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.
After Clarence Thomas declared that the constitutional right to contraception should be reconsidered just like Roe was, Democrats passed a bill in the House of Representatives to make the right to contraception a federal law, despite Republican opposition, so that no American in any state would ever have to fear losing their access to contraception simply based on where they live:
And many radical leftist Democrats also believe that pedophiles have a "Constitutional right" to their sexual orientation. Myself I don't think lawmakers have any business in the bedroom (minus the pedos of course) That being said abortion is a separate issue from contraception. I don't see how any laws can be passed denying anyone access to contraception. But that access isn't a right. Nevertheless outlawing contraception is a religious extremist thought process. There can be no other reason to object to it being freely available as a commodity.
So passing a law forbidding it is making a law in respect to religion which is unconstitutional.
All But 10 House Republicans Voted Against Ensuring the Right to Contraception
GOP lawmakers insist they’re not coming for contraception or marriage rights — yet the vast majority of them have voted against codifying them into law.
Could it be because once placed into law that gives the government certain rights they should not have to begin with ... ?
This is not State; this is not Federal. This is a person's personal decision that needs no legislation. The idea that the law is even having this discussion is horrendous. To have or have not babies, is not political and is something a government like Russia would pull on their citizens.
Seems to me the u.s. Federal government has created a smoke screen, so as people will not see their dwindling 'economic rights' ...
Tying up SCOTUS in discussions which has nothing to do with the Constitution and the people's rights, is an ill spent of their time.
what's the reason for the bill that was voted on to even include this language? Why did they have a first term, 65 year old Jewish woman be the presenter of the Bill?
Quote:
The United States has a long history of reproductive coercion, including the childbearing forced upon enslaved women, as well as the forced sterilization of Black women, Puerto Rican women, indigenous women, immigrant women, and disabled women, and reproductive coercion continues to occur.
The right to make personal decisions about contraceptive use is important for all Americans, and is especially critical for historically marginalized groups, including Black, indigenous, and other people of color; immigrants; LGBTQ people; people with disabilities; people with low incomes; and people liv18 ing in rural and underserved areas. Many people who are part of these marginalized groups already face barriers – exacerbated by social, political, economic, and environmental inequities
I'd vote against it if they brought it straight to the floor without discussion or amendment.
I'd also vote for it because it not only denigrates in language a Health Care professional making the personal choice to not provide contraceptives (those religious exemptions the Dems seem to hate), it then COMPELS them to give up that same right and provide contraception.
So, if a woman went to a crisis pregnancy center (the pro-life outfits) and says "I want the Plan B pill", the bill would compel them to oblige her.
It's 14 pages, mostly goobly-**** as bills tend to be. But it's readily available.
Is that the most pressing thing for Congress to be addressing ….. Your right to birth control. ???
it MUST be, because it was introduced July 14, sent to committee on Commerce as required, rushed through the Rules Committee - which established there would be exactly 1 hour of debate, debated on July 21 at 9:20 am.
A first-term Republican woman from Iowa made a motion to send it back to Commerce ... since thus far the entirety of consideration had been 1 hour of debate. That motion failed along party lines, then the final vote was held.
Seven days, from Thursday to Thursday. Absolutely imperative apparently.
"Clarence Thomas declared that the constitutional right to contraception should be reconsidered just like Roe was"
Dobbs was pretty clear that the decision pertained to abortion only...
"None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. Accordingly, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way."
What's never whispered is that every time these cases came up over the years, Thomas made the same point himself regardless of the eventual ruling. He even referenced this in his concurrence ("As I said...")
Now, one would have to go to all the other cases cited to see if he OPPOSES them, or whether he disagreed with the reasons cited. I suspect it's the latter.
Which is why this thread......people are understandably concerned by some of the more extreme politicians that have said they would restrict access to contraception. If that happens, the argument that birth control is easily accessible will no longer be valid. Your argument regarding abortion is hollow in a thread about keeping birth control accessible.
there's fewer politicians that would "restrict access to pre-conception contraception" than HAVE voted for the woman to have the sole right to terminate a pregnancy at any time.
It's not just those running for office - there are at least some current Republican lawmakers and politicians suggesting they would like to ban contraception, as well:
the title of the bill is "the right to contraception act"
you think making something a right will make it not allowed to be banned.... just take a look at the 2nd amendment... the fascist (authoritarian) liberals are constantly wanting to BAN that RIGHT
And they have done so to a certain extent. So now what, lefties? State Legislatures have already set the precedent that states can legislate restrictions on our rights, namely 2nd Amendment Rights.
You all chased that car, caught it, and now you're unhappy because you've discovered that since states can restrict 2nd Amendment Rights, they can restrict other supposed "rights," just as easily.
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.
