• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a gut feeling that Republicans are going to put a lot of weird, inconsistent "exceptions" in their abortion laws as red herrings.
 
Meadmaker said:
And, as expected, the statements from the Twitter thread were BS.

Except McConnell's. He really said that. It turns out that the GOP really is anti-abortion.

The Senate candidate who "wanted to ban condoms" and Marsha Blackburn were both talking about Griswold v. Connecticut. They weren't saying what the Twitter thread claimed.



I just wish people would use their skeptic sense sometimes. If it sounds ridiculous, it probably didn't happen. Marsha Blackburn is crazy, but not that crazy.
Click to expand...

Yes and of course MTG only talked about Rothchild space lasers not jewish space lasers like everyone reported.
 
Delvo said:
What I said & you quoted is a very common attitude among conservatives. What you said in response is not.
Click to expand...

I think it was a common attitude in 1965, when Connecticut passed their law that ended up getting thrown out in the Supreme Court.


I think today it is almost non-existent.

To be fair, some conservatives might say it publicly, because they know they're supposed to, but darned near no one takes it seriously.
 
We're fully back into the "No the Republican didn't beat the orphan to death with a bottle of champagne, it was sparkling wine LOL OWNED STUPID LIBS, TRY BEING MORE SKEPTICAL NEXT TIME" game.
 
Meadmaker said:
No.

They were both talking about the separation of powers and the limitations on the Supreme Court. Neither one of them were calling for a ban on anything. The Twitter thread was simply false.
Click to expand...

What implications do you think getting rid of Griswold have and would they be "ridiculous"?
 
cosmicaug said:
What implications do you think getting rid of Griswold have and would they be "ridiculous"?
Click to expand...

In practical terms, getting rid of Griswold would have no effect whatsoever on birth control. There is no sentiment at all for limiting birth control* in the United States, and it would remain perfectly legal.

If, somehow, Griswold were ever revoked, there might be zombie laws about birth control that would have to be repealed, and they would be. I don't know of any, but they might exist.


*Exception: Morning after pills, and others with similar mechanisms.
 
Meadmaker said:
There is no sentiment at all for limiting birth control* in the United States, and it would remain perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
That's not even close to true and your exceptions aren't accurate. The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case was over normal birth control. The Catholic Church is still opposed to birth control. And wasn't a current law just cited in this thread?
 
Meadmaker said:
In practical terms, getting rid of Griswold would have no effect whatsoever on birth control. There is no sentiment at all for limiting birth control* in the United States, and it would remain perfectly legal.

If, somehow, Griswold were ever revoked, there might be zombie laws about birth control that would have to be repealed, and they would be. I don't know of any, but they might exist.


*Exception: Morning after pills, and others with similar mechanisms.
Click to expand...

So we have hormonal birth control and IUD's going out(see all the fights about letting pharmacists give patients the run around to avoid giving them hormonal birth control).

So really what it seems like is banning all non barrier forms of birth control to start with.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
That's not even close to true and your exceptions aren't accurate. The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case was over normal birth control. The Catholic Church is still opposed to birth control. And wasn't a current law just cited in this thread?
Click to expand...

Lots of things get cited in threads. That doesn't mean they are cited accurately. However, I don't remember any current law about birth control being cited in this thread. If it happened, I missed it or have forgotten it.

However, I think that my claim is not merely close to true, it's actually true. Can you find someone, somewhere, who thinks birth control should be illegal? Of course. You can find someone somewhere who thinks just about anything.


Is there any jurisdiction in the country that would ban birth control pills or condoms if given the choice? Not a chance.


The Hobby Lobby case involved whether a company had to provide birth control via insurance to their employees. That's a completely different issue.

For what it's worth, Hobby Lobby is one of the few cases at the Supreme Court where I disagree with the ruling, but I understood the ruling and I don't think a grave injustice was done. I just didn't think it was a good ruling.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is there any jurisdiction in the country that would ban birth control pills or condoms if given the choice? Not a chance.
Click to expand...

Ah an argument from incredulity that will put paid to all the people quoting elected officials that call for doing exactly that. Is there nothing logical fallacies can't do?
 
Meadmaker said:
In practical terms, getting rid of Griswold would have no effect whatsoever on birth control. There is no sentiment at all for limiting birth control* in the United States, and it would remain perfectly legal.

If, somehow, Griswold were ever revoked, there might be zombie laws about birth control that would have to be repealed, and they would be. I don't know of any, but they might exist.

*Exception: Morning after pills, and others with similar mechanisms.
Click to expand...
You say it would have no effect whatsoever, and then list the effects it would have.

I don't think you've thought this through.
 
We've spent 10 pages now "civilly discussing" why it's paranoid/dramatic/hyperbole/strawman to think the Republicans are:

1. Going to do things they are openly claiming they are going to do.
2. Going to do things they have openly tried to do before.
3. Doing things THEY ARE ALREADY DOING.

This is one of "Okay so I guess the wrong side just gets to win because we don't get to do anything but tell them they are wrong" moment. Yet again.
 
Meadmaker said:
.....
Is there any jurisdiction in the country that would ban birth control pills or condoms if given the choice? Not a chance.
.....
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Do you understand that the SC decision protecting birth control was the result of a challenge to a Connecticut (blue state) law that prohibited use of bc drugs and devices? What makes you think other states won't pass such laws again if they can?

Here's one governor who refuses to rule it out.
Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) on Sunday refused to rule out the possibility that his state would ban certain forms of contraception, sidestepping questions about what would happen next if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08/abortion-tate-reeves-mississippi-contraception/

And here's a Senator:
lA landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects married couples' ability to obtain and use birth control is "constitutionally unsound," according to Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn.
Click to expand...
https://www.newsweek.com/blackburn-says-scotus-ruling-protect-birth-control-couples-unsound-1690259

And there's this:
There are three Republican candidates running for Michigan Attorney General and, at a candidate forum on Friday, all three said that Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court case that found a right to privacy allowing married couples to use birth control, was wrongly decided and tramples on states’ rights—just like Roe v. Wade, in their opinion.
Click to expand...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/r...ing-our-right-to-use-birth-control/ar-AAUdsyr

For many years apologists for the right-wing have insisted "But they would never do that." But they have.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
You say it would have no effect whatsoever, and then list the effects it would have.

I don't think you've thought this through.
Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that those other forms of birth control approach or straddle the line between "birth control" and "abortion." He is saying that those who see the morning after pill as abortion rather than birth control will seek to limit or ban access to it, but will not seek to ban access to condoms, IUDs and birth control pills, the effect of which takes place prior to or prevents fertilization.
 
Bob001 said:
Why do you say that? Do you understand that the SC decision protecting birth control was the result of a challenge to a Connecticut (blue state) law that prohibited use of bc drugs and devices? What makes you think other states won't pass such laws again if they can?
Click to expand...

Because the last such law was passed in 1965. Things have changed.

Here's one governor who refuses to rule it out.
Click to expand...

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) on Sunday refused to rule out the possibility that his state would ban certain forms of contraception
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Morning after pill.


And here's a Senator:
Click to expand...


No there isn't. See previous discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom