For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[SmokingFap]

If they do it won't survive a legal challenge.

Really? With this Supreme Court? The one that just reversed what was considered "settled law" after 50 years to eliminate women's bodily autonomy? You probably wouldn't even be upset if they upheld bands on contraception. At least, birth control pills. Condoms, sure, that way the guys' are in charge. But any bodily autonomy for women? Nah. They're less than human to MAGA. Don't deserve to control their own bodies. Too stupid, immoral, or irresponsible I suppose. Should make C-sections illegal, as well for both the doctor and the patient. That's just weak-willed women taking the easy way out. Probably shouldn't let them get their tubes tied, either. They must be able to bare children for their husbands, fathers, uncles, and random rapists. And they must be forced to carry that baby to birth.

If you think or claim that I'm being hyperbolic, I'd argue that it's just the natural course that MAGA Republicans want to take. Don't believe me? It took Democrats to repeal that complete anti-abortion law from Civil War days. Republicans were writhing on the floor of the state House and speaking in tongues, praying to "God" that it would be upheld.

The entire anti-choice movement is about men's complete control over women, like the good ol' days. Only MAGA-infected women agree with that plan. You know, the Stepford Wives. Did you get yours from the Trump Org. yet? I think there's an order form in the back of his Bible.

 

[icanhelp1]

As a rebuttal to Butters, children pregnancies, though an unfortunate crisis, is an indication of societal decay. Lack of parents taking seriously the responsibility for a child’s upbringing, being responsible parents, lack of education and the decline of strong family units is a major influence on child pregnancies. Although when a child becomes pregnant decisions have to be made to protect the child’s life and to lay out a path for the future. The question needs to be asked ‘ where were the parents. Abortion doesn’t remedy the underlying problem.

 

[HisArpy]

Really? With this Supreme Court? The one that just ended what was considered subtle law after 50 years to eliminate women's bodily autonomy? You probably wouldn't even be upset if they upheld bands on contraception. At least, birth control pills. Condoms, sure, that way the guys' are in charge. But any bodily autonomy for women? Nah. They're less than human to MAGA. Don't deserve to control their own bodies. Too stupid, immoral, or irresponsible I suppose. Should make C-sections illegal, as well for both the doctor and the patient. That's just weak-willed women taking the easy way out. Probably shouldn't let them get their tubes tied, either. They must be able to bare children for their husbands, fathers, uncles, and random rapists. And they must be forced to carry that baby to birth.

If you think or claim that I'm being hyperbolic, I'd argue that it's just the natural course that MAGA Republicans want to take. Don't believe me? It took Democrats to repeal that complete anti-abortion law from Civil War days. Republicans were writhing on the floor of the state House and speaking in tongues, praying to "God" that it would be upheld.

The entire anti-choice movement is about men's complete control over women, like the good ol' days. Only MAGA-infected women agree with that plan. You know, the Stepford Wives. Did you get yours from the Trump catalog yet?

It won't.

In order for the conservatives to write and pass legislation which would make contraceptives illegal they'd have to go against several cases which have decided that what goes on in your bedroom involves privacy interests which can be found in the 4th Amendment.

Unlike abortion, which had no direct constitutional basis (or so the court said), privacy is in the Constitution and it has been deemed to apply to contraceptives as well as procreation, gay sex, and lots of other things which go on in the bedroom.

Any bill passed by Congress prohibiting contraceptives and signed into law won't survive a legal challenge. Better, any Congresscritter who signs on to the law won't survive their next election cycle.

 

[icanhelp1]

Really? With this Supreme Court? The one that just reversed what was considered "settled law" after 50 years to eliminate women's bodily autonomy? You probably wouldn't even be upset if they upheld bands on contraception. At least, birth control pills. Condoms, sure, that way the guys' are in charge. But any bodily autonomy for women? Nah. They're less than human to MAGA. Don't deserve to control their own bodies. Too stupid, immoral, or irresponsible I suppose. Should make C-sections illegal, as well for both the doctor and the patient. That's just weak-willed women taking the easy way out. Probably shouldn't let them get their tubes tied, either. They must be able to bare children for their husbands, fathers, uncles, and random rapists. And they must be forced to carry that baby to birth.

If you think or claim that I'm being hyperbolic, I'd argue that it's just the natural course that MAGA Republicans want to take. Don't believe me? It took Democrats to repeal that complete anti-abortion law from Civil War days. Republicans were writhing on the floor of the state House and speaking in tongues, praying to "God" that it would be upheld.

