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

[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.

So No State has laws on marriage? You know just the most intimate relationship a man and woman can enter into.

 

[oreo]

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

That's right the U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue in the Griswold v Connecticut case.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And Rick Santorum is still complaining about this 1965 case. He can't control married couples sex lives for crying out loud--

 

[jillian]

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.

dred scott was one of the worst decisions ever done by the court. i'm sure you'd have approved.

but that's not particularly relevant to this issue. is it now? focus.

you clearly know nothing about the constitution.

carry on.

 

[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.

So No State has laws on marriage? You know just the most intimate relationship a man and woman can enter into.

Who are you to tell anyone that they can't take a birth control pill? And that's what the U.S. Supreme court basically said in their decision on this issue.
http://c-pol.com/griswold.html

 

[Lakhota]

The Contraception First Amendment Fight Is Not About Freedom of Religion | MyFDL

David Boies: Constitutionality of birth control mandate - Video on msnbc.com

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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---

Call it whatever you like. The fact remains you post thread after thread about him. You don't stand for any one issue on solid ground. Anything santorum did in congress Newt had already mastered. Yet it didn't stop you from supporting Newt. You simply can't deal with Newts loss. There is no other logical explanation for you to be using Obamas created fake issue to tear down our party.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

That's right the U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue in the Griswold v Connecticut case.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And Rick Santorum is still complaining about this 1965 case. He can't control married couples sex lives for crying out loud--

Have you filled out your democratic voter registration card yet?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

So No State has laws on marriage? You know just the most intimate relationship a man and woman can enter into.

Who are you to tell anyone that they can't take a birth control pill?

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

Im not telling anyone they can't take a birth control pill. I don't know of a single person trying to ban birth control. I just refuse to lie and pretend that the States have no authority to regulate birth control when the 10th amendment clearly grants them that power.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don't make oaths I don't intend to keep. Im not going to undermine that Constitution by claiming it says things it doesnt.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

So No State has laws on marriage? You know just the most intimate relationship a man and woman can enter into.

Those laws are about granting benefits, not about physically preventing people from entering into a relationship.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

dred scott was one of the worst decisions ever done by the court. i'm sure you'd have approved.

but that's not particularly relevant to this issue. is it now? focus.

you clearly know nothing about the constitution.

carry on.

I know nothing about the Constitution because I've read it and agree with Justice Black and Justice Stewart who opposed the Griswold decision? I figure Im in good company. The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government to have any say in birth control. Therefore according to the 10th Amendment, the right to regulate remains with the States.

Why anyone would want to ban contraceptives is beyond me. But just because it's a stupid law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional any more than an intelligent law means it is Constitutional.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

So No State has laws on marriage? You know just the most intimate relationship a man and woman can enter into.

Those laws are about granting benefits, not about physically preventing people from entering into a relationship.

No. It's about government regulating our relationships.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

dred scott was one of the worst decisions ever done by the court. i'm sure you'd have approved.

but that's not particularly relevant to this issue. is it now? focus.

you clearly know nothing about the constitution.

carry on.

I know nothing about the Constitution because I've read it and agree with Justice Black and Justice Stewart who opposed the Griswold decision? I figure Im in good company. The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government to have any say in birth control. Therefore according to the 10th Amendment, the right to regulate remains with the States.

Why anyone would want to ban contraceptives is beyond me. But just because it's a stupid law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional any more than an intelligent law means it is Constitutional.

And according to the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But hey, you were saying?

 

[jillian]

er... yes.

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

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

That's right the U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue in the Griswold v Connecticut case.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And Rick Santorum is still complaining about this 1965 case. He can't control married couples sex lives for crying out loud--

Have you filled out your democratic voter registration card yet?

you know, i can maybe think of three times oreo and i have agreed. but do you not see the contradiction between claiming you're for "small government" and thinking its ok for government to keep you from using birth control? seriously? you people whine if you have to wear a seatbelt and claim it's too much government intrusion, but it's ok for a state to make sure women are barefoot and pregnant. or is it that you want to enforce your religious conviction that we should "multiply and be fruitful"?

either way, it's not government's place to do.

and the court was very clear about it.

the current level of stupidity that leads us to a debate on birth control in the 21st century may well be one of the more bizarre things i've ever seen....

ever.

read the case. learn.

 

[Texanmike]

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?

This is the problem with modern politics. Judicial legislation is a dangerous road to take but we have been more than happy to take that road. When it comes to guns, it is an enumerated right in the bill of rights, much like the fifth amendment. It wasn't until almost a century after the ratification of the BoR that we began to try to define rights via legislation and judicial decisions.

You may or may not be willing to admit it but the court case is a matter of interpretation. I don't know why all of the people that want birth control listed as a right don't ask for it to be part of the Constitution. Even if there were an amendment that gave congress legislative authority over a specific list of human rights, then we could clear a lot of this stuff up. There was another thread I was arguing about religion, speech etc and where the state stands in all of that. It took literally 50 years of court cases before the judicial system was able to redefine both the 14th and 1st amendment and now it is accepted as fact.

