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

[Missourian]

The bottom line is Santorum never said he wants to ban anything:

“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.’’

​

Second, he is absolutely correct that states COULD ban contraceptives if they wanted to.

A list of products banned by Missouri in the last few years:

Missouri Senate passes K2 ban treating substance same as marijuana - Columbia Missourian


Missouri House approves ban on 'bath salt' - Columbia Missourian


Pseudoephedrine ban proceeds city by city {been banned by other states}


Missouri AG Renews Call for Banning Over-the-Counter Sale of Pseudoephedrine - St. Louis News - Daily RFT


Many counties in Arkansas and several other states are still dry...IOW alcohol sales are illegal.

"Kansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee, are entirely dry by default: counties specifically must authorize the sale of alcohol in order for it to be legal and subject to state liquor control laws."

List of dry communities by U.S. state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Missouri legislator seeks to ban sales of cold beer | Modern Brewery Age | Find Articles


Missouri Bans Student-Teacher Facebook Friendships | News & Opinion | PCMag.com {later repealed}

​

If these things can be legislatively banned, why would contraceptives be any different?

 

[oreo]

No I was incorrect--this case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and was slapped down. So whoever voted YES that Santorum was right when he stated that states have the right to BAN birth control contraception is WRONG.

Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy.

So Santorum belives it's wrong..so what? I happen to AGREE with him.

YOU act like he is going subvert the Constitution like Obama, and The Courts...

WHY?

WHY the hard on for Santorum? Because he speaks frankly about social issues that filter down to the rest of issues?

Because without a strong moral compass WE as a people cannot survive in this Republic?

SON?

YOU have alot of soul searching to do.

He is correct. Once the compass is lost? WE become what the Statists as Obama want us to be...like everyone else in the world.

WE are better than that...and YOU know it.

Why?

I think its pretty obvious that he can't get over Newts demise.

Bitter to the end, just like Newt I might add.

Clear thinking people realize this isn't an issue.

Rick Santorum has more BAGGAGE than all of them put together--this is just one instance of him being way too--far to the right on social issues--to ever get close to beating Barack Obama.

Of course then we have to deal with his real record--which there is a ton of information out there that you obviously don't want to read yourself.









EARMARKS
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHkDDqexHs]Santorum: No Rape or Incest Exceptions - YouTube[/ame]
VOTING RECORD
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like | RedState
WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST
Rick Santorum, 'Stealth Lobbyist' - ABC News
EARMARKS
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/u...-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe it's more important for you far out right wing nut cases to be able to BAN birth control contraceptives--but I am a fiscal conservative that sees this country going over a cliff in debt--that I am concerned about--and Rick Santorum's ACTUAL voting record & EARMARKS does not speak fiscal conservative to me.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

What does this have to do with the Fourth Amendment?

 

[oreo]

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.

What does this have to do with the Fourth Amendment?

The U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue back in 1965--that states DO NOT have the right to ban birth control devices.

It was decided by the court--even though the word "privacy" is not written in the 4th the Supreme's 7 to 2 vote stated it was implied in the constitution--thereby making the Connecticut statue banning birth control contraceptives--UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE.
Griswold v. Connecticut

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So Santorum belives it's wrong..so what? I happen to AGREE with him.

YOU act like he is going subvert the Constitution like Obama, and The Courts...

WHY?

WHY the hard on for Santorum? Because he speaks frankly about social issues that filter down to the rest of issues?

Because without a strong moral compass WE as a people cannot survive in this Republic?

SON?

YOU have alot of soul searching to do.

He is correct. Once the compass is lost? WE become what the Statists as Obama want us to be...like everyone else in the world.

WE are better than that...and YOU know it.

Why?

I think its pretty obvious that he can't get over Newts demise.

Bitter to the end, just like Newt I might add.

Clear thinking people realize this isn't an issue.

Rick Santorum has more BAGGAGE than all of them put together--this is just one instance of him being way too--far to the right on social issues--to ever get close to beating Barack Obama.

Of course then we have to deal with his real record--which there is a ton of information out there that you obviously don't want to read yourself.









EARMARKS
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHkDDqexHs]Santorum: No Rape or Incest Exceptions - YouTube[/ame]
VOTING RECORD
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like | RedState
WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST
Rick Santorum, 'Stealth Lobbyist' - ABC News
EARMARKS
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/u...-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe it's more important for you far out right wing nut cases to be able to BAN birth control contraceptives--but I am a fiscal conservative that sees this country going over a cliff in debt--that I am concerned about--and Rick Santorum's ACTUAL voting record & EARMARKS does not speak fiscal conservative to me.

Earmarks were par for the course for ALL politicians.

