Said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, quoted in "Schumer Plans Vote on Contraception Access, Teeing Up a Campaign Issue/Democrats are planning to spotlight Republicans’ opposition to legislation protecting birth control access nationwide, as part of an election-year push" (NYT).
Trump responded to a question about this bill: "We’re looking at that. Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policies than others." So: leave it to the states. The benefits of federalism. But that's a little hard to understand, and Democrats are pushing Republicans to speak in these mystifying terms that cause anxiety about what's really going on.
Trump responded to a question about this bill: "We’re looking at that. Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policies than others." So: leave it to the states. The benefits of federalism. But that's a little hard to understand, and Democrats are pushing Republicans to speak in these mystifying terms that cause anxiety about what's really going on.
After Trump got a chance to see the reaction in the media, he stepped away from the federalism talk and said that he would "never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control" or a "ban on birth control."
Posts
44 comments:
Right to contraception? Meh. We already know they believe in a right to sterilization that is covered by insurance.
If Trump is prepared to let states vote abortion up or down, it might seem a smaller thing to treat contraception the same way. But there are probably voters who are ambivalent on abortion, but very much want access to contraception. Such is democracy.
If the bill doesn’t pass into law, it will be because Republicans oppose protecting American’s right to contraception
Markey has been there a long long time but he doesn’t recognize there are many reasons a bill doesn’t pass into law. I sentence him to sixty days of Schoolhouse Rock…
Positive rights don't exist.
There is a right to abstinence, but hopefully that does not need to be enumerated.
Smart move by the Dems. Distract the electorate from the other issues and all of Biden’s failures.
Abortion is one (regrettable) form of birth control but Trump and other Republicans would be politically wise to keep to Trump’s clear and concise message: "I will never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control or any ban on birth control."
What - Schumer wants to protect the right to condoms, etc.? Go for it. The abortion pill is not contraception.
This is the Republican Sex Derangement Syndrome. The Dims only hope.
"Right to contraception"? Who was that empty-headed chick years ago (Obama term) who demanded that taxpayers pay for her contraception? AFAIK, the only "rights" are in our founding documents, and are derived from God (not government).
Let me guess: No federal funding = “ban”.
See also: Federal legal right requires complete federal funding.
Federal right to contraception will be followed by reclassification of abortion from “health care” to “contraception”.
Kevin is correct.
For a nation that annually aborts over 1 million babies, and is now floundering well below replacement rate, we sure do seem ignorant of the long term picture as the Dems make their number one priority the right to kill the unborn. Over anything else.
Silly idea. Contraception was never much of a right-wing concern, and has always been a left-wing non issue. It was never a constitutional topic.
Contraception was an issue with old-school Catholics who voted for Democrats several decades ago. Modern Catholics don't care much, but this effort may drive traditional Catholics (e.g., Hispanics) to vote for Republicans.
It's a great wedge issue.
Force the vote. Republicans -- and Trump -- can vote for contraceptive rights, or against contraceptive rights.
Electoral politics demands that they vote for contraceptive rights. Right to Life and the extremist Pro-Life/Evangelical rightwing will demand that they vote against contraceptive rights.
Divide them. Conquer them. As ever, Dobbs v Jackson represents nothing so much as Republican pro-life extremists being put in the position of the proverbial "dog that caught the car."
Trump responded to a question about this bill: "We’re looking at that. Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policies than others." So: leave it to the states.
Respectfully; is that really what Trump is saying? The way I heard Trump was that he was doing his usual thing. He was saying, as he always does when pressed in an area where he knows he is in over his head, "we'll have a very big announcement on that in two weeks..." That was Trump's consistent response about health care reform (and specifically a REPLACEMENT plan for the ACA) for all four years of his presidency.
Trump is saying, "We are looking at that..." That's not really an answer. Then Trump reverts back to his newly-discovered favorite dodge, which is Trump's own middle-school understanding of federalism. We will leave that to the states... Without coming to grips with the fact that pro-life House Republicans won't accept that as an answer. They want to do something (anything?!), federally, to satisfy pro-life base voters. They have to.
