There is STILL no State that seeks to ban contraceptives.

[Liability]

There is STILL no State that seeks to ban contraceptives.

Yeah. It's obvious.

Yeah. It undercuts the current liberal Democrat Parody talking pointless.

But yeah. It's still true.

 

[oreo]

There is STILL no State that seeks to ban contraceptives.

Yeah. It's obvious.

Yeah. It undercuts the current liberal Democrat Parody talking pointless.

But yeah. It's still true.

It doesn't matter--we have a GOP candidate in Rick Santorum that is continually stating the the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in it's 1965 decision to slap down the Connecticut statute that did ban contraceptives. The U.S Supreme court made a decision contrary to Rick Santorum saying STATES do not have the RIGHT to BAN contraceptives--yet Santorum is still arguing with them.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Of course no states TODAY--would dream of banning Birth Control contraceptives--but we have a candidate in Rick Santorum that believes States should have the RIGHT to intervene into the intimate relationship between a man & woman--(husband/wife) decisions.

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

No Santorum--the U.S. Supreme court is there--to protect individual rights from freak social nut cases like you.

 

[Liability]

It does matter.

There is no state that seeks to do any such thing.

So the effort to create an issue is fundamentally dishonest and plainly stupid and plodding.

(BTW, it is ok to debate the judicial wisdom of SCOTUS precedent, even if you don't like where the discussion leads you.)

 

[DontBeStupid]

It doesn't matter--we have a GOP candidate in Rick Santorum that is continually stating the the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in it's 1965 decision to slap down the Connecticut statute that did ban contraceptives.

This.

"Conservatives" talk a lot about being small government. How any of them can support a guy who thinks married couples should not be allowed to plan when they have kids is beyond me.

 

[Liability]

It doesn't matter--we have a GOP candidate in Rick Santorum that is continually stating the the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in it's 1965 decision to slap down the Connecticut statute that did ban contraceptives.

This.

"Conservatives" talk a lot about being small government. How any of them can support a guy who thinks married couples should not be allowed to plan when they have kids is beyond me.

How any liberal idiot can support the incumbent who daily tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say is beyond all reasonable people.

 

[ladyliberal]

Part of the reason that states aren't trying to ban contraceptives is because such an act would be blatantly counter to constitutional jurisprudence. However, that hasn't stopped states entirely. States (and the federal government, for that matter) try to limit access to certain contraceptives in any number of ways. Perhaps most prominent is Mississippi's recent unsuccessful "personhood" amendment, which may have banned (had it been successful) methods of contraception which prevent fertilized eggs from entering the womb.

 

[Avatar4321]

It was a wrong decision. Start thinking with the brain and not the emotions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How any liberal idiot can support the incumbent who daily tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say is beyond all reasonable people.

Liberals are ‘enemies of the Constitution,’ or so you and others on the right believe, consequently there’s no hypocrisy on their part.

Conservatives, however, seek to violate the right to privacy and empower the state, clearly in conflict with the dogma of ‘small government.’

 

[Liability]

Part of the reason that states aren't trying to ban contraceptives is because such an act would be blatantly counter to constitutional jurisprudence. However, that hasn't stopped states entirely. States (and the federal government, for that matter) try to limit access to certain contraceptives in any number of ways. Perhaps most prominent is Mississippi's recent unsuccessful "personhood" amendment, which may have banned (had it been successful) methods of contraception which prevent fertilized eggs from entering the womb.

You folks MUST someday try to clarify your thinking and your misuse of rhetoric.

An abortifacient is not a contraceptive.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It doesn't matter--we have a GOP candidate in Rick Santorum that is continually stating the the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in it's 1965 decision to slap down the Connecticut statute that did ban contraceptives.

This.

"Conservatives" talk a lot about being small government. How any of them can support a guy who thinks married couples should not be allowed to plan when they have kids is beyond me.

How any liberal idiot can support the incumbent who daily tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say is beyond all reasonable people.

See, the thing is about that, you can't point to one single thing Obama has done or said that "tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say".

Whereas with Santorum, he can't shut up about how few rights he thinks women have!

 

[Liability]

This.

"Conservatives" talk a lot about being small government. How any of them can support a guy who thinks married couples should not be allowed to plan when they have kids is beyond me.

How any liberal idiot can support the incumbent who daily tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say is beyond all reasonable people.

See, the thing is about that, you can't point to one single thing Obama has done or said that "tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say".

Whereas with Santorum, he can't shut up about how few rights he thinks women have!

Yes, in fact. I can.

ObamaCare.

 

[Avatar4321]

This.

"Conservatives" talk a lot about being small government. How any of them can support a guy who thinks married couples should not be allowed to plan when they have kids is beyond me.

How any liberal idiot can support the incumbent who daily tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say is beyond all reasonable people.

See, the thing is about that, you can't point to one single thing Obama has done or said that "tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say".

Whereas with Santorum, he can't shut up about how few rights he thinks women have!

Well, you've indicated to us that you dont bother reading what we've said.

Name the clause of the Constitution that mentions contraceptives.

 

[DontBeStupid]

How any liberal idiot can support the incumbent who daily tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say is beyond all reasonable people.

