinois has historical experience. By contrast, a more balanced system encourages accountability and forces both major parties to refine policies and strengthen governance.
The long-term health of Illinois democracy depends on maintaining a competitive two-party system. Regardless of partisan preference, a stronger opposition is in the interest of the state as a whole.’