The entire anti-choice movement is about men's complete control over women, like the good ol' days. Only MAGA-infected women agree with that plan. You know, the Stepford Wives. Did you get yours from the Trump Org. yet? I think there's an order form in the back of his Bible.

Banning contraceptives will never happen at the federal level. States that do will pay a heavy political price for such stupidity.

 

[InThe312]

As a rebuttal to Butters, children pregnancies, though an unfortunate crisis, is an indication of societal decay. Lack of parents taking seriously the responsibility for a child’s upbringing, being responsible parents, lack of education and the decline of strong family units is a major influence on child pregnancies. Although when a child becomes pregnant decisions have to be made to protect the child’s life and to lay out a path for the future. The question needs to be asked ‘ where were the parents. Abortion doesn’t remedy the underlying problem.

That's all fine and dandy, but the birth rates in under 18 girls are down pretty much every year since 1990 according to HHS. I'm not sure how that is indicative of society decay.

 

[SmokingFap]

It won't.

In order for the conservatives to write and pass legislation which would make contraceptives illegal they'd have to go against several cases which have decided that what goes on in your bedroom involves privacy interests which can be found in the 4th Amendment.

Unlike abortion, which had no direct constitutional basis (or so the court said), privacy is in the Constitution and it has been deemed to apply to contraceptives as well as procreation, gay sex, and lots of other things which go on in the bedroom.

Any bill passed by Congress prohibiting contraceptives and signed into law won't survive a legal challenge. Better, any Congresscritter who signs on to the law won't survive their next election cycle.

Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional, based on their own majority interpretation of the document, the six conservatives could easily repeal any "right" that we have. And there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it. Who's to stop them? The states? Ha! The Supreme Court decides what is considered a federal right and what is a states' right. In fact, they just did that.

If there were six liberals on the court and they decided that the Second Amendment should be interpreted differently, maybe decide that only official militias should be able to carry firearms, not individual private citizens, you guys would be up shit creek without a paddle. And there's not a goddamn thing you could do about it. Except disobey the law, like you all love to do. "We will not comply" is your battle cry.

 

[SmokingFap]

Banning contraceptives will never happen at the federal level. States that do will pay a heavy political price for such stupidity.

How? The Republicans at the state level could just decide that all elections are rigged against them and overturn any election of a Democratic official. And the conservatives in the Supreme Court would fully support them in their autocracy.

 

[HisArpy]

Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional, based on their own majority interpretation of the document, the six conservatives could easily repeal any "right" that we have. And there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it. Who's to stop them? The states? Ha! The Supreme Court decides what is considered a federal right and what is a states' right. In fact, they just did that.

If there were six liberals on the court and they decided that the Second Amendment should be interpreted differently, maybe decide that only official militias should be able to carry firearms, not individual private citizens, you guys would be up shit creek without a paddle. And there's not a goddamn thing you could do about it. Except disobey the law, like you all love to do. "We will not comply" is your battle cry.

You assume this without facts. Why?

Because of Dobbs? Remember, there is no constitutional Right to abortion. There IS a constitutional right to privacy which has already been attached to contraceptives.

Basically you assume a worst case scenario and posit that as the probable outcome without any facts to base it on. When told of the facts which make that outcome implausible, you disregard those facts in order to promote the doomsday scenario you fabricated.

This is irrational.

 

[SmokingFap]

The question needs to be asked ‘ where were the parents. Abortion doesn’t remedy the underlying problem.

Blaming the parents doesn't remedy the underlying problem of being involuntarily pregnant at 12.

 

[SmokingFap]

You assume this without facts. Why?

Because of Dobbs? Remember, there is no constitutional Right to abortion. There IS a constitutional right to privacy which has already been attached to contraceptives.

Basically you assume a worst case scenario and posit that as the probable outcome without any facts to base it on. When told of the facts which make that outcome implausible, you disregard those facts in order to promote the doomsday scenario you fabricated.

This is irrational.

It would be easy for the Court to just decide that the right to privacy does NOT extend to contraception. And worst case scenarios come to fruition all the time.

 

[icanhelp1]

Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional, based on their own majority interpretation of the document, the six conservatives could easily repeal any "right" that we have. And there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it. Who's to stop them? The states? Ha! The Supreme Court decides what is considered a federal right and what is a states' right. In fact, they just did that.

If there were six liberals on the court and they decided that the Second Amendment should be interpreted differently, maybe decide that only official militias should be able to carry firearms, not individual private citizens, you guys would be up shit creek without a paddle. And there's not a goddamn thing you could do about it. Except disobey the law, like you all love to do. "We will not comply" is your battle cry.

The Supreme Court doesn’t make laws, they determine the constitutionality of laws.

