No, Rick Santorum isn't trying to ban The Pill

Aoxomoxoa said:
So there isn't any difference between reversing existing legislation and allowing new?
Click to expand...

There is far more in common with the positions than the left will be comfortable admitting. The reality is, some things were left to the states per the constitution. Even "crazy" things, while it may seem "crazy" to actually follow it, I think it is the best course rather than ignoring it when it is inconvenient.
 
Damocles said:
There is far more in common with the positions than the left will be comfortable admitting. The reality is, some things were left to the states per the constitution. Even "crazy" things, while it may seem "crazy" to actually follow it, I think it is the best course rather than ignoring it when it is inconvenient.
Click to expand...


Things like marriage were left to the states. Things like the fundamental right to privacy were not. So Obama is on firm ground when he says it is up to the states to determine whether marriage is between a man and a woman and Santorum is off in crazyville in asserting that states have the power to ban contraceptives.
 
Quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)
 
Dungheap said:
There is a difference between expanding constitutional rights and restricting them. Obama wouldn't prevent states from expanding constitutional rights to gay people, while Santorum wouldn't prevent states from restricting the constitutional rights of women.
Click to expand...

it is the same thing. allowing states to do something you don't approve of. you're just a hack who gives obama a pass.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
BEHOLD!!

Despite just days ago telling me how pathetic I was for posting the same type of rebuttal...now apparently ol Two-Faced Yurtard thinks it's acceptable for him to use the "well they did it too" defense.
Click to expand...

once again the dishonest asshole speaks. like i said in that post, i have no problem with occasional 'they do it too', it is at times relevant. i do, however, enjoy showing YOUR hypocrisy by using they do it too while complaining when others do so. see, the difference between me and you is that i don't complain about it.

further, i am not surprised you don't hold obama accountable like santorum. you're a two bit hack.
 
Dungheap said:
Things like marriage were left to the states. Things like the fundamental right to privacy were not. So Obama is on firm ground when he says it is up to the states to determine whether marriage is between a man and a woman and Santorum is off in crazyville in asserting that states have the power to ban contraceptives.
Click to expand...
If you would agree that your fundamental right to privacy covered drugs and what you put into your body entirely, I may agree with you. Although there is no inherent "fundamental right to privacy" in the constitution. Unless you believe it is covered by number 9...
 
Damocles said:
If you would agree that your fundamental right to privacy covered drugs and what you put into your body entirely, I may agree with you. Although there is no inherent "fundamental right to privacy" in the constitution. Unless you believe it is covered by number 9...
Click to expand...

I'd also wonder if you think right to privacy should cover euthanasia?
 
Dungheap said:
Things like marriage were left to the states. Things like the fundamental right to privacy were not. So Obama is on firm ground when he says it is up to the states to determine whether marriage is between a man and a woman and Santorum is off in crazyville in asserting that states have the power to ban contraceptives.
Click to expand...

Right to privacy? States ban guns... does the right to privacy not cover that as well? States ban MJ... same question...

While I think it f'in stupid to ban contraceptives, I fail to see how this is any more a 'privacy' issue than any other product/service banned by the states.
 
Superfreak said:
Right to privacy? States ban guns... does the right to privacy not cover that as well? States ban MJ... same question...

While I think it f'in stupid to ban contraceptives, I fail to see how this is any more a 'privacy' issue than any other product/service banned by the states.
Click to expand...


You can argue it if you want. I don't know of any court that has found that. By contrast, the right to privacy has been found to preclude bans on contraception (and abortion).
 
(P)Rick Scrotorum is but the most extreme expression of the Republicans' inexorable march to the fringe on women's healthcare and reproductive rights.


Scrotorum's aggressive courting of social conservatives in Iowa to come within a hair's breadth of beating former Gov. Mitt Romney—who outspent him 70-1—has raised the birth control issue to a whole new level.


It's not enough to oppose abortion, even to protect the life of the mother or for survivors of rape or incest.


(P)Rick Scrotorum and all his fellow supporters of "life begins at conception" even oppose the most commonly used forms of birth control.


This includes the top choice, the pill, since birth control can work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."


Scrotorum also opposes the predecessor to Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy in 1965. Griswold negated a Connecticut state law banning the use of contraception by married couples.


The day before the Iowa caucuses, Scrotorum told ABC, "It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have."


Scrotorum has already contradicted himself, telling CNN on January 4 that he would not have supported the Connecticut anticontraception law because, "The government doesn't have a role to play in everything that, you know, that either people of faith or no faith think are wrong or immoral."


This will undoubtedly come as news to the gay community and anyone who served in the Senate with (P)Rick Scrotorum.


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/laura-chapin/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-even-opposes-birth-control
 
Damocles said:
If you would agree that your fundamental right to privacy covered drugs and what you put into your body entirely, I may agree with you. Although there is no inherent "fundamental right to privacy" in the constitution. Unless you believe it is covered by number 9...
Click to expand...


Basically, the Court said in the major contraception case that the right to privacy emanates from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
 
Damocles said:
If you would agree that your fundamental right to privacy covered drugs and what you put into your body entirely, I may agree with you. Although there is no inherent "fundamental right to privacy" in the constitution. Unless you believe it is covered by number 9...
Click to expand...


Following on the heels of Griswold, in 1967 Colorado became the first state to liberalize its abortion restrictions—a law signed in front of TV cameras by a Republican governor, John Love.


This was a full six years before Roe established a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion in 1973.


So it's safe to say that Colorado citizens have a strong history of supporting privacy rights and opposing government intervention into our most personal decisions.


Politicians who have crossed that privacy line have paid at the ballot box—just ask Ken Buck.




http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/laura-chapin/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-even-opposes-birth-control
 
Dungheap said:
Basically, the Court said in the major contraception case that the right to privacy emanates from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
Click to expand...

Sounds like shotgun ruling, throw as much at it as possible. This way you can ignore the right when somebody wants to take a vicodin, but you "must" follow it whenever it is convenient. As I said, I'm good with calling contraception "privacy" if you also would call pretty much anything else you might put into your body "privacy". Also, I really do wonder if you would believe such a right might run into euthanasia... Personally, if you have a right to "privacy" that extends to that, then you should also have a right to other privacy considerations. Especially if that is a fundamental right.
 
Damocles said:
Sounds like shotgun ruling, throw as much at it as possible. This way you can ignore the right when somebody wants to take a vicodin, but you "must" follow it whenever it is convenient. As I said, I'm good with calling contraception "privacy" if you also would call pretty much anything else you might put into your body "privacy". Also, I really do wonder if you would believe such a right might run into euthanasia... Personally, if you have a right to "privacy" that extends to that, then you should also have a right to other privacy considerations. Especially if that is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion."

In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed.

The majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive." In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the idea that the Constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract.

Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]), and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade [1973]).



http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top