This is a silly and reductive lens that libertarians often apply. Look at the specific examples cited in the article:

    > the Arkansas Times [...] was asked to sign [a no-boycott certification] in order to renew its advertising contract with a state technical college.
    > A teacher in Kansas was told that she could not participate in the state’s teacher-training program because she refused to sign the anti-boycott form
    > A lawyer in Arizona was told that he could not be paid for his work on behalf of incarcerated people because he refused to sign the certification
    > a child speech pathologist in Texas lost her contract with a local school district because she refused to sign.
    > One town in Texas even briefly required victims of Hurricane Harvey to sign the anti-boycott certification as a condition of receiving disaster relief funds.

It's a grotesque distortion to frame this case as involving the rights of citizens to contract with their state government and I'm certain you know it.

I'm sure most people who support these laws would think differently if as a matter of policy a state fired all state contractors (teachers accountants and firefighters, you name it) that were pro life