Posted on 07/21/2022 12:25:33 PM PDT by Morgana
The House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill to protect access to contraceptives on the federal level amid growing concerns that the conservative-majority Supreme Court could repeal that right.
Just eight GOP lawmakers crossed the aisle to vote for the bill. Two voted 'present,' and six Republicans did not vote at all.
The bill wound up passing in a 228 to 195 vote and now faces an uphill battle in the evenly-divided Senate.
It was introduced by North Carolina Democrat Rep. Kathy Manning last week.
House Democrats are rushing to protect privacy rights that they fear are now on the line after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month, sending the issue of abortion back to the individual states.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, which rolled back Roe, specifies that the ruling only applies to the issue of abortion.
However, Justice Clarence Thomas set off alarm bells across the country when he wrote in a concurring opinion that the high court could revisit the landmark cases that legalized same-sex marriage, same-sex intimacy and contraceptives access.
Griswold v. Connecticut, decided in 1965, ruled that married couples had the right to buy and use contraceptives without government intervention. It was one of the three cases specifically named by Thomas.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I suspect it is
I believe Thomas was saying he considered those cases based on the same “poisonous tree” as Roe. I suspect he wants to purge the stare decisis of cases based on an implied Constitutional right to privacy. It is shaky grounds at best and if those rights are to continue, they should be based on more solid foundations which should be up to the states like abortion now .
Re: 23 - good post and I think you are on point.
Lol!
Irregardless of your position on contraception, where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to regulate the issue? Not every issue is a federal/national issue. This is a battle that needs to be fought in the states, as does a majority of the issues that the Federal government deals with.
I hate to say it, but these guys have gone cuckoo for cocoa-puffs, RUN!!!
Absolutely correct! Congress does not have authority on this issue.
“I believe Thomas was saying he considered those cases based on the same “poisonous tree” as Roe. I suspect he wants to purge the stare decisis of cases based on an implied Constitutional right to privacy. It is shaky grounds at best and if those rights are to continue, they should be based on more solid foundations which should be up to the states like abortion now .”
I see what you are saying.
Looks like gay marriage will be next.
“Irregardless of your position on contraception, where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to regulate the issue? Not every issue is a federal/national issue. This is a battle that needs to be fought in the states, as does a majority of the issues that the Federal government deals with.”
Yes it should be a state issue.
Where does it mention birth control in the US Constitution?
I’d be in favor of review.
Could this SCOTUS review it?
I will be voting for the sanest candidates I can find this time, regardless of party. Voting against contraception is just all kinds of bad, there is no sugarcoating this. Its bad.
“Where does it mention birth control in the US Constitution?”
It does not.
Exactly right. Most of the people on this thread are missing this point, which makes me think that most people, including people here on FR, have no clue on what basis Roe was overturned. It wasn’t because the Justices didn’t like abortion personally or on religious grounds, but because the original Roe was a bad ruling. If these other cases are also bad rulings they should be overturned on the same basis. It doesn’t matter if we happen to like whatever right or laws they wrongly created.
Conservatives say they want Justices that are Originalists and Constitutionalists, until a strict interpretation of the Constitution is unpopular or affects their lifestyle.
He was simply mentioning other cases with knees as wobbly as Roe.
Is there any state where BC would be banned if Griswold was overturned? No. This is just theatre.
Thomas is right that contraception is not a constitutional right.
Congress may not have authority (supreme court definitely doesn’t), depends what the bill says, but you really don’t want this battle right now. It makes Republicans look bad to oppose access to contraception. Better if this just goes away.
It isn't about Thomas and contraception, it's about all the extra crap they put into a bill......
Here's an example:
Rep. Beth Van Duyne of Texas called the bill 'poorly-drafted and loosely-defined' on the House floor and said it 'would be detrimental to women’s health and send taxpayer dollars straight to abortion-on-demand beneficiaries.'z
Every damn bill in the House of Representatives always has hidden crap that undermines the original intent of the bill.
It was the Supreme Court of 1998 that ruled that the Line Item Veto was unconstitutional and eliminated it that has led us to this point in our country.
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.