General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpinion: How the Right to Birth Control Could Be Undone
Link to tweet
According to some commentators, claims that the right to contraception could be on the chopping block are little more than hyperbolic catastrophizing that cannot be taken seriously.
-snip-
But the same could be said of other unenumerated rights, including, and especially, contraception. Nowhere does the Constitution speak of a right to contraception the Constitution does not even explicitly mention women. And as many conservatives have noted, the American legal landscape was littered with prohibitions on contraception right up until the court invalidated Connecticuts ban on contraception in 1965s Griswold v. Connecticut.
Justice Alito himself has already set in motion the means for challenging the right to contraception. In 2014s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the family that owns the craft store company objected on religious grounds to the Affordable Care Acts contraceptive mandate, which required employers to provide employees with insurance coverage for contraception. Specifically, Hobby Lobby balked at providing its employees with insurance plans that would cover IUDs and emergency contraceptives, like Plan B, based on the unsubstantiated claim that such contraceptives are abortifacients. The court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, ruled for Hobby Lobby.
In a post-Roe America, it is easy to see how the right to contraception could be gutted by recasting some forms of contraception as abortifacients. For the last 10 years, this has been a standard move among abortion opponents.
The Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent anti-abortion group, has characterized emergency contraceptives as abortion drugs. Likewise, Americans United for Life, which drafts model anti-abortion legislation, maintains that IUDs and Plan B can kill an embryo by blocking its ability to implant in the uterus. Most recently, the Louisiana Legislature flirted with a bill that would classify abortion as a homicide, prompting concern that the legislation could have criminalized IUDs and emergency contraception.
As red states line up to prohibit and even criminalize abortion, the crucial question will be, What counts as an abortion?
-snip-
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,811 posts)What are lawmakers going to do about that when rapes are reported?
Oh yeah, ban that too. Tough shit women/girls who were raped.
Claire Oh Nette
(2,636 posts)Believe them when they tell us what they have planned:
"Greg Abbott said his abortion ban didn't need an exemption for rape victims because he was going to eliminate rape from Texas."
No criminal rape? No need for rape kits or morning after, amirite? said no woman ever.
Response to Claire Oh Nette (Reply #6)
TreasonousBastard This message was self-deleted by its author.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)little boys, too.
When you have a problem with a crime, it's much easier to not call it a crime. If you can't get away with that, just say you've solved the problem.
Try that with school shootings.
Hekate
(90,853 posts)
for quite a long while. Me and my hysterical lady-parts.
Fanatics. We are dealing with fanatics. Damn them to the Hell they believe in.
onecaliberal
(32,916 posts)For anyone in any other circumstance. Not talking about cant afford, talking about oh youre a female so you cant have this medicine. What the fuck is going on here?
Response to onecaliberal (Reply #3)
Mariana This message was self-deleted by its author.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I can't image that anyone who believes in personal freedom depends on words-- like in the Constitution, or international Human rights statements, or anything else. It is absolutely no one's business whether or not you decide to have children. If under- or overpopulation is an issue a proper case must be made before overriding your decision. Personal choice is the primary way to go. Rights exist, and there must be a good reason for restricting them.
Freedom is assumed, not specified. Unless specifically mentioned and agreed, you have the right to believe, and do, anything. You do not have the right to shoot someone, since we have agreed that is bad, but you do have the right to believe, and often act, in points of self defense, until such time as such points are specifically addressed. Who addresses? Society in general.
Arguments over it happen, and are generally good, but when we have agreed on a principle, just let it go unless something real shows up. Rehashing old arguments should not be allowed.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,811 posts)When it comes to privacy and other rights not covered in the first 8 Amendments to the US Constitution.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)right to do whatever unless specifically forbidden. And forbidden for good reason.
MuseRider
(34,133 posts)Vasectomy? Condoms? Will they be the deciders here? Will they still take boner pills when their partners cannot choose to abort if they get pregnant or even have any control?
Just asking, I am pretty sure I know the answer here.
I do believe there was a time around 1920 when men could legally use them. Not fact checked but I do not really care because we all know whatever they want to do is going to be the deciding factor for just about everything. LONG history there of preventing pregnancy there guys.
My body my choice. Thank goodness I am old.