Impact of Dobbs and Abortion Laws

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

She didn't say she would ban birth control, only that she would listen to both sides of the argument.  And she's just one person. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

She didn't say she would ban birth control, only that she would listen to both sides of the argument.  And she's just one person. 

Ya, ok! 

 

Just none? 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

“Inherent” right to privacy 😂

 

The agenda is ALWAYS displayed in the adjectives. 

[The Frankish Reich]

46 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

“Inherent” right to privacy 😂

 

The agenda is ALWAYS displayed in the adjectives. 

Well, no.

The adjective here simply reflects the idea that a right to privacy exists as a matter of constitutional law. It is not a statutory right that may be taken away by Congress; it is an inherent right, guaranteed by the constitution.

 

And this is where the rubber meets the road. Do you believe the only rights a person may have are those that are expressly enumerated in the constitution? 

It is no sufficient to say, "but as a practical matter, no state is seriously proposing to ban birth control." The question is would a state have the constitutional authority to do that if the legislature were so inclined. Because if you answer "yes" to that question, you are necessarily rejecting the idea that the constitution protects some right (yes, an inherent right) to privacy. That implication - that there is no such thing - is clear in the Dobbs decision. 

[Pokebball]

On 7/14/2023 at 10:38 AM, Tiberius said:

Horrible! And the supreme court might get rid of red flag laws? 

 

 

Grew from 1,200 calls to 2,400 calls. While I'm sympathetic to all forms of abuse, the number pales in comparison to the estimated 620,000+ abortions each year.

[B-Man]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Now they're lying about banning birth control?  Condoms even?  LOL!

 

They know that the vast majority of Americans are against abortion after 12 weeks, so they HAVE to go with the big lie that Republicans are coming after birth control. 
 

They can quote the tiny, foolish few who advocate that, but it isn’t the GOP position and they know it.  
 

 

 

 

.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, no.

The adjective here simply reflects the idea that a right to privacy exists as a matter of constitutional law. It is not a statutory right that may be taken away by Congress; it is an inherent right, guaranteed by the constitution.

 

And this is where the rubber meets the road. Do you believe the only rights a person may have are those that are expressly enumerated in the constitution? 

It is no sufficient to say, "but as a practical matter, no state is seriously proposing to ban birth control." The question is would a state have the constitutional authority to do that if the legislature were so inclined. Because if you answer "yes" to that question, you are necessarily rejecting the idea that the constitution protects some right (yes, an inherent right) to privacy. That implication - that there is no such thing - is clear in the Dobbs decision. 

You do NOT have the right to harm other people just because you do it in private. Period!

[Doc]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, no.

The adjective here simply reflects the idea that a right to privacy exists as a matter of constitutional law. It is not a statutory right that may be taken away by Congress; it is an inherent right, guaranteed by the constitution.

 

And this is where the rubber meets the road. Do you believe the only rights a person may have are those that are expressly enumerated in the constitution? 

It is no sufficient to say, "but as a practical matter, no state is seriously proposing to ban birth control." The question is would a state have the constitutional authority to do that if the legislature were so inclined. Because if you answer "yes" to that question, you are necessarily rejecting the idea that the constitution protects some right (yes, an inherent right) to privacy. That implication - that there is no such thing - is clear in the Dobbs decision. 

 

No they can't ban birth control.  Abortion is a different and special matter because it involves ending another human life.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Doc

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

other people

I assume you mean fetus = person. Which we can have a philosophical argument about, but let me ask you this: what clause of the federal constitution or its amendments tells the state that they must protect "other people?"

1 minute ago, Doc said:

No they can't ban birth control

But that is precisely what Connecticut did before Griswold and its recognition of a constitutional right to privacy. 

So ... you may be saying "but no state currently WANTS to ban birth control," but that's quite a different thing than saying "the constitution protects the right to use birth control."

[SoCal Deek]

14 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I assume you mean fetus = person. Which we can have a philosophical argument about, but let me ask you this: what clause of the federal constitution or its amendments tells the state that they must protect "other people?"

