Do States have the RIGHT to BAN birth control devices as Rick Santorum stated?

[geauxtohell]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

Its total bullshit Oreo....

This is what Santorum said about it on Jan 6th

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

It's a sad day when some conservatives fall right into the trap that the liberals have made on this issue.

It's such a manufactured issue and I can't believe people are too stupid to realize it.

It only took 21 posts for us to get to "blame the liberals"!

 

[Avatar4321]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

Human rights involve the PRIVACY of what goes on between a husband and wife--& their human right to how they institute family planning. Their human right to make a decision on how many children they have, etc.

The FEDERAL or STATE government has no business in their bedrooms--but Santorum thinks they do--LOL.

That's not in the Constitution.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

First off... nobody's proposing banning contraceptives. Secondly, contraceptives, or the lack thereof do not prohibit sexual relations.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

Human rights involve the PRIVACY of what goes on between a husband and wife--& their human right to how they institute family planning. Their human right to make a decision on how many children they have, etc.

The FEDERAL or STATE government has no business in their bedrooms--but Santorum thinks they do--LOL.

That's not in the Constitution.

Sure it is.. right next to the part where women have a right to abortions and Congress can make you purchase health insurance.

 

[Avatar4321]

yeah, I'm sure if he were elected he would ORDER states to stop all forms of birth control..

I agree that it's completely unlikely considering he doesnt have a habit of doing the opposite of what he said, like some candidates.

 

[Avatar4321]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

Griswold indicated it is a right under the penumbral right of PRIVACY. BASIC human right, NO. One can accomplish the same goal by abstaining from sexual activity.

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

yeah, I'm sure if he were elected he would ORDER states to stop all forms of birth control..

It's the audacity that we have a candidate--that BELIEVES that States have the right to intervene in the basic human rights between a HUSBAND & WIFE--in an very intimate--private way--who believes that the STATE has the right to make decisions for them.

Jesus needs to drop-kick this maniac through the goal posts of life, back into the knuckle dragging Neanderthal days.

The States have the right to determine who are husband and wife. You honestly think they don't have this power when the 10th amendment clearly gives them all power not given to the Federal Government?

Have you ever read the Griswold decision and the dissenting opinions? Or the Constitution?

 

[The T]

yeah, I'm sure if he were elected he would ORDER states to stop all forms of birth control..

He wouldn't. Santorum understands the Constitution despite his strong family values, and besides? The POTUS has no such powers without the Congress.

So this thread, and the OP are now rendered MOOT...UNLESS the OP thinks that Santorum will run roughshod over the Constitution like Obama has thusfar?

 

[Meister]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

After seeing how our federal government is forcing the issue with healthcare, and if it's found to be constitutionally correct....then I'm not so sure that the States wouldn't have the right. I never thought that healthcare would be mandated. Now the question is would the states mandate the ban if they had the power to do such.
Has any state or gov. stepped forward with this issue?

 

[Avatar4321]

states have the right to just about anything that is not in the Constitution....

It's down right scary how many people are ignorant of what the Constitution says and doesn't say based on emotional attachments to issues.

 

[Avatar4321]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

I suggest more study of the Constitution. Particularly the 4th amendment. Because it doesnt say what you claim it says.

Argue your case with the author of the video on the original post--who states that it is unconstitutional for the STATES to BAN birth control contraceptives.

Watch it again if you have to--because he specifically mentions the U.S. Constitution and the 4th amendment.

I don't really give a damn what the author of the video said. My source is the text of the Constitution. Which exactly is more reliable, the Constitution, or what someone inaccurately said about the Constitution?

 

[American Horse]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

Its total bullshit Oreo....

This is what Santorum said about it on Jan 6th

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

Someone didn't WATCH the above video--he most certainly did say it--it's right there. He states that STATES have the right to BAN birth control devices.

He did say that, and in a put-up discussion on theoretical powers of states. He is wrong, and he should say that, but he has effectively shot himself in the foot concerning the coming general election, at least among voters unable to comprehend what is specious or even politically doable.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oreo? The Fourth has zero to do with abortion...WHY do you cite it?

Explain...

And why the hard-on for Santorum?

Because he's knocked Newt out of the news.

 

[Avatar4321]

Human rights involve the PRIVACY of what goes on between a husband and wife--& their human right to how they institute family planning. Their human right to make a decision on how many children they have, etc.

The FEDERAL or STATE government has no business in their bedrooms--but Santorum thinks they do--LOL.

That's not in the Constitution.

Sure it is.. right next to the part where women have a right to abortions and Congress can make you purchase health insurance.

Oh. I thought we were talking about the US Constitution. You are talking about the Soviet Constitution, right?

 

[The T]

Oreo? The Fourth has zero to do with abortion...WHY do you cite it?

Explain...

And why the hard-on for Santorum?

Because he's knocked Newt out of the news.

