Based on this ruling I don’t see how the laws prohibiting interracial marriage are unconstitutional. States could ban marrying outside your race again.
I don't see a problem. Republicans like to avoid abortions by using condoms Liberals like to put pleasure before responsibility and go bareback and worry about the consequences later. Maybe they'll take an abortion pill on the way to starbucks. easy peasy lemon squeezy! Either way, its still their body and their right IMO (it is sick but it is there right to do so) I mean, at least TRY to prevent the need for an abortion in the FIRST place! Libs aren't big on preventative measures are they? - "no sweat, ride em bareback, we just abort if needed, no biggie!" - "millions of illegals crossing the border? No biggie, just transport them to random towns and drop em off, no biggie" - money shortage? Print some more! no biggie! worry about the aftermath later I don't know about you but I'm seeing a pattern here By the way, i selected "no, birth control is a right" but there should have been a 3rd option. "don't get into that situation in the first place!"
Contraceptive bans were overturned only a few years before Roe. Don’t tell ir me it can’t happen when it already did. I’m sure you agree there would be no constitutional issue with making contraception illegal right?
I suppose framed in this way, the question would be why? FDA et al as well as the varied medical pharma review agencies would have to find a compelling reason to ban a substance, or further regulate it, a process that is already in existence, and as far as I know, has never been challenged legally. As a question of interstate commerce, the Federal agencies already highly regulate this space. So what unique argument are you attempting to craft here?
So, if a state rules abortion after 1 week murder, should they be able to arrest suspects passing through?
The conservative argument would be the one that has always been used. The market provides for what interstate markets would exist, and the federal agencies already regulate it. Nothing additionally would be needed, nor would it be necessary to otherwise change or modify the existing process. Why would a state challenge or otherwise attempt to ban contraceptives? It sure doesn't seem your question has much if any foundation.
I’m asking is there anything in the constitution to prevent states from outlawing contraception…as they have done before.
very easy to do with a combination of condom + pull out (just in case) + rhythm method (this is what they should be teaching at inner city schools instead of CRT)
Because the mob that feels contraceptives are murder gerrymandered the election and won. That's why. So based on that is why I personally feel such freedoms should be federal.
You realize they did before right? I’m not making up a wild scenario, it’s literally is case law. Griswold ring a bell?
So you don’t understand that a condom IS contraception? Lol So it’s the pill, and it’s been banned in states before.
MA already arrests folks concealed carry from out of state. Are you making a consistency argument here? I doubtt it.
What mob feels that way? Cite them. Call them out, publicly, but at the moment, all you've done are advance yet another straw man that no one agrees with.
I tend to be proactive in guaranteeing freedom. I dont wait for it to be taken away before I bring up the inherent issues of terrible policy. That's not called advancing a straw man. Allowing state government to rule on a demographics health decisions is terrible policy.
Abortion cannot be a right. Rights, when exercised, can't affect anyone else. Abortion certainly affects someone else. The constitution doesn't address abortion so nothing government does about it is constitutional or not constitutional. In other words, without Roe V Wade, the states could regulate it any way they please.
The constitution doesn't address birth control. It didn't even exist when the constitution was written. Any law would be neither constitutional or unconstitutional.
I suppose using your same logic, there is nothing constitutionally that precludes states from banning automobiles either. Just as with the notion of banning contraception, no state is actually going to do that. Therefore, debating either topic is a colossal waste of time, unless of course, your aim is to fearmonger.
People who don't vaccinate against COVID clog up our hospitals and they don't have to be there at all.. The problem has obviated itself as we now have about 70% vaccinated and we just let people do as they please, which they are going to do anyway