 

[HisArpy]

It would be easy for the Court to just decide that the right to privacy does NOT extend to contraception. And worst case scenarios come to fruition all the time.

Except they already did. Which means that in order for contraception to no longer fall under the penumbra of privacy in the 4th Amendment there has to be something which changed.

Contraception hasn't changed in mode/method/purpose.
Privacy hasn't changed in that what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is still within the Amendment's coverage.

Basically you're fear mongering about a fantasy that is unlikely to happen.

 

[HisArpy]

The Supreme Court doesn’t make laws, they determine the constitutionality of laws.

Technically.

Except we have that thing called exigent circumstances found nowhere except in a SCOTUS decision.

 

[SmokingFap]

Except they already did. Which means that in order for contraception to no longer fall under the penumbra of privacy in the 4th Amendment there has to be something which changed.

Contraception hasn't changed in mode/method/purpose.
Privacy hasn't changed in that what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is still within the Amendment's coverage.

Basically you're fear mongering about a fantasy that is unlikely to happen.

Bakeries are now allowed to discriminate against gay couples. So much for staying out of America's bedrooms.

 

[HisArpy]

Bakeries are now allowed to discriminate against gay couples. So much for staying out of America's bedrooms.

You have a bakery in your bedroom?

 

[icanhelp1]

Blaming the parents doesn't remedy the underlying problem of being involuntarily pregnant at 12.

How often does that actually happen? Perhaps when a child is in the hands of Mexican cartels it does.

 

[SmokingFap]

Basically you're fear mongering about a fantasy that is unlikely to happen.

All you all DO is fear-monger. Or is it monger fear? And the reversal of roe v Wade was "unlikely" until it happened.

 

[SmokingFap]

You have a bakery in your bedroom?

Hell no! I'd be one of those 800 lb. Jabba the Huts that the fire department has to come cut out of my own bedroom doorway with the jaws of life.

But if two men go into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake for themselves, this Supreme Court (in large part) has decided the bakery's owners' freedom of religion outweighs federal/constitutional anti-discrimination protections.

 

[HisArpy]

All you all DO is fear-monger. Or is it monger fear? And the reversal of roe v Wade was "unlikely" until it happened.

Again, according to the courts there's no Constitutional right to abortion. Thus the court could reverse the earlier decision as lacking a Constitutional basis. I disagree but I'm not a justice on the SCOTUS.

OTOH, the SCOTUS cannot do that with privacy because the Right to Privacy is EXPRESSLY enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[icanhelp1]

Technically.

Except we have that thing called exigent circumstances found nowhere except in a SCOTUS decision.

Have a hell of a time explaining that to a judge for raiding a bedroom for use of contraceptives.

 

[SmokingFap]

Again, according to the courts there's no Constitutional right to abortion. Thus the court could reverse the earlier decision as lacking a Constitutional basis. I disagree but I'm not a justice on the SCOTUS.

OTOH, the SCOTUS cannot do that with privacy because the Right to Privacy is EXPRESSLY enumerated in the Constitution.

But the DEFINITION of "privacy" is up to the courts.

 

[SmokingFap]

Have a hell of a time explaining that to a judge for raiding a bedroom for use of contraceptives.

With a Trump-appointed judge, I'm sure he'd recommend a medal of commendation.

 

[SmokingFap]

Texas has now passed a law initiating a bounty program so that individual citizens can report on others whom they think are pregnant and going to get an abortion to the police. There is a monetary reward for such a report. Only for a successful prosecution of attempted abortion, I suppose. Do you think this Supreme Court would consider that an invasion of privacy?

 

[HisArpy]

Hell no! I'd be one of those 800 lb. Jabba the Huts that the fire department has to come cut out of my own bedroom doorway with the jaws of life.

But if two men go into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake for themselves, this Supreme Court (in large part) has decided the bakery's owners' freedom of religion outweighs federal/constitutional anti-discrimination protections.

Actually, that's not what happened. It's what you've been told and believe but it's not what the court decided.

The two men were free to purchase any cake in the display case. The bakery owner was willing to do that. What the court decided is that the two men couldn't command the baker to make and decorate a cake with their chosen theme.

Had the baker declined without stating a reason, they would have been fucked without any recourse. That the baker gave them a reason is why he was sued. However, the court determined that a customer cannot require that someone perform personal services against their will.

And that is the Cliff notes version of what really happened.

 

[SmokingFap]

The thing is, you can claim to disagree with the policies of some of these ultra right-wing MAGA maniacs. But as long as you keep voting for them for other reasons, you are still empowering them to take away other people's rights.