Shame. I like Newt too...as I liked Cain...Bachman...Perry...

Such is life and politics.

Oreo needs to deal with it.

 

[oreo]

yeah, I'm sure if he were elected he would ORDER states to stop all forms of birth control..

I agree that it's completely unlikely considering he doesnt have a habit of doing the opposite of what he said, like some candidates.

Really--you don't think Rick Santorum would sign an executive order banning all birth control devices---

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo]Santorum: birth control harms women and society - YouTube[/ame]


I wouldn't be too certain about that--- Furthermore--do you really believe this far right wing stance--is going to win in the general election against Barack Obama??- I can see the advertisements now.

 

[Meister]

yeah, I'm sure if he were elected he would ORDER states to stop all forms of birth control..

I agree that it's completely unlikely considering he doesnt have a habit of doing the opposite of what he said, like some candidates.

Really--you don't think Rick Santorum would sign an executive order banning all birth control devices---

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo]Santorum: birth control harms women and society - YouTube[/ame]


I wouldn't be too certain about that--- Furthermore--do you really believe this far right wing stance--is going to win in the general election against Barack Obama??- I can see the advertisements now.

Oreo, your a better poster than that....please show where Santorum has ever said that he would back legislation for a ban.

 

[The T]

yeah, I'm sure if he were elected he would ORDER states to stop all forms of birth control..

I agree that it's completely unlikely considering he doesnt have a habit of doing the opposite of what he said, like some candidates.

Really--you don't think Rick Santorum would sign an executive order banning all birth control devices---

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo"]Santorum: birth control harms women and society - YouTube[/ame]


I wouldn't be too certain about that--- Furthermore--do you really believe this far right wing stance--is going to win in the general election against Barack Obama??- I can see the advertisements now.

And he's correct. He's addressing social issues that tend to carry over into other areas of societal evolution.

Shit man? YOU are acting like some of our Statist bretheren here...

Wake up.

 

[oreo]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

Griswold indicated it is a right under the penumbral right of PRIVACY. BASIC human right, NO. One can accomplish the same goal by abstaining from sexual activity.

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

Although relatively unknown, a 1965 Supreme Court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, has had a profound impact on American laws and society. The majority opinion in the Griswold decision provided the legal rationale and philosophical foundation for the Court’s subsequent decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) which legalized abortion in all fifty states, invalidated various state laws, and generated an intense nationwide debate which continues today.

Griswold v. Connecticut involved a statute adopted by the state of Connecticut in 1879 which made it illegal for any person to use, or assist in using, any "drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception", even among married couples. The statute was first challenged in 1943 in Tileston v. Ullman where the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff "lacked standing." The statute was later challenged in 1961, in Poe v. Ullman. The Court decided in that case that the controversy was not "ripe" because the plaintiff had not actually been prosecuted for breaking the statute. Then in 1965, suit was initiated by two members of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Their Executive Director, Estelle Griswold, had been convicted of providing contraceptive information, instruction, and medical advice to a married couple. Her conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Connecticut law and Mrs. Griswold's conviction were ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 7-2, and Connecticut’s law was found to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new “right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so called "right of privacy" could not be found anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution or its amendments, the majority argued that it is "implied" by the words and phrases of other constitutional amendments.

What makes Griswold such a landmark case is the Court's willingness to explicitly justify at length the practice of investing certain un-enumerated rights with full constitutional status. The Court then uses these newly found rights to more or less legislate to the states in later cases such as Roe v. Wade, a job which is specifically reserved by our Constitution to the elected representatives of the people through the U.S. Congress and state legislatures!

Justice Hugo Black was one of only two justices who voted against the majority in Griswold and wrote a passionate dissenting opinion in the case. Although Justice Black believed that the Connecticut law was "offensive" he felt that it was nonetheless constitutional. He strongly believed that any decision to change or abandon the Connecticut law should be made by the Connecticut state legislature. In his Griswold dissent, Justice Black argued that the decision is "dangerous" and may eventually threaten the "tranquillity and stability of the nation." How right he was!

Justice Black argued that a specific right of "privacy", on which the decision was based, cannot be found anywhere in the constitution. Justice Black believed that the decision was a revival of the old and outdated Lochner-era Court philosophy with which the Court strictly controlled the economic activity of the States.

http://c-pol.com/griswold.html

So again Rick Santorum according to the U.S. Supreme court is WRONG. STATES do NOT have the RIGHT to BAN birth control contraceptives.

 

[The T]

Griswold indicated it is a right under the penumbral right of PRIVACY. BASIC human right, NO. One can accomplish the same goal by abstaining from sexual activity.

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

BUT--the LOWER State Supreme court slapped in down--more than likely KNOWING it would not meet the muster of the U.S. Constitution-and the bills of rights. NO LOWER COURT LIKES to get embarrassed by the US Supremes.

Why not? The 9th Circus does it all the time...