Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women I talk to... secretly... realize the folly of their ways with regard to unlimited sexual activity. They also realize they probably won't be able to convince young women of the need to curtail it.
Why should men buy the cow when the milk is free? And we start to see more and more women alone... birth rate... in the trash.
Why shouldn't men in relationships cheat when most women they meet are offering... and they do and either break up their marriage or the woman just has to deal with it.
The government reducing access would actually be a favor to women so the irresponsible might have to curtail their activities.
Yes--let's bring back the Comstock Laws! (yes, this was written with extreme sarcasm in mind).
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
there are some legislators in various states (I linked to one in Missouri yesterday) that want to at least stop Medicaid reimbursements for IUD's and any other post-conception pharmaceuticals. Will they be emboldened to attempt to make post-conception contraception methods completely illegal? I'm sure some will at least attempt, and I wouldn't be surprised if some states put restrictions on them or make them illegal. Post-conception methods only.
Since when is an IUD post-conception? As a woman, I remember (albeit years and years ago) discussing preconception birth control with my physician. IUD was discussed prior to pregnancy, along with the pill, condoms, diaphragm. Now there is the implant, shot, patches, the ring, cap.... the options are endless. And to be quite honest not my responsibility for paying for either. The idea that others should pay for something that they are not responsible for is a big part of this whole debate. The left just thinks that everything should be given to someone else regardless of personal responsibility.
With that said, I don't think that in cases of rape or incest that post conception treatment should be withheld from any woman, but... with the options available, if a woman just wants to use abortion as birth control.....NO! And stop with the what about ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage care talk because women are going to "die" now because of the ruling. Ectopic and miscarriage care are different than abortions...
And I posted the governor from Mississippi’s quote plus I believe Iowa and Missouri or some other NW state also said it. I’ll have to find it. But what is said in public and what is insinuated - I’d go with my gut. Below is the ruling and only protects the married.
Connecticut. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.
I don't know where you posted this, but it's in Drewj's second link
Earlier this month, for example, the Republican governor of Mississippi refused to rule out the possibility his state might ban certain forms of birth control.
Meanwhile, Louisiana recently passed a bill saying “personhood” begins at the point of fertilisation, which some experts believe could be used to criminalise emergency contraception and intrauterine devices.
An Idaho Republican lawmaker also just gave a TV interview in which he entertained the idea of banning some forms of birth control.
The MS governor "refused to rule out" by essentially answering the question "Haven't even considered that."
Louisiana is prepared to potentially outlaw morning after pills, but I don't know how they could outlaw IUD's.
The Idaho (state level) lawmaker was also talking about post-conception methods.
I meant to make this a poll but it failed to pop up
Answer : Yes, the purpose of having sexual relations is to produce children
Answer : No there’s sexual relations for any other reason
I didnt vote in the poll. Yes contraception should remain legal. Only radical wacko religious zealots would think otherwise. And to be clear that's hardly just Christian lunatic zealots. Muslims figure in big there. Probably bigger.
I honestly dont see even asking such a question in a poll. Trolling for religious zealots maybe? See if something rises to the bait? Contraception has been around in one form or another since humans first figured out how babies are made.
Funny thing about that is humans, the dominant brain on the planet, were behind every other critter on Earth in truly figuring that out. Some cultures had interesting beliefs as to how babies are made. But even in those cultures there were medicine women ( women dominated healing in the most if those tribal cultures) who knew how to brew up contraceptive potions. And abortion brews as well.
I dont foresee anyone who matters as to making law seriously contemplating trying to ban contraceptives. The number of people in the US who would support such a measure is exceedingly infinitesimal.
Fair enough...I believe all US larceny, fraud and embezzlement laws are based on the Bible verse, Exodus 20:15 and therefore an unconstitutional endorsement of Judaism and Christianity.
If you provide me directions to your home, I'll be by later to loot your possessions since of laws prohibiting stealing will be struck down for violating the First Amendment.
That's great that you believe that; however, alternatively without religion in the mix, *I* believe that most people wouldn't look to kindly on having things stolen from us. Despite the fact that many people think religion is the only thing that causes people to behave well, that's just not true. People have free will and a conscience and many abhorrent behaviors are common-sense frowned upon without relying on a religious entity to tell you that it's wrong.
In the case of contraception, I'm just looking for the one no-religious "reasoning" that would make some people want to ban it. Are they are danger to women's health? Danger to society?
While the Bible frowns upon stealing, through the eons, so do many non-religious people. So there are biblical teachings about theft as well as non-religious reasons for people not wanting to be stolen from and people didn't need a religion to convince them of that.
The first two link to the same really, really Roman Catholic state rep hopeful that will probably be knocked out in the August primary.
Her position, apart from the snippet, is that couples ought to practice natural family planning...something Roman Catholics do, I guess.
As for Masters, his position is that cases decided on an invented right were wrongly decided since there is no Constitutional right to privacy.
I agree, and if the Connecticut legislature wishes to outlaw contraceptive use by married couples (the substance of Griswold) again, they may do so.
Unlikely any of them would be reelected after having done so, but that's for the voters in Connecticut to worry about.
