Raises interesting questions. See federal emissions standards, the state of California, and active duty vehicles. While most bases/servicemembers with out of state tags simply ignore California rules, we are legally supposed to follow California emissions laws.
Also, if federal law trumps state law, why can’t an abortion be performed on federal property in a state that otherwise bans abortion?
I’m not disagreeing with you, I’ve just always wondered about situations like listed above.
It is more accurate to say that federal law trumps state law only where federal law is properly exercised. The federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers and those powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. Thus, for instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force states to implement federal law generally as it goes against the anti-commandeering principle inherent in the tenth amendment. Similarly, the Supreme Court has invalidated numerous other federal laws as being against the federal government's powers, to include the initial version of the Stolen Valor Act, the initial version of the Violence Against Women Act, the law that prohibited flag burning, etc.
The fact that the military is largely a federal responsibility does not mean that the federal government can do what it wants to with the military at the expense of state authority. That said, the issue with abortions on federal land as a general matter is that the use of funds to carry out abortions on federal land is generally (with a few limited exceptions) banned by federal law itself via the Hyde Amendment, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to preserve a woman's life. Thus, between 2016 and 2021, there were 91 abortions performed in military health centers:
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/20/1130316976/pentagon-abortion-travel. From what I understand, Tuberville's objections stem, in part, from his belief that the administration's abortion policy runs afoul of the amendment, which reads in relevant part:
that no covered funds “shall be expended for any abortion” or “for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion,” except “if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or . . . in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.”
Source:
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2022-11/2022-09-27-hyde_amendment_application_to_hhs_transportation.pdf
While it's not clear to me that the Hyde Amendment prohibits funding for travel for abortion related expenses (the DOJ doesn't think it does), Tuberville would be better served working a lawsuit challenging the DOD's policy here. Congress did its part by passing the amendment. The next step for a Congress that disagrees with the implementation of a particular policy is to (1) legislate to clarify (which to be fair is difficult on divisive issues particularly where there is divided government) or (2) find a way to challenge a policy in court. What Tuberville is doing is not appropriate as far as I'm concerned, but the Senate's rules do allow for it (I think that should be changed, along with a host of other things about the Senate, though many senators on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to do so as it protects their interests when they are in the minority, etc.).
Moving on, not wanting to make this a discussion about abortion generally, I've always found the "my body, my choice" argument to be rather interesting and convenient as the government instructs people what to do with their bodies all the time. For instance, it is generally illegal to sell body parts/organs, which is a limitation on what one may do with one's body. Similarly, before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortions after a certain limit were generally illegal throughout the entire country, which also was a limitation on what women could do with their bodies (with the understanding that there was another body at issue there as well). Then we have the draft. While men and women honorably serve in the military, only men are required to register for the Selective Service, which puts men, alone, on the hook for the draft. And this responsibility and obligation has ultimately led to the deaths of scores of men across multiple wars over generations, directly impacting bodily autonomy and freedom. And this doesn't even get into the fact that many women, themselves, are against abortion in all or most cases; thus, even if you took men out of the equation, there is no clear consensus even for women on the issue.
But that brings up another issue why this argument, again, is an interesting one. And that is that our society doesn't operate in a way where only one race, gender, sex, etc., gets to vote on policy that impacts them. In fact, such would be illegal under our Constitution.
