#griswold v. connecticut

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has mocked Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert after she claimed she had her third son because birth control was too expensive.

“I left a prescription at a pharmacy once. I went to get birth control,” she said during a hearing on Tuesday 23 May. “I was there at the counter, went to pay for it, and the price was very, very high. I said wow, is this a three-, six-month prescription? They said, no ma’am, this is one month. I said it’s chapter to have a kid. And I left it there, and now I have my third son, Kaydon Boebert, and so it actually turned out to be a really great thing.”

The Democratic congresswoman took issue with the story, noting how Ms. Boebert had voted against legislation that would help ensure wider access to contraception.

“And then she voted against the right to contraception so she could double this problem and give it to the next person,” she wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.

Last year, Ms. Boebert, alongside most of the House GOP, voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would’ve enshrined the right to contraception in federal law.

Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, one of the bill’s sponsors, said the bill was important as women are facing "a perilous time, where an extremist Supreme Court and the GOP are rolling back our rights."

Democratic lawmakers rallied around the bill after US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a concurring opinion to the decision overturning Roe v Wade that the high court should revisit 1965’s Griswold v Connecticut, which forbids states from banning contraception.

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’... we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Justice Thomas wrote. “The question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a majority of women between ages 18 to 64 have used contraception at some point during their reproductive years, with more than three-quarters using multiple methods.

Under the Affordable Care Act, contraceptive coverage is required, though KFF found in 2022 that 4 in 10 women weren’t aware most insurance plans pay the full cost of birth control.

[xkcdbracket]

Supreme Court Bracket

Remember that this is a silly Tumblr poll, and these two things are not actually in conflict. So don't get too heated in the notes.

Public Defenders. In the case Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney or lawyer to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own attorneys.

Birth Control. In the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court ruled that a statute barring birth control to prevent pregnancy, also known as contraception, was unconstitutional, at least in its application to married couples, as there was an implicit right to privacy in the ''penumbras'' and ''emanations'' of other constitutional provisions. This ruling was used as precedent in Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), which extended the right to unmarried couples, and in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas (see below).

[professorsta]

Just want any queer elder to know it’s Not Normal for young queers to not know their history. I’ve been seeing a lot of posts with young queers knowing very little of our past and I- I just want to reassure that I’m 19 with 18-23 year old queer friends who deeply know and understand our history. We know that Sodomy laws caused men to be chemically castrated, we know that sometimes all it took was seeming queer for police to be busting down your door, we know about the lavender scare and we know that the reason our oldest members in the community hit 40-50 is because of Reagan. We know and we’re Sorry so many have forgotten, we’re sorry you fought with blood, sweat, and tears only to have those you fought for not even know a war had been going on in the first place. We Thank you for fighting for us and I promise to continue to fight for our community so your efforts are never in vain

[shrimpmandan]

They're not stopping at abortion, by the way.

This is what y'all wanted, right?

[kittcattastrophe]

Roe v Wade was protected under the 14th amendment. Here are other things the 14th amendment says/ protects.

* All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

* 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregated public schools did in fact violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

* The use of contraception (1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut)

* The right to interracial marriage (1967’s Loving v. Virginia)

* The right to same-sex marriage (2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges)

* Protection from racial discrimination/ discrimination based on gender or sexuality

* The right to Due Process

*HIPPA laws

* The right to engage in intimate sexual conduct (Lawrence v Texas 2003) ie: sex outside of marriage/same sex sexual acts

* Your right to vote if you aren't a white male

Y'all just opened a whole can of worms.

[prouvairetry]

If the Supreme Court goes after Griswold next, then there will no longer be a constitutional right to both control methods. Long-term methods you could get now include IUDs and arm implants and they should last you several years.

IUDs or intrauterine devices are super common! you probably know someone who has had one.

Hormonal IUDs use the same stuff as birth control pills. Copper IUDs are great if you have had no luck with hormonal contraceptives.

the arm implant is super cool and makes u a bionic person :-)

original post (including with an image of a Nexplanon implantation bruise behind a tw page) by rays_ipsa_loquitur on Instagram

[yessoupy]

please reblog.

a friend from my volunteer life messaged me to say she's moving back to texas and asked what advocacy groups she should join. this is what i told her:

if your precinct is vacant, become the precinct chair for your county democratic party.

begin attending meetings of the local democratic club.

these are political problems that require political action. precinct chairs are the officials who get out the democratic vote. that is NECESSARY for slowing this roll of fascism. IS THAT ALL WE NEED TO DO? NO. But that is the bare minimum.

