California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s boycott of Walgreens is ill-fated.

Newsom ordered the state to cut ties with the pharmacy giant because the company, responding to a letter from 20 attorneys general that represent pro-life states, announced it would not turn its pharmacies into abortion facilities and dispense abortion drugs in those specific states.

The governor’s office announced that effective May 1, a contract between Walgreens and the state’s correctional department to provide prescription drugs would end. But Newsom’s threats to sever all other ties with Walgreens are likely to fall through, and it is possible he will have to backtrack on his statement and position. 

First, Newsom does not have the strongest track record in enforcing state boycotts. He took a trip to Montana with state-funded security, even though the state is on a no-travel list maintained by the California attorney general’s office. 

A state law prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to travel to states with laws deemed unfriendly to LGBT individuals, such as policies against men competing against women in sports. Yet, Newsom claimed a personal exemption for security; even if he did not violate the letter of the law, he certainly violated its spirit.

Second, the state’s taxpayer-funded health insurance program Medi-Cal relies on Walgreens and other pharmacies to fill prescription drugs for poor citizens. “I’ll be honest, you are the first person telling me about this,” one spokeswoman for a state-approved health insurance program told CalMatters when asked how Newsom’s threats would affect the health plans. Newsom’s threats make good political theater and may win him a future cabinet or running mate spot with President Joe Biden, but in practicality have not been thought through.

“Walgreens operates nearly 600 stores in California, accounting for about 10% of the state’s pharmacy market. It’s a key prescription provider for Medi-Cal insurers,” the local publication reported. “Walgreens locations are listed in the state’s pharmacy directory for Medi-Cal enrollees.”

It also remains unclear if the boycott applies to every state entity with insurance plans that use Walgreens as a possible pharmacy location. For example, the University of California system offers Blue Cross health insurance, which includes medical care provided through Walgreens. Is Newsom going to cut off primary care and prescriptions to thousands of university employees who rely on Walgreens just to win political points? 

Third, it is likely that other pharmacy alternatives, such as Rite Aid, Costco, and CVS, will eventually need to make similar decisions as Walgreens. After all, they are subject to the same pro-life laws that Walgreens is, and they will also need to refuse to provide abortion drugs in pro-life states.

“California is reviewing all relationships between Walgreens and the state,” a Newsom representative told the media. “We will not pursue business with companies that cave to right-wing bullies pushing their extremist agenda or companies that put politics above the health of women and girls.”

The state will likely find out that many alternatives to Walgreens are going to refuse to hand out abortion drugs not out of any sort of moral duty or opposition to the killing of preborn babies, but simply out of fear of criminal prosecution. 

Political boycotts make good headlines and may win plaudits from the media and the abortion industry, but ultimately real individuals are going to be harmed by Newsom’s ill-conceived grandstanding.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.