Seriously, you people could avoid about 99% of this leftist angst if you just stopped trying to legislate through the courts.
It's like I said after same-sex marriage was shoved down our throats, with the wind at your back (support for same-sex marriage at an all time high), instead of allowing the legislative process to continue, one that all but assured success for your side, instead, you shoved it up our ass.
Well, congratulations, because the backlash from that arrogance helped elect Trump and lost you the Court for a generation.
Would not be surprised to see this RADICAL court move against contraceptives. Thomas has already indicated his desire to do so. Other justices may now say that is not their plan but we just saw they do not honor their words.
The church opposes all of these things, (abortion, gay marriage, contraception).
My guess is, for some reason, their power and influence came roaring back...question is, what brought this on?
My suspicion is that this follows a philosophical version of “Newton’s Third Law of Motion” in which every action causes and equal and opposite reaction.
The conservative members of the court are rightfully concerned about the breakdown of fundamental moral standards which are manifesting in very extreme and dangerous ways, and having measurably detrimental consequences to society, and how inappropriate Supreme Court decisions of the past have paved the way for much of it.
As best as I can assess, I do not believe Thomas wants to ban contraceptives in any way shape or form. I believe he wants to rectify erroneous and faulty decisions made in the past by activists court justices whose actions were politically driven, rather than guided by law. This is basically the same opinion applied to Roe vs Wade.
The leftists Justices rightfully view the Roe vs Wade decision as a threat to other cases as mentioned, and for good reasons. They know those other case decisions are just as flawed from a strict constitutional perspective as Roe, so they are trying to construct a preemptive narrative of conservatives wanting to destroy the world, when it really is just a matter of extricating the federal government out of business it has no business being in, in the first place.
There are innumerable reasons for keeping the federal government in check, out of the peoples lives, and restricted to the enumerated powers of the constitution, as one faulty decision can set the foundation for a multitude of others. It is likewise a grave mistake to allow the creation of inferred constitutional rights which do not actually exist, because this is clearly a means to continue fraudulently creating them out of whole cloth for the purpose of advancing an underlying ideological agenda.
I would contend that anyone claiming that the Constitution establishes a right for citizens to have access to contraceptives is a political hack, pushing a clear political agenda, just as assuredly as the reverse would be true for the court to claim that the Government had the right to outlaw contraceptives. These legal decisions have far reaching consequences, and too many people apparently do not possess the necessary intellect to understand these complexities.
To accept the premise that there is a constitutional right to contraceptives would also have to agree that by the same flawed logic, there is a constitutional right to bubble gum, and that no state may take any action which might restrict such access to bubble gum, as absurd as that may sound.
And now, the door to Bizarro World is slung wide open, because if you have a constitutional right to bubble gum, what do you NOT have a constitutional right to? Then comes the arguments for demanding that bubble gum, being a fundamental constitutional right, those who cannot afford bubble gum should receive financial assistance to satisfy that right. And this can go on infinitely.
Back to your original question … what brought this on? I dare suspect that like many of us, our sane and thoughtful Supreme Court Justices probably had the same question in their minds while witnessing the insanity now playing out in the public view, with transgender freaks reading story time to young children; the total abuse of children with this increasing indoctrination at such early ages with sexual concepts totally inappropriate for their age, and this most recent epidemic of gender dysphoria that is leading to the most egregious assault on them by left wing lunatics who promote chemically castrating these children with hormone blockers by the time they reach middle school. None of this, by the way, could have been possible without the assistance of fatally flawed, politically driven leftist Supreme Court decisions claiming “gay sex” as an activity that is constitutionally protected, which then led to gay couples adopting children, gay marriage, and now the perverse grooming of young children beginning as early as 5 years old, under the absurd pretext of exposing them to the “real world”, etc., etc.
Just as one can be in favor of the use of contraceptives, while being against making access to them a constitutionally protected right, you can also be in favor of people loving who they choose to love, while rejecting the premise that the federal government has authority to interfere in the debate that should be left up to the people, and not to the arbitrary decision of the high court.
There is an old, but very simple concept that should be easy for most to grasp … a federal government which assumes the power to grant you everything, has attained the power to take everything away from you too.
I have to say that I’ve noticed a lot of lesbians upset about roe v wade. I am not trying to be disrespectful and human rights are important but sometimes people like to take any chance they can to be mad at republicans. Last time I checked lesbians shouldn’t have a need for an abortion.
Lesbians can and do get pregnant. Lesbians get sexually assaulted and require medical intervention.
I'm not a lesbian, I can no longer get pregnant due to having had a hysterectomy for medical reasons, and I am still upset about this issue. Just because it doesn't affect me directly doesn't mean I can't understand the ramifications.
Yes, "human rights ARE important." I'm glad you admit that the infringement on human rights is the reason why people are "mad at republicans."
I'd go beyond "legal" and make them mandatory. And any woman on public assistance who finds herself "with child" must have her tubes tied once the baby is born, or identify the father (confirmed by DNA) and he given a irreversible vasectomy
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(yes, this was written with extreme sarcasm in mind).