Unfortunately they love us having this discussion. I hope all of you pawns realize that while you are busy bickering over who can and cannot do what they are busy usurping more of your rights than you ever dreamed. Uggh... It is almost hopeless at this point.

Mike

 

[jillian]

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.

So No State has laws on marriage? You know just the most intimate relationship a man and woman can enter into.

once again you show your utter lack of knowledge. marriage laws regard status only because marriage is about PROPERTY RIGHTS. they don't say who you have to marry or how you have to have sex or what you can do WHILE you have sex.

ignorant...simply ignorant. and you're so proud of it.

 

[oreo]

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---

Call it whatever you like. The fact remains you post thread after thread about him. You don't stand for any one issue on solid ground. Anything santorum did in congress Newt had already mastered. Yet it didn't stop you from supporting Newt. You simply can't deal with Newts loss. There is no other logical explanation for you to be using Obamas created fake issue to tear down our party.

So then you're O.K. with his record as long as he will ban the use of birth control contraceptives and prohibit women from getting abortions--even in the instance of rape and incest.

GOOD JOB--

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That's right the U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue in the Griswold v Connecticut case.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And Rick Santorum is still complaining about this 1965 case. He can't control married couples sex lives for crying out loud--

Have you filled out your democratic voter registration card yet?

you know, i can maybe think of three times oreo and i have agreed. but do you not see the contradiction between claiming you're for "small government" and thinking its ok for government to keep you from using birth control? seriously? you people whine if you have to wear a seatbelt and claim it's too much government intrusion, but it's ok for a state to make sure women are barefoot and pregnant. or is it that you want to enforce your religious conviction that we should "multiply and be fruitful"?

either way, it's not government's place to do.

and the court was very clear about it.

the current level of stupidity that leads us to a debate on birth control in the 21st century may well be one of the more bizarre things i've ever seen....

ever.

read the case. learn.

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

 

[Texanmike]

dred scott was one of the worst decisions ever done by the court. i'm sure you'd have approved.

but that's not particularly relevant to this issue. is it now? focus.

you clearly know nothing about the constitution.

carry on.

I know nothing about the Constitution because I've read it and agree with Justice Black and Justice Stewart who opposed the Griswold decision? I figure Im in good company. The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government to have any say in birth control. Therefore according to the 10th Amendment, the right to regulate remains with the States.

Why anyone would want to ban contraceptives is beyond me. But just because it's a stupid law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional any more than an intelligent law means it is Constitutional.

And according to the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But hey, you were saying?

Wow. You've been reading your Constitution. You missed the point of the 9th but I'm glad somebody reads something other than the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th. Nice to see.

Mike

 

[jillian]

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?

This is the problem with modern politics. Judicial legislation is a dangerous road to take but we have been more than happy to take that road. When it comes to guns, it is an enumerated right in the bill of rights, much like the fifth amendment. It wasn't until almost a century after the ratification of the BoR that we began to try to define rights via legislation and judicial decisions.

You may or may not be willing to admit it but the court case is a matter of interpretation. I don't know why all of the people that want birth control listed as a right don't ask for it to be part of the Constitution. Even if there were an amendment that gave congress legislative authority over a specific list of human rights, then we could clear a lot of this stuff up. There was another thread I was arguing about religion, speech etc and where the state stands in all of that. It took literally 50 years of court cases before the judicial system was able to redefine both the 14th and 1st amendment and now it is accepted as fact.

Unfortunately they love us having this discussion. I hope all of you pawns realize that while you are busy bickering over who can and cannot do what they are busy usurping more of your rights than you ever dreamed. Uggh... It is almost hopeless at this point.

Mike

it's "judicial legislation" for the court to acknowledge it is beyond the scope of governmental activity to interfere in our personal choices and the private spheres of our lives?

do me a favor... make your own decisions. be happy. be well. stay out of my business.. and government certainly shouldn't have anything to do with my decisions.

once again, try getting out from under the talking points and tell me on what planet you think government CAN'T tell you that you need to purchase health insurance (particularly given that the constitution has a general welfare clause) and HAS the right to tell me i can't by birth control.

i'll wait.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Have you filled out your democratic voter registration card yet?

you know, i can maybe think of three times oreo and i have agreed. but do you not see the contradiction between claiming you're for "small government" and thinking its ok for government to keep you from using birth control? seriously? you people whine if you have to wear a seatbelt and claim it's too much government intrusion, but it's ok for a state to make sure women are barefoot and pregnant. or is it that you want to enforce your religious conviction that we should "multiply and be fruitful"?

either way, it's not government's place to do.

and the court was very clear about it.

the current level of stupidity that leads us to a debate on birth control in the 21st century may well be one of the more bizarre things i've ever seen....

ever.

read the case. learn.

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

The issue is that 40% of those who voted, and a GOP NOMINEE, all think the State and Federal Government have the right to do it. That is so completely wrong that it's dangerous.