Firstly, you need to learn an ancient technique called reading comprehension. If you were to go to the preceding paragraph to the quote you have been posting here on GAG, you will see the following:
"The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66"
Now you either intentionally left that paragraph out to gin up fear. Or perhaps you are quite the dim bulb.
Also, if you were to read pass the paragraph that you are constantly posting here on GAG, you would see that it says, " . . . . substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority." In layman's terms, it means judges can't make law from the bench. Judges are intended to make sure laws adhere to the US Constitution. They are not there to make laws. Perhaps you ignored this lesson in social studies and/or US History class?
I can at least understand where pro-lifers are coming from (or claiming to come from) on abortion, even if my opinion on the whole thing is basically “I’m a dude, I don’t really even think about this stuff, but at the end of the day, I defer to the ladies to hammer this one out for themselves, it’s not my pig, not my farm.” But the conceptual idea of an abortion doesn’t offend me in the slightest. You ain’t shit til you’re counted in the census, lmao. Christ, I could’ve been “aborted” two years AFTER I was born and wouldn’t have known either way, I don’t have any memory of consciousness at that age. So I’m not particularly worried about supposed rights of an embryo. I don’t consider humans any better than chickens on a life-value level, we’re just higher on the food chain, and I put chicken embryos in a hot frying pan of sizzling bacon grease regularly without thinking twice about it, lmao, so if the “murderer” shoe fits, I’ll take a size 13😂
But if we start banning BIRTH CONTROL? America might be in the running for batshit craziest country on the planet if that happens. Like are they trying to stop people from fucking altogether? Why would you do that? That sounds like the plan of salty people who don’t get laid enough, lmfao. My problem would be that this reeks of Christian values. I don’t say that to offend Christians, I say that to just remind Christians that they are well within their rights to live however they please, but they have no right to try to impose their values on government or society, those things need to exist as if there’s no such thing as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. There can be no concept of God allowed into the public equation, bottom line, because that’s just not everybody’s deal, and it shouldn’t have to be.
Yeah, I know a lot of people keep stressing that Thomas was alone in opinion to go after contraception but they are missing a key detail. Right now there are no other justices that agree with him, but what happens when the composition of the court changes, when all of these members are gone and replaced with new ones? Yes, most of us will be elderly and out of child bearing years by then, but what does that mean for future generations? Or what happens when we have end up with over a billion people, like China, or India, will a supreme court decide their is not right to bodily automony and force sterilizations or abortions. Probably none of these things will happen with the current composition of the court, but we are reminded of how powerful their ruling are, whether making landmark rulings or overturning them.
Not worried about it, for two reasons.
1. Democrats say there is no slippery slope, been told this for years when I bring up concern for gun control. They say they just want one or two things and it will NEVER GO past that, that there is no slippery slope.
We have nothing to worry about then. IF there is a slippery slope then Gun control will never ever end until American's are 100% disarmed.
2. Republicans will Join Democrats to pass a nationwide law to legalize it... as the court doesn't make law, it only interprets. Even if a state decided to outlaw it, one could be it online anyways.
Opinion
78Opinion
The weird thing is this is about getting women to produce more babies. Even as there is no protection for women when it comes to pregnancy. They can be investigated for miscarriages and charged with "suspicious" deaths of the child. Then on the contraception front, they can be denied medication. Even if the medicine has nothing to do with pregnancy. My ex had a problem with her menstrual cycle. She almost died and had to be hospitalized for several days. The doctor prescribed birth control to stop her bleeding.
This is beyond insane at this point. Syrian women have more rights.
They do not have the power to ban birth control. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to legislate. That's what this latest abortion ruling was about.
The Roe v Wade had the effect of granting the federal government unconstutional power. This ruling gave power back to the states where is rightly belongs.
One result of this ruling may be to give justification for restricting the federal government from passing illegal, dictatorial medical mandates.
So, while I support access to abortion, this isn't a bad ruling if it limits Washington DC to the powers it is granted under the constitution.
You know if you democrats would actually read, you wouldn’t look so dumb…
Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)... are not at issue.
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut... I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Some media asshole with a woman's study degree just takes a huge dump and you eat the shit right out of their asshole like a baby bird rather than reading the decision.
I would fear for our upcoming years ahead of banning abortions and birth control. We live in a highly sexualized society where men can't even date without sex. The ones bearing the consequences the most will be the unwanted children being born into this new legislation. And no, adoption won't solve the problem. In fact, putting innocent children in the hands of the wrong people will have the worst outcomes. Did you know all throughout history , orphans have been bought and sold as servants, who rarely were ever treated well? what makes you think something like this won't happen today?
You do realize that the supreme court does not make the laws, right? That's entirely on the house and Senate.
