Would You Support A Law Giving Every Adult Woman Having Legal Access to Birth Control? (retired, money)

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

You know, honestly, I think elimination of birth control would help women more than hurt them in the long run.

The sexual revolution, no doubt, has only hurt women.

Women passing out sex like candy has not been a good thing for women. And they are too dumb to see it or correct the situation.

So the government probably should get involved and put limits on it.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by ansible90

Schools need to be the main source of sex education. Because the parents obviously are falling down on the job.

I tend to believe it should start at home but many parents are too embarrassed to talk to their children about it. That's a shame

Originally Posted by RMESMH

I do.

Demonstrating low character isn't best for the man, and also isn't best for anyone else.

You missed the point of my comment. I don't agree with the idea, I agreed with the comment itself. It's pure hypocrisy.

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by Kibby

Women have been able to buy (or get for free) contraceptives for many decades. The 1965 Opinion that Justice Thomas is referring to was a case about only MARRIED women being allowed to purchase Birth Control pills.

Griswold~v~Connecticut] which basically overturned a State Comstock Law from 1873 that made it Illegal to use any type of Contraception.

Comstock Law

The Comstock Law was abolished in 1957 - it was basically a Morals Law.

After that opinion in 1965, a woman had to either be Married OR show proof she was about to be married in order to get a prescription for The Pill. I had to do that myself.

Right to birth control for unmarried couples, 1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried couples, whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships. The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold)

Just showing it was wrongly decided doesn’t mean Birth Control Pills would not be available. They have been available to ALL women, married or not since the early 70’s. They WILL remain available. This is a tempest in the Low Information Leftist mind.

Thomas is speaking of “Penumbra Rights” that essentially originated with the Griswold Case - and the so called “Right to Privacy” that did not exist in the Constitution until Justice William O. Douglas created it in 1965. Justices disagreed in the Griswold case that Penumbra Rights were Constitutional and have disagreed in every case using Griswold as Precedent.

Penumbra Rights

That is exactly what was “Overturned” yesterday — using the false Penumbra Rights to decide cases.
There is no “Right to Privacy” in the Constitution — the cases should have been decided on other grounds like Due Process.

Without getting into all of that detail, it was the Griswald decision that effectively made contraceptive products legal across the nation. Overturning that decision opens the can of worms that let's states jump in with all kinds of stupid restrictions.

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by tinytrump

It’s not just about abortion that was the biggest hurdle - they coming for it all. You will be forced to be a Christian nation with its values like it or not .

Even most Christian's these days don't have those ridiculous Puritan values about sex and reproduction.

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by VLWH

Shame on you, the term is “birthing people”.

Why are you showing up on every "sex" thread to say this exact same sentence?

Maybe a bot.

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

This country was founded on Christian principles. What's wrong with Christian values? Many of our laws are based on Christianity and morality. Let's start with "thou shalt not kill". Do you have a problem with that? Who's coming and for what?

I am not Christian. It gets annoying sometimes when the people around me assume I agree with their religious views. Christian's are one of many religions. You don't have a monopoly on America.

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by WRM20

Saying "abstain from sex" is unreasonable. People have sex. Except maybe for incels, who still think they are owed sex from any female that happens to catch their eye. Sex is the third strongest human drive after eating and sleeping.

I think that may not be true for some of the posters here. Especially the married men who say women should just say no and cross their legs. Whatever would they do if their wives took that advice? <<giggle>>

[Stepnking]

Originally Posted by ansible90

I think that may not be true for some of the posters here. Especially the married men who say women should just say no and cross their legs. Whatever would they do if their wives took that advice? <<giggle>>

Many of your posts seem to deal with extremes, maybe that is what you choose to push?

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

Sincere question for those who voted no—Why would you want contraceptives to be illegal?

You assume if something isn't codified into law, it's illegal. That just isn't so, that isn't how a free society works... in fact just the opposite is true.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Originally Posted by ansible90

I am not Christian. It gets annoying sometimes when the people around me assume I agree with their religious views. Christian's are one of many religions. You don't have a monopoly on America.

Judeo-Christian values/laws are different than believing in a religion. Some values and laws pertain to the exercise of ones faith and some are general/civil values and laws.

No one is suggesting anyone adopt a certain religious system or cultural beliefs, but there isn't anyone who doesn't know right or wrong if they have foundations truths in their lives. These truths are self evident.