Any you have yet to provide any proof that ANYONE wants to ban rubbers.

It's a fake issue and you're apparently not smart enough to figure that out. This is nothing more than a bluff by Obama and you folded quicker than a tent with no support arms.

You're doing Obamas bidding and its disgusting.

 

[FireFly]

We have a right to bear arms, but federal, state and local governments have banned assault weapons, handguns, suppressors, magazines with a capacity of more than 10, shotguns that hold more than 2 rounds.

Noting your USMB ID you must live in Missouri. Interesting fact about the shotgun 2 & 3 round limit. In Missouri those limits are only for hunting certain animals. In Missouri you can have as many shotgun rounds as you want loaded if it is for people or defense. I see them selling 20+ round 12 gauge shotgun magazines in the gun shows all the time.

 

[Liability]

The OP question is entirely irrelevant since no State seeks to do any such thing.

 

[oreo]

Why?

I think its pretty obvious that he can't get over Newts demise.

Bitter to the end, just like Newt I might add.

Clear thinking people realize this isn't an issue.

Rick Santorum has more BAGGAGE than all of them put together--this is just one instance of him being way too--far to the right on social issues--to ever get close to beating Barack Obama.

Of course then we have to deal with his real record--which there is a ton of information out there that you obviously don't want to read yourself.









EARMARKS
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHkDDqexHs]Santorum: No Rape or Incest Exceptions - YouTube[/ame]
VOTING RECORD
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like | RedState
WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST
Rick Santorum, 'Stealth Lobbyist' - ABC News
EARMARKS
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/u...-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe it's more important for you far out right wing nut cases to be able to BAN birth control contraceptives--but I am a fiscal conservative that sees this country going over a cliff in debt--that I am concerned about--and Rick Santorum's ACTUAL voting record & EARMARKS does not speak fiscal conservative to me.

Earmarks were par for the course for ALL politicians.

Any you have yet to provide any proof that ANYONE wants to ban rubbers.

It's a fake issue and you're apparently not smart enough to figure that out. This is nothing more than a bluff by Obama and you folded quicker than a tent with no support arms.

You're doing Obamas bidding and its disgusting.

I can tell you haven't read the article on Santorums earmarks--try again--and then come back and explain it.

 

[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.

What does this have to do with the Fourth Amendment?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[DontBeStupid]

40% ??

40% of you asshats think a state can ban contraception?

Wow ... this country is fucked.

 

[oreo]

The OP question is entirely irrelevant since no State seeks to do any such thing.

Yes it does matter. SANTORUM is going to get slaughtered with this from the Obama reelection campaign committee.

You're not going to convince any man or woman whom are sexually active in this country that Santorum's statement of-- States have the RIGHT to Ban birth control contraception is RIGHT.

Furthermore--Santorum is NOT right--the U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue clear back in 1965. He's still arguing with them.
Griswold v. Connecticut

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

Social right wing freak nut cases NEVER win elections.

 

[Avatar4321]

40% ??

40% of you asshats think a state can ban contraception?

Wow ... this country is fucked.

Yeah. Only 40% of us actually have read and understand the Constitution. It's pretty pathetic.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Rick Santorum has more BAGGAGE than all of them put together--this is just one instance of him being way too--far to the right on social issues--to ever get close to beating Barack Obama.

Of course then we have to deal with his real record--which there is a ton of information out there that you obviously don't want to read yourself.








EARMARKS
Santorum: No Rape or Incest Exceptions - YouTube
VOTING RECORD
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like | RedState
WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST
Rick Santorum, 'Stealth Lobbyist' - ABC News
EARMARKS
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/u...-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe it's more important for you far out right wing nut cases to be able to BAN birth control contraceptives--but I am a fiscal conservative that sees this country going over a cliff in debt--that I am concerned about--and Rick Santorum's ACTUAL voting record & EARMARKS does not speak fiscal conservative to me.

Earmarks were par for the course for ALL politicians.

Any you have yet to provide any proof that ANYONE wants to ban rubbers.

It's a fake issue and you're apparently not smart enough to figure that out. This is nothing more than a bluff by Obama and you folded quicker than a tent with no support arms.

You're doing Obamas bidding and its disgusting.

I can tell you haven't read the article on Santorums earmarks--try again--and then come back and explain it.

Yes I have. In one of your other hate santorum threads you posted about it. Trying to make it appear as if he did something illegal or unethical. It fails to convince me. The fact that you keep grabbing at different anti Rick subjects tells me you're not against any particular topic, you're just against him.

Don't get me wrong, that's completely fine. You just dont need to act like Obama when excusing you're distaste.

 

[oreo]

40% ??

40% of you asshats think a state can ban contraception?

