When a state actually does ban birth control we'll find out. Truth be told I think this is just a LW panic attack.
I cannot deal with people who are stuck in circular logic instead of objective reality. Good luck to you.
The classic words of a tyrant. Brava. And yes, it's always a straw man when your future fear is all you have.
Nice dodge. It's fear mongering when you intend to induce fear based on your straw man. No one is working to make contraceptives illegal.
UH WHO is trying to ban abortion to "protect women from their own bad choices" ?????????????? They are trying but some "people" are trying to take that responsibility away and force them to gestate like broodstock.
UH WHO IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY WOMEN'S responsibility for their own bodies ? REPUBLICANS, RIGHTIES, Righty Supreme Court JUSTICES... They want the government to own the bodies of pregnant women !!! Taking away all the woman's responsibility..
FoxHastings said: ↑ UH WHO is trying to ban abortion to "protect women from their own bad choices" ?????????????? They are trying but some "people" are trying to take that responsibility away and force them to gestate like broodstock. OF COURSE you have to purposely miss the point and pretend NO ONE on earth is tryng to ban abortion because you claim you aren't....very artful DODGE...
FoxHastings said: ↑ UH WHO is trying to ban abortion to "protect women from their own bad choices" ?????????????? They are trying but some "people" are trying to take that responsibility away and force them to gestate like broodstock. YES and they are the ones who allegedly want to "protect women from their own bad choices" NOT Pro-Choicers....who want the responsibility of reproduction the woman's responsibility. Funny, I wouldn't have taken you for Pro-Choice...very odd..
In order for government to ban something, it must demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest in doing so. Since there is no compelling reason to prevent people from having sex but not making babies at the same time, I would say such a law would indeed not pass Constitutional muster, especially when considering that we, collectively, are reproducing at a healthy rate. Some might even think we're reproducing too much. The thing is, when it comes to abortion, the "compelling state interest" becomes "protecting the unborn". Many people believe that "life" begins when sperm meets egg, some for religious reasons, which neither I nor the government should take into consideration, but others because it's just a genuinely held belief. Personally I think the idea that a lump of cells that was only conceived a day ago is a human life to be complete hogwash, but I'll concede it is debatable, and there may very well be a point of consideration that should be taken into account, which would mean restricting abortions does indeed have a "compelling state interest", just as protecting the rest of us does. My line in the sand is when there are measurable brainwaves present that are significantly similar to that of a newborn full-term infant. But the fact that there really isn't a way to draw a line in the sand that isn't subject to legitimate objections to the contrary is the problem with this whole issue, and is the core but unanswerable question of "when does life start". I've given you my answer, but if you ask 10 other people, you're likely to get 10 different answers, at least some of which think I'm an f-ing idiot. I would like to see Roe upheld, but I will concede that there are, in fact, some compelling LEGAL reasons not to do so. I'm not talking about personal biases, or even religious consideration (which I absolutely despise on every level), but based on laws, precedents, and just common sense, the legal case to overturn it is not a slam-dunk in either direction. Whatever they decide, I would love it if it were 9-0 one way or the other, at least then the cries of partisanship from SCOTUS might be dampened. While I'm not holding my breath about that happening, I suspect Roberts is thinking the same thing. If I were him, I would lock them all in a room and tell them nobody is leaving until we have a unanimous decision, no matter what it ends up being, even if it takes them months, or longer. Make sure there's a bathroom, put a small panel in the door to receive food, some (intentionally uncomfortable) cots to sleep on, and lock it down until it's done. But I'm not actually him, so...
"I would lock them all in a room and tell them nobody is leaving until we have a unanimous decision, no matter what it ends up being, even if it takes them months, or longer.' Send up white smoke when a decision has been reached. I like it.
It is not illegal to ban it, and GOP is already talking about it, because the same legal argument to legalize contraceptives was also used in Roe / Wade and that argument has now been invalidated. It was "the precedent" which they all gushed about during the hearings. The ban would make is illegal across the board, including married couples. GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-s...nts-to-allow-states-to-ban-contraception-use/ After the U.S. Supreme Court overturns women’s constitutional right to abortion this summer, one Arizona Republican candidate for U.S. Senate thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception.
It is my position that yes, all drugs, including recreational ones, should be available to any adult who wants them and can afford them. Furthermore, I do not think the US Congress possesses the Constitutional authority to ban any drug, including recreational ones. Just as they needed an Amendment before they could ban booze (which, like banning drugs, was a really bad idea), they need one to ban "recreational pharmaceuticals". Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that taking drugs is necessarily a good idea, and I DEFINITELY do not want cartels and street gangs to be involved. I want the CEO of which ever company or companies who manufacture, distribute, and deliver to the end-users to be people who use lawyers, not bullets, to settle disputes, and who have never, and would never kill anyone, unless in legitimate self-defense. The "war on drugs" has been much worse for our society than the drugs themselves ever have, or even hypothetically could be. As for prisoners, well, they surrender many rights when they go to prison, one of which would be recreational drugs, just as they can't get a glass of fine wine, or a boneless ribeye cooked to a perfect medium-rare, and seasoned just right with salt and pepper. But, for people currently in prison for non-violent drug charges, as well as those who previously were, I think they should be released immediately, pardoned in full, and have their records not just sealed, but completely expunged. If there was violence involved, let the violent charges (assault, attempted (or completed) homicide, whatever) stand on their own. Or not, as the case may be.
You and the Q folks, huh... LOL it's like you can't live without driving and whipping fear in the electorate...
As of now, there is no danger of having rights taken away, unless it is liberals driving for the elimination of free speech or right to bear arms.