The most the supreme court can do in that regard is kick it down to the states to decide for themselves, and this issue has nowhere near as much support in the public or state governments as banning or restricting abortion does.
Except that they are not. If you insist on this nonsense, name the Court case, please.
Nor does not subsidizing birth control in a health care plan constitute "banning" it, hysteria from the Leftists notwithstanding. And that is a matter of simple economics: if every routine good or service had to be paid for by 3rd party insurance, the costs of said insurance would skyrocket, as would the cost of the good or service, as consumers no longer shop around for a better deal.
What would your car insurance cost if oil changes and tire rotations had to be paid for by it? And what would the oil changes and tire rotations cost? The answer is a hell of a lot more, both times.
"We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
Its called house cleaning. As many leftist types have stated, you had 50 some odd years to codify this stuff into law, and state constitutions but you didn't. None of this BS in outlined in the constitution and is not under the purview of the federal government, but, was shoe horned into it by activist judges. Case in point, a federal ban on marijuana that states are openly defying, why? Because "None of this BS in outlined in the constitution and is not under the purview of the federal government."
For the media, its much easier to "RWAR religious conservatives!" than to, oh "we fucked up the paperwork, activist judges getting slapped down, we we never changed the laws for 50 years... go loot and burn down the local Foot Locker in protest!"
You should be yelling at your state reps not SCOTUS. Stupid useful idiot kids as usual.
I hope if that Supreme Court bans contraception that they will provide adequate funds FROM THEIR OWN POCKETS to enable those mothers to bring up unwanted children.
Ever considered if child physical and mental abuse will increase? Unless, of course, the kids will be taken into care by the authorities.
Not gonna happen. Birth control pills have been authorized by the FDA (a federal organization) for use. Plus, birth control pills are sometimes used just to regulate a woman's periods, not for contraception. It's possible the Plan B pill may lose its federal legality and have that determination returned to the individual states, but the Plan B pill has also been approved for use by the FDA.
It is good that we have at least one Supreme Court justice that believe we should follow the US Constitution. These are matters for the states. Per the US Constitution, the powers of the Federal government are few, defined, and limited to those enumerated. Unfortunately, neither the presidents that appoint justices nor the senate that approves believe in following the US Constitution.
The Federal Government including its court has no right to say one thing or the other on the matter.
I would point out however that industrialized countries currently have birth rates soo low they are all headed for demographic collapse and cultural extinction.
Birth control will be banned if not by us, then those wiser civilizations which will survive us.
That's horrible, access to birth control should be considered a human right in this country. If left up to the states, I'm willing to bet there would be plenty of places in the US where it's illegal to purchase birth control, as plenty of states are promoting abstinence-only sex ed. Not sure why people will brag about freedom and then try not to defend human rights.
I’ve never believed in taking birth control nor going through with abortion. I remain abstinent/celibate until I am in a longterm loving relationship where I know i’d be okay having sex and getting pregnant. Now once I turn a certain age where I am not trying to birth more kids, i’d prefer to get my tubes tied, but if they ban that too then I don't know what to say
No that would be too much. That´s too far of life. I can understand why banning abortion but that´s actual contra-productive and I don´t see a reason for that in fact I would rather see a need to encourage guys to use birth control options more often and actually they deeper research to find more birth of control methods for guys.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, or practice it or not, you have to admit that abstinence (actual abstinence, not pretending to be abstinent) is the most effective form of birth control there could possibly be. It's 100% effective.
As for the proposed ban on contraceptives, well, you can always move to Canada or Mexico if that's a step too far.
Stop the cap, the court ruling specifically states the right to contraception is different than abortion. These are not considered as situations that go hand in hand. Contraception is not going anywhere, it is here to stay. Stop getting caught up in the media hype and bs and seek the truth.
Judges dont make laws. They didn't even "make" abortion legal in Roe V Wade they used an overly broad interpretation of the 14th amendment right to privacy to make it so states couldnt pass laws to make abortion illegal. De facto legalization.
This is a troll post isn't it?
I don't care for my own part.. I'll stop having penetration sex until my eggs are gone anyway. Birth control is not 100 % safe, abstaining is really the only way. Luckily I had plenty of intercourse previously so not missing out too much :P. Though I feel sad for those who want to enjoy sex without fearing a pregnancy.
Reason why, global inflation, lacking of job, as wel as job market is shrinking and population are hiking as well hugely machine, artificial, digital, computer, and robotics machine takeover.
If we do not stop population now than will be confronted catastrophe, lawlessness, and anarchy in the earth, consequence will be WW3.
It is humble opinion.
The birth control ban will be the same as the abortion ban, non-existent. It will just send the decision to regulate birth control back to the states. What I am looking forward to is more bitching and moaning about it. There's something oddly satisfying about people shrieking over things that didn't actually happen.
You can also add your opinion below!
