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:
After Clarence Thomas declared that the constitutional right to contraception should be overturned 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:
First of all, Clarence Thomas DID NOT declare that the constitutional right to contraception should be overturned. He said like with abortion, the court may have wrongly made a determination on something that is a state's right to determine.
Rachel Maddow!
I suspect the concern is in the abortion pill as a means of birth control. They want to pretend it is condoms and birth control pills though. I hope they are specific, as this looks like another step toward making abortion legal. Boy, they are determined to find a way to do away with their babies. It will be that abortion is birth control at some point - watch!
Property rights are universal and absolute. Contraceptives are property.
The federal government need not grant a right that is already assumed to exist, so says the 9th Amendment.
The federal government has no enumerated power over property rights generally nor contraceptives specifically, so the 10th Amendment is also clear.
Thus, there is neither a need, valid excuse, nor constitutional justification for the federal government to be "granting" anything where contraception is concerned.
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:
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:
the Pelosi House, since the 2018 turnover of majority, has specialized in passing really stupid **** without bipartisan input just because she could. You can look up all the stupid straight party line votes that happened in early 2019 with nary a chance of passing any Senate we've seen for the last 30 years.
IF - and it's still an if - the R's win the House in November, I expect her to finally retire in 2024 rather than get kitched to Biden/Harris' wagon as a gadfly. She's on her last legs in power, legislatively, and frankly as a human being given her age.
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:
furthermore, you might consider listening to the Honestly podcast post-ruling, hosted by married lesbian Bari Weiss, a pro-choice, a pro-life (but not ban, a "safe legal and rare") and especially the "foremost constitutional scholar who was on the left, who explained that when Griswold was decided, that 49 of 50 states allowed contraception, and Griswold ruled against that lone holdout.
We already pay when people don’t use it in the form of Medicaid for prenatal/neonatal care. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the math for about a $10-20 a month IUD, pill, ring, or other contraceptive is way cheaper than paying for all the visits involved with having a baby. Even with insurance, women tend to spend $5000-6000 out of pocket. The actual hospital bill is likely at least twice or even three times that, especially since there are states that now provide care to new moms for up to a year after delivery now. You can easily provide a woman with contraceptives for all her reproductive life for the cost of delivering one baby.
but she has to use them, properly. That's the hurdle we haven't decided to cross yet.
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.
