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 ...
The Chief justice specifically ruled out Griswold v. Connecticut...did he not!!!!
I doubt it but are there any states that have outlawed or threatened to outlaw (non-abortion) birth control?
“Irregardless” is not a real word. Regardless, is.
Brian Fitzpatrick has to be voted out. He is a giant RINO!
I’m actually fairly well acquainted with the GOP screwing us over at the behest of some donor or another. This is where we are, again. They are not doing their jobs (there are exceptions, so treasure them), we are being sold out.
Again.
I’m not making excuses for them. I’m not going to try to rationalize myself into being a good little ignored constituent. No, you want my vote, you’d better earn it. And what I have seen with all the coercive nonsense from the coochie police is not earning my vote.
Birth control pills work after a child has been conceived. IUDs work after a child has been conceived.
Has anybody ever really questioned the whole “birth control”mentality as in: has it truly benefited women in any real way? have women benefited from poisoning themselves over the last 50 years?
If anything, it has led to the objectification of women and the promotion of slutty selfish behavior on both sides and the degradation of children.
Re: 29 - BTW, I don’t believe we can infer anything from the comments in Dobbs by AJ Thomas that inform us to his personal beliefs on contraception. To me, that’s the mark of a good judge.
[Morgana #1] Did Justice Thomas really say he was going after Griswold v. Connecticut?[devere #3] I believe he mentioned Griswold as a badly decided case (which it was), but no one thinks it will ever be overturned.
[Morgana #9] I don’t know much about Griswold, do you know where I could read up on it?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Dobbs v. Jacksons Women's Health Organization, 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), slip op.
THOMAS, J. filed a concurring opinion in which he agreed with the Dobbs decision, but stated "I write separately to emphasize a second, more fundamental reason why there is no abortion guarantee lurking in the Due Process Clause." (pp. 117-123 of the PDF)
At page 2 of his dissent, Justice THOMAS stated,
As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little support for modern substantive due process doctrine”).“The notion that a constitutional provision that guaranteesonly ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, orproperty could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Carlton, 512 U. S. 26, 40 (1994) (Scalia, J.,concurring in judgment). The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application inother, 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 agreethat “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remainwhether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of therights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice THOMAS opines that the legal reasoning of substantive due process is invalid. As an example of such oxymoronic reasoning, he referred to Griswold and advocated for directly taking on and overturning all opinions resting upon that legal reasoning, while stating that the decision in those cases might be upheld on other, different but valid legal reasoning.
Notably, Justice THOMAS was a one judge minority in stating this should have been implemented in the Dobbs case. He was rather advertising for someone to bring a case which would require that reasoning to be decided as valid or invalid.
If the legal reasoning of substantive due process is invalid, it was invalid where used previously. The Court did not need to decide that matter in order to decide Dobbs, and refrained from so doing.
Justice THOMAS did not state that he would have dissented from the opinion in Griswold. It is far more likely he would have concurred but upon different legal reasoning not involving substantive due process. It should be borne in mind that Griswold struck down as unconstitutional, a state law forbidding the use of contraceptives. There is no reasonable, rational belief that Justice THOMAS advocates for the return of such a law, but for political purposes, some people make believe there is a crisis at hand, and they have legislation to save us from the non-existent crisis.
The quote from Griswold below may help demonstrate the nature of the legal reasoning of substantive due process, with penumbras formed by emanations.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep381479/ (Official - Library of Congress, PDF)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html (Unofficial - text)
Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 484 (1965):
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This quote from Griswold at 381 U.S. 485 may clarify what was decided by the Griswold court (contrary to the recent babbling of President Biden):
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 307.
Griswold was cited as authority in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 129 (1973):
The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring).
More threatened would appear to be the decision in Obergefell finding a constitutional right to same sex marriage, thus striking down any conflicting state law limiting marriage to couples comprised of one man and one woman. It might prove difficult to demonstrate that right in the Constitution without reference to a penumbra formed by emanations.
The pervert marriage ruling should be revisited and overturned, and not 50 years from now! But I can’t imagine wanting birth control pills to be illegal.
Very true. Women are expected to be 100 percent available and men pressure them for sex without responsibility. The result is not just objectification of women but a couple of generations of unmanly men. And the divorce rate matches use of contraceptives.
Massive deception and confusion as to what constitutes a right.
I doubt there’s a first straw for you when it comes to RINOs like Nancy Mace.
“Lol”
Which aspect of contraceptives are you laughing about? Their abortifacient aspect? Their cancer-causing aspect? The other health problems they cause? Their paving the way for abortion because of the anti-life mentality they ingrain in people? You embarrass yourself. So-called Republicans and conservatives like you are the reason conservatives always have their backs against the wall. You surrender to the leftists on one evil after another and keep backing up, drawing new lines in the sand and the liberals keep pushing further.
Well said. Excellent post. Many on this thread could benefit from your words of wisdom on the corrosive nature of contraception.
Excellent post. Yours and the one that follow it, 47 and 48, are the best on this thread.
I’m happy to let the voters in Nancy Mace’s district decide if she represents them well.
Senator Ron Johnson is supporting the gay marriage bill, I guess you think he’s a RINO also? His race could decide control of the Senate, should conservatives abandon him over this?
“should conservatives abandon him over this?”
What exactly are we conserving when we surrender to the left on one issue after another?
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.