But that is precisely what Connecticut did before Griswold and its recognition of a constitutional right to privacy. 

So ... you may be saying "but no state currently WANTS to ban birth control," but that's quite a different thing than saying "the constitution protects the right to use birth control."

On this we agree. The constitution definitely doesn’t prohibit the right to use most types of birth control. 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

The constitution definitely doesn’t prohibit the right to use most types of birth control

Well, I know you understand logic better than this ...

... "The constitution doesn't PROHIBIT the right to use most types of birth control" is quite a different proposition than "The constitution PROTECTS the right to use most types of birth control."

These propositions are (to me) both true. But they are not equivalent in logic or law.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, I know you understand logic better than this ...

... "The constitution doesn't PROHIBIT the right to use most types of birth control" is quite a different proposition than "The constitution PROTECTS the right to use most types of birth control."

These propositions are (to me) both true. But they are not equivalent in logic or law.

I’ve lost you here, but then a message board is rarely a good place for splitting legal hairs. 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve lost you here, but then a message board is rarely a good place for splitting legal hairs. 

I need to draw a Venn diagram. Do they still teach those in California?

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I need to draw a Venn diagram. Do they still teach those in California?

Probably, but I was educated in WNY. 😉

[Doc]

22 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

But that is precisely what Connecticut did before Griswold and its recognition of a constitutional right to privacy. 

So ... you may be saying "but no state currently WANTS to ban birth control," but that's quite a different thing than saying "the constitution protects the right to use birth control."

 

The same applies to everything a person could do, which is why I said abortion is a special circumstance.

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[B-Man]

 

Well, many here ARE that stupid.

 

This birth control ad targeting Republicans is stupid and if you believe it, you're STUPID too

 

https://twitchy.com/samj/2023/07/16/birth-control-ad-n2385442

 

 

 

Is this the dumbest Democratic campaign ad ever?

 

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/07/16/is-this-the-dumbest-democratic-campaign-ad-ever-n564933

 

The competition would be stiff for this sort of award, but we may have a contender in the form of a new television ad airing in Ohio from the group Progress Action fund. They are opposed to State Issue 1 which will be on the ballot in August. The measure would require any amendments to the state constitution to receive the support of at least 60% of eligible voters. But because opponents of the proposal see it as a “back door” way to prevent the legalization of abortion, ” A young couple are shown in bed (in their underwear) presumably preparing for a sexual encounter. But when the man reaches for a condom, they are interrupted by an intruder who is as much of a stereotype of a stodgy old Republican politician as you could possibly imagine.

 

To be fair, this advertisement will probably draw some eyeballs. It features an attractive young woman in her underwear making out with a similarly handsome young man. Quite a few people will likely pause when this shows up on their screen. But the phrase “heavy-handed” doesn’t begin to describe the level of stereotyping going on here. The “intruder” is an elderly, white, and presumably straight male. He’s in a typical business suit with a red tie, similar to the vast majority of men you see at CPAC. And just in case that’s not subtle enough for you, he goes out of his way to say, “I’m your Republican congressman. Now that we’re in charge, we’re banning birth control.” 

 

 

The entire concept of the advertisement is not just misleading but patently false, of course.

 

{snip}

 

So what’s being attempted in Ohio might be considered “unusual” but it’s not unheard of. And it’s not specific to abortion or any other issue. If the measure is approved, it will require a bit more consensus among the state’s voters before future changes to the constitution can be put in place. If Ohio Republicans were focusing entirely on the abortion issue, they could have crafted an amendment specifically declaring the procedure unconstitutional under whichever conditions they set, but they’re not doing that. Abortion in Ohio is currently legal through roughly 22 weeks of pregnancy.

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

"Small" government Republicans:

 

 

Who the F do these people think they are?

 

[Tommy Callahan]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

"Small" government Republicans:

 

 

Who the F do these people think they are?

 

oh snap. we are back to supporting medical privacy.  that all went out the window during the covid lockdowns.