This poll is mostly for those who think there is no right to abortion and it should be left to the states. Would there be any constitutional issue with a state banning birth control? If so, what?
No. There should be no limits on birth control. And if they do put limits on BC where will it end? Is pulling out birth control? Swallowing?
I didn’t say should they, is there a constitutional issue with a state banning it? Let’s say contraceptives to avoid confusion over what that means. Or even pharmaceutical ones.
I agree but the liberal argument for it seems to have just been obliterated by the courts. I don’t see a conservative argument in favor that could exist.
I just don’t see any legal recourse for a state banning birth control. It’s certainly not spelled out in the constitution…
I don't see any state voting to do so so it is really a specious topic to begin with. In what state do you think the people would vote to do so?
There have been some lawsuits regarding this matter as some pharmacists have outright refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or the morning after pills. I've always had an issue with this because most people would be terminated for not doing their job. A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions and answer questions about medications, interactions and contraindications. Think about it...it's no different than a store clerk refusing to sell cupcakes to an overweight person or a doctor or nurse that is a Jehovah's Witness refusing to comply with a patient's request for blood transfusions in the event of an emergency during surgery. It's no different than a Capitol police officer having to contain and stop an angry mob although he or she also believes the election was rigged. When we reach these "fuzzy" lines, there needs to be clear and nonnegotiable responses by which everyone is held to the same standard. This is not the case when a doctor or nurse or pharmacy is forcing their personal opinion as an overlay on other people's lives and encroaching on their rights. And, if a person is not willing to enrich a family in which the mother has been guilt-tripped into having a baby she doesn't want and can't provide for, they are just blowing smoke. A conscientious objector needs to find a different line of work if they are unable or unwilling to do the job for which they were hired.
There are a few barriers there. 1. X number of women will be beyond the point of no return in the time it takes to litigate this. 2. The variables in each case leave the woman without available resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies (leads lead straight to generational poverty and prison). 3. A law is only as strong as the people willing to enforce it (what good a law if the police won't do anything about it)?
There shouldn’t be a ban. Rape or incest should guarantee it. Should almost be mandatory. After 8-10 weeks it gets a little trickier. By then there should be a health danger or major defect. Just killing a baby when it starts looking Human just because you feel like It, is screwed up. definitely shouldn’t be tax payer funded. Hand out morning after pills to whoever needs them.
I support the legality of contraception, but there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting states from banning it.
Seems like a pretty ridiculous interpretation of the constitution or it’s a useless document that gives the state way more control over us than I think even the founders intended.
While I do not think that anyone should ban birth control I have a question.... Where does the government get the authority to make drugs of any sort illegal?
TBH, it should be a states right or not a right. It pains me to say that, but it's not a national issue. I an not for fed gov to determine how anyone should live. If it doesn't affect another's rights. I also don't think any state should do so either. It's a personal matter, between the woman, doctor, and close relationships. Not any gov't of any sort.
How many rights to prisoners have? Is you position all drugs should be available to all PEOPLE.? Even if incarcerated? Please give us your details.
All powers not expressly delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states and the people. The states have any power not denied to them in the constitution or by their people.
As someone once said about the Catholic Church edict “How can damnation rely on a pill whilst salvation relieve on a bit of rubber?” But even staunchly Catholic Countries are upturning abortion bans - sick of seeing women be victimised or die unnecessarily Ireland Argentina Mexico Chile https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/abortion-rights-Recent-Wins.png https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons This decline is almost entirely sue to the availability of LARCs
And yet “Abstinence only” programs are federally funded under law https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abstinence-only-programs So already there is restriction on access to contraception by restricting education around the subject
They do not always work. You would be better off allowing subsidisation of “Medical” abortion using Telehealth support and you would see 80% of abortions occur in you time frame
It would not be unconstitutional for a state to ban birth control. It would be unconstitutional for fedgov to ban birth control without a constitutional convention, or prohibit a state from banning birth control without a constitutional convention. Federal bans on weed and automatic weapons are similarly unconstitutional. So that isn't saying it can't be done...