General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStates should have the right to ban birth control...
...so says Rick Santorum. He disagrees with the Griswold vs. Connecticutt decision.
That is totally insane
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)at least he's up front.
elleng
(131,104 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Statistics show that a man wearing a sweater vest has a 99.99999% chance of not getting anywhere close to having sex with a woman.
Which makes the sweater vest a more effective contraceptive than the combination of 2 condoms, birth control pills, and pictures of your girlfriend or wife's smiling parents on the night stand!!
Just put a photo up on the nightstand of Santorum wearing a sweater vest. Instant celibacy!
YellowRubberDuckie
(19,736 posts)Mz Pip
(27,453 posts)obcessed with other people's sex lives. IT's really creepy.
toddwv
(2,830 posts)States have authority.
That authority originates with people.
That does not mean that these people can do anything they want to other people.
That is why we have Constitutions at the federal level AND the state level.
ashling
(25,771 posts)The Constitution says nothing about State having rights. States have powers.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)They complain about the public assistence rolls now...WHAT THE FUCK does he think would happen if that happened? Most people cannot afford 8 and 10 kids!
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is that the Griswold decision was the first emergence of a general right of privacy in the interpretation of the Constitution. While the 4th Amendment is fairly clear about the right to have one's home, papers, etc. secure from warrantless searches, there is clearly not a right to do each and every thing one desires within the privacy of one's home. Even the language of the Griswold decision mentions "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, a very nebulous and suspicious concept indeed for moralizers.
Of course, the question arises: Where does this privacy begin, and government rights end? With no clear guidance from the Founders on this subject, other than the way the Crown treated colonial Americans and their reactions to it, it could evolve into anything. Indeed, the right to contraception without interference from the state has come to mean the right to abortion, and the right to other forms of non-procreative sexual behavior. It may someday be interpreted to protect the right to incest and polygamy, and that's why Santorum cites those examples.
His contention is that rights not spelled out in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal Government belong either to the states, or to the people. As time has gone on, that has meant to the people, but clearly at the time of original ratification of the Constitition, the states retained a great deal of rights over their citizens. He'd clearly like to go back to those days.
I'm not saying I agree with that, but I can at least articulate the opposing opinion well enough to be able to have a discussion with the other side about it.
matmar
(593 posts)I still don't see how the denial of contraception equals less abortions. I see it as having the opposite effect.
Marnie
(844 posts)If not, why not?
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)take a douche.
YellowRubberDuckie
(19,736 posts)From what my doc told me.