Upset that over a dozen pro-life states are actively protecting babies from abortions, a pro-abortion group tried to get Coca-Cola shareholders to agree with a measure to have the huge beverage company stop selling protects in those states.
But shareholders rejected the radical measure so overwhelmingly that 87% of owners of Coke stock voted to reject the resolution.
The measure would have pressured the company to oppose, and perhaps divest from, states that offer legal protection to the unborn. The proposal came from investors, not from the company itself, as shareholders have the right to make such policy proposals at annual shareholder meetings and leftist groups like As You Sow, which was behind this measure, often try roget corporations to take liberal stances on contentious political issues.
Here’s more on the group’s failed efforts this past week:
And among the worst of their bad ideas this year is a spate of proposals of various forms used to promote abortion under the banner of risk management. Typically, these shareholder resolutions that appear on proxies (the corporate governance equivalent of ballots in political elections) call upon companies to study the risk of whatever the activists disapprove of.
For example, the predictably left-wing group As You Sow asked Coca-Cola to issue a “Report on Risk Due to Restrictions on Reproductive Rights.”
This report would include “potential risks or costs to the company caused by … state policies severely restricting reproductive rights.” Note that only alleged risks or costs were mentioned, not benefits or advantages.
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
As You Sow has some suggestions for them. The companies should share “any decisions regarding closure or expansion of operations affected by the restrictive laws, and any strategies such as public policy advocacy by the company, related political contributions policies … or educational strategies.” So, companies are steered towards punishing pro-life states by divestment, toward defunding pro-life politicians who would otherwise have been seen as helpful to the company’s interest, and by educating the public about the benefits of abortion and the harm caused when it is prevented.
The abortion activists also proposed another measure that shareholders rejected as well.
There is also what is called a “congruency” report, which amounts to goading companies that have said something in favor of equality to extend that to blacklisting pro-life politicians. It also lost.
The vote came during the same week in which the City of San Francisco abandoned its boycott of pro-life states because the repercussions were so detrimental to the city.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors abandoned its boycott of pro-life states Tuesday after city leaders said the action backfired, costing the city money and creating additional red tape.
National Review reports the board voted 7-4 to repeal the boycott, which prohibited the city government from traveling to and doing business with 30 states that passed pro-life and other conservative policies.
“It’s not achieving the goal we want to achieve,” Supervisor Rafael Mandelman said. “It is making our government less efficient.”
Initially, the boycott applied to conservative states that passed laws regarding LGBTQ issues, but San Francisco leaders expanded it in 2019 to also boycott states that passed pro-life laws to protect unborn babies from abortion.
However, an analysis of the boycott in February found that its results were disastrous for San Francisco. The city administrator’s office report found that the boycott was hurting the city financially and did not have any effect on persuading states to abandon their pro-life laws.
The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities,” the report found.
Read the full article here
Discussion about this post