Looking at contraception another way, the issue could be better framed as to whether the government should be able to interfere in the right of persons to make the personal decision to use otherwise legal products/services. The real issue is the right to be protected from an overreaching government. Your implied position on the issue of access to contraception somewhat surprises me since I always thought that you were a libertarian as as such opposed governmental interference in personal decisions although I could be mistaken.
Thanks for the insight! If life begins at fertilization, when does the GOP start prohibiting women with high risk of implantation failure (uterine abnormalities, immunological disorders, etc) from having sex? When does the GOP start prohibiting women from drinking alcohol, eating processed meats or glycemic foods the 9 days after sex as these actions can stop implantation? The zealots' influence on the rest of us is outrageous.
Right. Except our New Supreme Court just wrote that contraception is an issue that can be banned by a State Legislature. (And, at the turn of the 20th Century, contraception was illegal in many places). So, having learned the Roe lesson — that our Supreme Court has no regard or respect for prior decisional law and that Choice laws should have been legislated as a check and safety net against a partisan Supreme Court, the Legislature needs to step in and legislate privacy rights.
I don’t know the exact answer that off the top of my head. But I’m pretty sure I read a few years back that part of it is innate. But I will look a bit
So you are saying contraception is a right not to be infringed by the government? Not everyone thinks that way which is why this right needs to be codified.
Inadvertently correct. It’s about control, shame, and a host of other motivations. It’s certainly not about protecting life
It's about the right to contraception. So it IS about condoms. It also about "oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, transdermal patches, and vaginal rings". Condoms just happen to be an excellent vehicle to highlight the inanity of the objections to the bill. I don't have the right to put a piece of latex on my penis? Really? To say this simple statement of rights is being used as a loophole to enable abortion is either disingenuous or a failure to understand the terms involved.
Emergency contraception isnt used pre sex. That is used post conception in many cases. We can debate the merits of such drugs, but it is just dishonest to make this about condoms. I have never known any of those 16 kid families you see on TV. The people I know, con and lib, ALL ise contraception. Wanna debate morning after pills? Fine. But thats what this is about. NOT CONDOMS or BC pills etc Its just dishonest to say otherwise. Pull the post conception drugs out of the bill and this gets 99% support.
I haven’t read this bill but think you make a fair distinction here generally. But aren’t at least some “birth control pills” considered abortifacients even if taken regularly? With respect to condoms, I think the statute in Griswold would have applied to them since it banned devices which prevented conception.
So now sex is considered conception? Holy crap the goalposts keep moving. I can't wait until you make the argument that conception starts at the dessert course of date night.
External condoms, diaphragm and vaginal rings are not used pre-sex either. Where did you learn about safe sex? Do you actually think the morning after pill is an "abortion pill"?