See, the thing is about that, you can't point to one single thing Obama has done or said that "tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say".

Whereas with Santorum, he can't shut up about how few rights he thinks women have!

Well, you've indicated to us that you dont bother reading what we've said.

Name the clause of the Constitution that mentions contraceptives.

Meaning what? You think contraception needs to be mentioned in the Constitution before someone has a right to use it?

edit: Do you think ANYTHING needs to be mentioned before we have a right to use it?

 

[DontBeStupid]

How any liberal idiot can support the incumbent who daily tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say is beyond all reasonable people.

See, the thing is about that, you can't point to one single thing Obama has done or said that "tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say".

Whereas with Santorum, he can't shut up about how few rights he thinks women have!

Yes, in fact. I can.

ObamaCare.

Ah. So is that why so many judges have found it Constitutional.

 

[Lakhota]

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

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

 

[Avatar4321]

See, the thing is about that, you can't point to one single thing Obama has done or said that "tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say".

Whereas with Santorum, he can't shut up about how few rights he thinks women have!

Well, you've indicated to us that you dont bother reading what we've said.

Name the clause of the Constitution that mentions contraceptives.

Meaning what? You think contraception needs to be mentioned in the Constitution before someone has a right to use it?

edit: Do you think ANYTHING needs to be mentioned before we have a right to use it?

No. I'm arguing that the Federal government, regardless of what branch, does not have the authority to prevent the States from legislating in areas that the Constitution doesn't prevent them from legislating in.

I really dont think the argument is that difficult to comprehend.

 

[ladyliberal]

Part of the reason that states aren't trying to ban contraceptives is because such an act would be blatantly counter to constitutional jurisprudence. However, that hasn't stopped states entirely. States (and the federal government, for that matter) try to limit access to certain contraceptives in any number of ways. Perhaps most prominent is Mississippi's recent unsuccessful "personhood" amendment, which may have banned (had it been successful) methods of contraception which prevent fertilized eggs from entering the womb.

You folks MUST someday try to clarify your thinking and your misuse of rhetoric.

An abortifacient is not a contraceptive.

I understand your post to mean that you do not consider the "morning after" pill to be contraceptive in nature. It may interest you to learn that the FDA, among others, disagrees (and has under a Republican president, lest you wish to rant about Obama's influence): FDA's Decision Regarding Plan B: Questions and Answers

The medical literature uses the same terminology (see, eg, the NEJM: MMS: Error). Indeed, I can't seem to find a single non-partisan authority which claims that such medications are not contraceptive in nature.

The terminology is accurate: several studies have found that such medications prevent rather than end pregnancy (pregnancy does not occur immediately after intercourse, so there is a window between intercourse and pregnancy when such medications are effective): http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/EC-Review.pdf

 

[DontBeStupid]

Well, you've indicated to us that you dont bother reading what we've said.

Name the clause of the Constitution that mentions contraceptives.

Meaning what? You think contraception needs to be mentioned in the Constitution before someone has a right to use it?

edit: Do you think ANYTHING needs to be mentioned before we have a right to use it?

No. I'm arguing that the Federal government, regardless of what branch, does not have the authority to prevent the States from legislating in areas that the Constitution doesn't prevent them from legislating in.

I really dont think the argument is that difficult to comprehend.

So ... you think our Federal Constitution, nor any State's Constitution, does not prevent any state legislature from banning contraception within that state?

 

[Avatar4321]

Meaning what? You think contraception needs to be mentioned in the Constitution before someone has a right to use it?

edit: Do you think ANYTHING needs to be mentioned before we have a right to use it?

No. I'm arguing that the Federal government, regardless of what branch, does not have the authority to prevent the States from legislating in areas that the Constitution doesn't prevent them from legislating in.

I really dont think the argument is that difficult to comprehend.

So ... you think our Federal Constitution, nor any State's Constitution, does not prevent any state legislature from banning contraception within that state?

I havent mentioned any state constitutions. But the Federal government has not been granted any authority concerning birth control. The 10th Amendment States that any authority not given to the Federal government is retained by the States. Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional in the US Constitution about a State banning birth control.

Now a State Constitution, might explicitly ban it or allow it. Ive specifically stated that multiple times. Ive also stated multiple times that I no of no person or state that would support banning birth control. Nor would I. I think it would be an incredibly stupid law. But just because a law is stupid, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional at the Federal level.

Are we really that ignorant of the fact that we have a government that divides power between the Federal and State governments? I thought this was common knowledge. Why on earth is it so offensive to acknowledge that the Federal Government has no say and it's up to the States? Why is it so offensive to expect people to participate in their local government and support good legislation and oppose bad legislation?

You really want to abrogate your rights to make decisions to some unelected judges?

 

[Dr.House]

See, the thing is about that, you can't point to one single thing Obama has done or said that "tramples upon what the Constitution plainly DOES say".

Whereas with Santorum, he can't shut up about how few rights he thinks women have!

Yes, in fact. I can.

ObamaCare.

Ah. So is that why so many judges have found it Constitutional.

Also found UNConstitutional... You seem to have forgotten that...

Typical...