Posted on 07/18/2022 1:26:09 PM PDT by Morgana
President Joe Biden on Monday said he 'strongly support's a House bill that would codify the right to contraception.
The Biden administration put out a statement of support for the Right to Contraception Act, which the House will vote on this week as part of a slew of legislation Democrats are passing to protect reproductive rights.
In the statement, Biden again warned the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would have 'far-reaching consequences' on women's health.
'The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated a constitutional right to choose, has already had devastating implications for women's health and public health,' the administration said in a statement.
The Right to Contraception Act allows people to obtain and use contraceptives, and protects healthcare providers' ability to provide contraceptives and relevant information to patients.
The goal is to protect all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including oral and emergency contraceptives, intrauterine devices and condoms.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
No, plenty of people oppose abortion.
It doesn’t matter. Again, cases before the SCOTUS court are supposed to be ruled on their Constitutional merits, not upon political expediency. It is not supposed to be dependent upon popular opinion. If people want their birth control (just like their abortions) they need to get it another way than by creating a fake Constitutional right to it to appease the masses.
But it’s not a case that is being talked about. Row V. Wade was.
No the “feds” cannot.
With no mandate on abortion at all in the Constitution, there is no Constitutional basis for a federal law trying to institute any such mandate, as Congress has no Constitutional foundation behind such a law. All auhority for any federal law must rely on a Constitutional foundation. If the Supreme Court finds no such authority for itself, from where does Congress think it has such authority???
“The 14th amendment would support it since a number of states have 15 wk laws already.”
A number of states having anthing does not make a 14th amendment case.
If Alito believed the “general welfare clause” amounted to Constitutional approval for Roe V Wade, he would have made a different argument and possibly a different ruling than he did.
In order for the commerce clause to apply, the activity first has to fit an activty the SCOTUS thinks is covered by or intended to be covered by that clause.
A woman’s ability to travel to another state mitigates any need for “federal” “commerce clause” intervention to provide that which can be provided without any federal say so.
See my post #42.
Roe V. Wade is much different.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs improved the outlook for babies’ health by quite a lot.
The Holy Sacredness of Supreme Court decisions vanished really really fast.
Modern society is based on entitlements without obligations for women and responsibilities without rights for men.
That is applied with violent harshness is regards to all things related to parenthood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.