Is there a state in the country that has banned contraceptives, or that is contemplating legislation to do so? This seems like a pure political stunt, a solution to a non-existent problem.
Not sure I see the 'gotcha' issue here, for Democrats. The percentage of the populace that is against birth control must be minuscule. All Republicans have to do is categorically state what Trump stated, and then be smart enough not to be outmaneuvered with the bills. I assume the content of the bill will be where the game is played, with Democrats crafting a bill creating a Federally-funded Birth Control entitlement, or combining birth control with abortion rights, or doing something equally inseparable, then forcing a vote and labeling it the 'Birth Control Bill'.
Is there a state in the country that has banned contraceptives, or that is contemplating legislation to do so? This seems like a pure political stunt, a solution to a non-existent problem.
Just like no state was going to ban abortion (even though there were already trigger laws in several states that effectively ban abortion). We would just settle on a compromise of 15 weeks (Just like Europe!).
The bill, The Right to Contraception Act S. 1999, speaks in terms of recognized constitutional rights to contraception, including to minors.
But, the bill seeks to expand those recognized rights to "contraception" to include a right to “sterilization procedures” -- The bill’s citation to Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), as well as the definitions and construct of the bill, indicates that the bill’s proposed statutory right would protect a patient’s right to “sterilization procedures” INCLUDING TO MINORS.
Regarding a right of minors to access sterilization procedures, the bill would go beyond existing law.
Senator Markey was quoted in the NY Times article as saying "If the bill doesn’t pass into law, it will be because Republicans oppose protecting American’s right to contraception."
But if/when the bill fails it may be because Republicans and voters oppose protecting minors' right to sterilization procedures.
The NY Times article notes that "A majority of voters support the Right to Contraception Act across party, racial and gender lines, according to the poll. About 94 percent of Democrats support it, along with 68 percent of Republican voters."
But, it is questionable whether the newly proposed right protecting minor's right to sterilization procedures is something that an informed public would support.
Just like no state was going to ban abortion (even though there were already trigger laws in several states that effectively ban abortion). We would just settle on a compromise of 15 weeks (Just like Europe!).
Not true at all - there were states that still had complete bans on the books at the time of the decision, and many states had recently enacted some type of restriction on abortion, some of which survived court challenge (e.g., Texas enacted a ban after six weeks in 2021).
Near as I can tell, a significant number of states have either found a right to contraceptives in their constitutions or passed statutory protections or constitutional amendments to protect access to contraceptives, while none have taken steps in the opposite direction.
Show me the penumbra that deals with birth control in the Constitution.
"This is a clarifying political vote that will put every Republican on record as to whether or not they believe in a constitutional right to contraception...."
You do NOT have a "constitutional right to contraception", and anyone who claims to believe that you do have one is either an ignoramus or a liar.
If you want to create such a Constitutional right, feel free to create an Amendment to the US Constitution.
Otherwise you're just a lying sack of shit
"I have a right to control my own body!"
Great, I totally agree. Now eliminate the FDA, the DEA, the entire concept of "prescription drugs" ( outside of maybe antibiotics), all "minimum wage" laws (a minimum wage law is a law saying you're not allowed to use your body to accept a job that pays less than X. It is therefore an attack on your control over your body), and all laws against / regulating suicide.
Until you're ready to do that, STFU about "I have the right to control my own body", because you clearly don't believe that.
Wedge issue? Americans are getting laid off, spending 2 to 3 times for food than they were in 2020, oil is only a little higher because we are using our reserves meant for catastrophes, and speaking of catastrophes, there is then withdrawal from Afghanistan, US involvement in new regional conflicts around the world, and a surge in illegal immigration and crime, which is causing layoffs and higher prices. But sure, the government funding contraceptions is a wedge issue. That’s the stupidity of your average Democrat voter.
Contraception, like abortion, is not mentioned in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government.
It is thus a responsibility of the states. Congress can pass laws till hell won’t have it, but if those laws are outside of their purview, they are unconstitutional. This is just more nonsense by the Dems to fire up the more ignorant parts of their base.