Wow ... this country is fucked.

No they're just stupid--they didn't realize that the U.S. Supreme court already decided this issue in 1965--stating that STATES do not have the right to BAN contraceptives.

Griswold v. Connecticut

No STATE or individual has the RIGHT to interfere in the intimate relationship between man & woman. NEVER. Only Rick Santorum thinks he has a right to do it--along with a few nut case followers.

 

[Liability]

The OP question is entirely irrelevant since no State seeks to do any such thing.

Yes it does matter. SANTORUM is going to get slaughtered with this from the Obama reelection campaign committee.

You're not going to convince any man or woman whom are sexually active in this country that Santorum's statement of-- States have the RIGHT to Ban birth control contraception is RIGHT.

Furthermore--Santorum is NOT right--the U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue clear back in 1965. He's still arguing with them.
Griswold v. Connecticut

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

Social right wing freak nut cases NEVER win elections.

The Obama campaign committee is geared up to play some VERY expensive character assassination no matter who gets the GOP nod.

But no. It really doesn't matter AT ALL.

No state seeks to outlaw contraceptives.

 

[jillian]

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

er... yes.

See, Griswold v Connecticult, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[oreo]

Earmarks were par for the course for ALL politicians.

Any you have yet to provide any proof that ANYONE wants to ban rubbers.

It's a fake issue and you're apparently not smart enough to figure that out. This is nothing more than a bluff by Obama and you folded quicker than a tent with no support arms.

You're doing Obamas bidding and its disgusting.

I can tell you haven't read the article on Santorums earmarks--try again--and then come back and explain it.

Yes I have. In one of your other hate santorum threads you posted about it. Trying to make it appear as if he did something illegal or unethical. It fails to convince me. The fact that you keep grabbing at different anti Rick subjects tells me you're not against any particular topic, you're just against him.

Don't get me wrong, that's completely fine. You just dont need to act like Obama when excusing you're distaste.

But an examination of Mr. Santorum’s earmark record sheds light on another aspect of his political personality, one that is at odds with the reformer image he has tried to convey on the trail: his prowess as a Washington insider.

A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash.

Earmarks, long a hallmark of a pay-to-play culture in Washington, have become largely taboo among lawmakers of both parties. But that element of Mr. Santorum’s record has mostly gone unexplored, in part because transparency rules governing earmarks did not go into effect until after he left office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/u...-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?pagewanted=all

Yeah FACTS can sure be real hateful---

 

[Texanmike]

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.

States may not have the right to ban birth control outright but I see nothing that would prevent them from banning the sale of birth control. There are plenty of things which are banned from state to state. Counties ban the sale of alcohol, some states and counties ban the sale of fireworks, guns etc.

And no, I'm quite sure that birth control is not a basic human right. Here we arrive at the problem that we have created. This case precedence that the legal world uses offers no predictability as far as what can and cannot happen. Instead of everyone pushing for legislation you should be pushing for Constitutional amendments. That way there would be no question about is it or is it not Constitutional.

Instead what we have done is figure out ways to bend and twist the Constitution. See any of the arguments I've had (with both conservatives and liberals) about the authority between levels of government.

Mike

 

[Avatar4321]

40% ??

40% of you asshats think a state can ban contraception?

Wow ... this country is fucked.

No they're just stupid--they didn't realize that the U.S. Supreme court already decided this issue in 1965--stating that STATES do not have the right to BAN contraceptives.

Griswold v. Connecticut

No STATE or individual has the RIGHT to interfere in the intimate relationship between man & woman. NEVER. Only Rick Santorum thinks he has a right to do it--along with a few nut case followers.

Sort of like those stupid abolitionists & slave holders didn't realize that the Supreme Court already decided the issue of slavery in Dread Scott.

Or you know, we might actually know what the Constitution says.

 

[jillian]

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.

States may not have the right to ban birth control outright but I see nothing that would prevent them from banning the sale of birth control. There are plenty of things which are banned from state to state. Counties ban the sale of alcohol, some states and counties ban the sale of fireworks, guns etc.

And no, I'm quite sure that birth control is not a basic human right. Here we arrive at the problem that we have created. This case precedence that the legal world uses offers no predictability as far as what can and cannot happen. Instead of everyone pushing for legislation you should be pushing for Constitutional amendments. That way there would be no question about is it or is it not Constitutional.

Instead what we have done is figure out ways to bend and twist the Constitution. See any of the arguments I've had (with both conservatives and liberals) about the authority between levels of government.

Mike

That's already been addressed by the Court. see above.

i'm not quite sure how outlawing sale of birth control ISN'T impeding that right. if a state outlawed the sale of all guns, would you say your second amendment rights were being impaired?