Do you sometimes feel whipsawed by inverted political positions?  Perhaps the best current example of it is with HR. 4417 and S. 2019 known as the EATS Act—stands for Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression.

            If you’re up on the news, you may remember California Prop. 12 a few years ago that outlawed the sale of pork from pigs farrowed (birthed) in gestation crates.  For the uninformed, gestation crates are factory farm metal cages in which sows live their entire life.  They can’t turn around and literally fit in them nearly as snug as your hand in a glove. The industry developed these systems to reduce piggie death from accidental mama tromping.           

            Several states sued California over the new prohibition because it meant pork from Iowa or Nebraska that came from sows housed in gestation crates could not be sold in California.  Almost no pork is raised in California, but it sure imports a lot of pork from other states.  The producing states cried “unfair” and accused California of interfering with interstate commerce, among other things.  The now conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled in California’s favor, upholding states’ rights in line with the Constitution.

            Big pork producing states were angry and tried to figure out how to re-open California’s sizeable market.  EATS is the result.  It prohibits states and local jurisdictions from interfering with the production and distribution of agricultural products in interstate commerce. Sponsors are a who’s who of conservative Republicans from red states:  Senators Roger “Doc” Marshall, Chuck Grassley, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, Deb Fischer, Kevin Cramer, Joni  Ernst, Eric Schmitt, Ted Budd, and Bill Hagerty.  In the House, the measure is being championed by Congresswoman Ashley Hinson.

            The opposition is largely liberal Democrats, animal welfare advocates and humane animal outfits.  How humorous to hear them invoke “federalism” (states’ rights); these folks have never seen a federal agency, regulation, or intervention they didn’t love.  Now, all of a sudden, they’re preaching state and local rights as if it’s their mantra.  Talk about political inversion.

            But the other side is just as hypocritical.  Lining up behind these conservative senators are the Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Kansas Corn Grower’s Association, National Pork Producers Council, Kansas Livestock Association and many other conservatives.  They’re all screaming “unfair” and seeking federal intervention.  They accuse California of forcing regulations on other states, driving up the cost of food, jeopardizing America’s ability to feed other nations, and (my favorite) threatening barren store shelves.  Oh, it's bad, folks.

            You know we’re in crazy times when the group that’s always advocated for bigger federal government involvement suddenly advocates for state sovereignty and the group that’s always against a bigger federal intrusion suddenly advocates for more.  It just shows that we’ve lost our moral and convictional compass.  In the end, people who find choice and freedom inconvenient simply flip to an anti-choice, anti-freedom mentality 

            For the record, I’m squarely in the states’ rights camp.  If a state wants to prohibit something, they should be able to.  For the record, California did not tell Iowa how to raise pigs.  California just told their pork sellers what they could buy and sell, a completely internal decision. But the industrial pork folks see it as a slap in the face and elimination of a market.  I wonder if the liberals who suddenly embraced state sovereignty on this issue would extend it to state sovereignty freedom to sell and buy currently prohibited food, like home-made charcuterie?  Or how about states’ rights over right-to-work laws?  Perhaps this is a moment to seize these historically big-government folks to advocate for some other localized decisions.  And a moment to tell the conservatives they’re just as self-protective as their liberal counterparts.

             How do you stay politically consistent, or can you?