Yawn.
A democrat from a shithole state speaks and we're supposed to care?
Maybe Mountain Man® will weigh in...
I wish Republicans were smarter about this.
They should loudly support birth control.
And emergency birth control for rape victims.
And blast the Democrats for infanticide.
There's a reason Democrats constantly want to shift the abortion rhetoric to birth control.
Abortion is not, and never will be, popular.
Marcus Bressler:
AFAIK, the only "rights" are in our founding documents, and are derived from God (not government).
I invite you to pull up the Constitution and scan for "god", "creator" and "relig". The last will highlight Article VI and Amendment I, both of which restrict religion's influence on government.
Birth control is a couple's choice. In sex, the girl shares her vagina, and the boy his penis enclosed in a condom, equitable and literally inclusive. That said, there are diverse other considerations to consider a physical barrier, especially in open, "friendly", or casting couch relationships.
Where is birth control not available?
the only "rights" are in our founding documents, and are derived from God (not government).
Those rights are acknowledged in the national charter: The Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"Our Posterity" otherwise knownam as "babies", or in a socially distanced technical term-of-art "fetus".
Where is birth control not available?
Perhaps in equitable and inclusive venues, where womem and girls are known to be raped... rape-raped by socially liberal neighbors and men who identify as the feminine gender, respectively.
People like Federalism when it protects the policies they favor that most do not and they dislike Federalism when it protects the policies they dislike athat most dislike as well. I don't need Trump to make a strong verbal case for Federalism, but I would like him to act to promote Federalism with his policies. The continued existence and even growth of cancel culture has taught me that even if folks dislike a practice, if that practice becomes habitual it becomes expected. And practices that are expected have their own momentum and lasting power. While I would love a widespread, heartfelt appreciation and love of Federalism, I will happily settle for a begrudging, "Well that's just the way things are."
Democrats are on record for receiving emanations from the penumbra. Let us bray.
"I invite you to pull up the Constitution and scan for "god", "creator" and "relig". The last will highlight Article VI and Amendment I, both of which restrict religion's influence on government."
1. I consider the Declaration of Independence a founding document. So does pretty much anyone with half a brain cell: "The Declaration of Independence is considered a founding document of the United States because it establishes the principles that define the US government and American identity, and explains why the 13 colonies separated from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, and is one of the most influential documents in history." It clearly states "God" and also uses the word "Creator", so fuck off with your selective critique.
2. Don't you have it backwards? The government cannot make laws establishing religion's "influence on the government", not the other way around. Two and OH
Try again
Marcus Bressier:
I consider.
Declaration was telling England to fuck off. Constitution tells how we'll run things.
The government cannot make laws establishing religion's "influence on the government"
Exactly what Article VI and Amendment I are there to prevent.
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
"no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
Oligonicella
you got to be some kinda zealot to rewrite that to mean...
"everyone in the government must pretend like they are an atheist"
You're imposing a religious test, nitwit
And the idea that the Constitution regulates churches, or religion in the abstract, is asinine.
You've confused the American revolution with the French one.
A federal designation of Protected Status is wrong.
I have no idea what all 50 states are upto
I know for possitive, what ever they do is far more democratic than anying Schumer is pushing.
Leave the States alone. The People will figure it out.
Democrats to working people, “we will raise your taxes to subsidize EVs for the rich, pay off the college loans of rich kids, but we will give you free condoms”.
Could Democrats be any more disingenuous? If the women intent on killing their unborn babies believed in contraception there would be little, if any, need for abortion. Then we could focus on trivial stuff like open borders, crime, the economy, you know, that stuff.
Olgonicella: "The last will highlight Article VI and Amendment I, both of which restrict religion's influence on government."
Article VI cuts both ways. The First Amendment was intended to restrict the government's influence on religion. Any contrary assertion is dependent upon the whimsy of judges who couldn't read, couldn't think, or both. Read it yourself.
"I have a right to control my own body!"
***********
I'm sure every man who was drafted to serve in the U.S. military in the past made that same argument----and was allowed not to show up.
Oh....wait.........
Post a Comment