Don't feel like a Democrat? Well, neither do I. But I sure as fuck am not a Republican. That party is trending further and further to the extreme right. As a result, it is leaving people behind. In a two-party system, if you are not a Republican, you should be voting for the Democrats. The Democratic Party is increasing in the breadth of people who belong to it simply because of how many people look at the Republicans today and said, "I didn't sign up for this shit." THIS WILL CAUSE IDEOLOGICAL CLASHES WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. No candidate for any race is going to be perfect.

Do not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when "good" is simply "not a fascist."

I am BEGGING you -- take this advice! I have taught the destruction of the Weimar Republic too many times to sit here and complain about a candidate not being progressive enough for my vote and/or dollar donation. I am not asking you to do anything I am not already doing.

You have learned about awful historical events and thought to yourself, "I wonder what I would have done." You know the answer now. DO IT.

[sbrown82]

What a fucking piece of shit!

[anamericangirl]

What is your opinion on Griswold vs Connecticut?

I agree with the idea of Griswold that people should be able to have and use contraceptives, but I would support the overturning of that ruling too if it ever comes to the table. And that's because the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret and make rulings on issues that come up that conflict with the Constitution but anything not in the Constitution is not up to the Supreme Court.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The right to contraception is not a constitutionally protected right and is, therefore, an issue for each state to respectively decide.

The Supreme Court has been far too liberal with the 14th Amendment and used it to make rulings on issues, such as contraceptive, that they don't have the power to do. So in my opinion Griswold needs to go and it needs to be up to the states. And if people are worried about what decisions their state will make then they should get more involved in politics at the state level.

[vespertinecat]

These Christo-fascist folks in power taking away our rights and gradually sending us back centuries towards a darker era really don't seem to remember what people used to do when they were upset with their leaders back then, do they?

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Blake Masters, a GOP Senate candidate running on an anti-abortion platform in Arizona, is also taking aim at the case that established the right to access birth control on his campaign website.

"I am 100% pro-life. Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision. It was wrong the day it was decided in 1973, it's wrong today, and it must be reversed. But the fight doesn't stop there," Master's campaign website reads. It goes on to pledge the candidate will "vote only for federal judges who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion."

Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey established and protected the right to an abortion in 1973 and 1992, respectively. But the Griswold case, decided in 1965, overturned a statewide ban on birth control and protected citizen's rights to privacy against state restrictions on contraceptives.

Masters identifies himself as a Catholic father of three on his campaign site. The Catholic Church has had an official ban on any "artificial" birth control methods, including condoms and diaphragms, since 1930. Since birth control pills were invented in 1960, the church has maintained its stance that the medication should only be used for non-contraceptive reasons.

"I don't support a state law or federal law that would ban or restrict contraception — period," Masters said in a statement emailed to Insider. "And Griswold was wrongly decided. Both are true."

In a Twitter thread criticizing reporting that pointed out his conflicting campaign positions, Masters stated that his problem with the Griswold case was that the Supreme Court justices "wholesale made up a constitutional right to achieve a political outcome."

The Senate hopeful boasts an endorsement by conservative billionaire Peter Thiel on his campaign site and is aiming to secure an endorsement by former President Donald Trump. Trump phoned in to support Masters during a campaign event, criticizing his opposition, but has not officially endorsed Masters.

Masters, a venture capitalist, previously served as the president of the Thiel Foundation and was chosen by Thiel in 2016 to serve on then President-elect Trump's transition team as he took office.

[tomorrowusa]

Clarence Thomas is a knee-jerk extremist who has rarely missed an opportunity to take a far right position. He’s even married to an active insurrectionist who he likely communicated with during Trump’s January 6th attempted coup.

A seditionist who is sympathetic to overthrowing the government has no business ruling on the US Constitution.

Justice Thomas has a far right agenda which he is using his position to try to implement.

After Striking Down Roe, Supreme Court Justice Threatens to Go After Contraception, Same-Sex Marriage, and Bring Back Sodomy Laws

In a terrifying concurring opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the case the court used as a pretext to overturn Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that now that the court’s conservative goon squad has done away with the national right to an abortion, it should think about scrapping the rulings that protect contraception, same-sex marriage, and same-sex sexual activity. Arguing that all decisions that previously fell under “due process precedents”—a concept he claims is an “oxymoron” that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution”—are bunk, Thomas writes: “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Griswold was the landmark decision in which the court said that the Constitution protects the right of married couples to buy and use contraception. Lawrence, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, made same-sex sexual activity legal. Obergefell said same-sex couples have the legal right to marry.

Thomas is a sicko who needs to go.

[polirambles]

The faithful conservative foot soldiers are already “they’re not going to overturn Lawrence , griswold or obergefell”

As if they haven’t been telling us that about roe for years

Fuck out of here with that.

[m3rd3r-gh0st]

New Mexico and Colorado. You are my only hope if I ever get raped and become pregnant. You are my only hope if I ever have an unwanted pregnancy. You are my only hope if I ever need to terminate because there’s something wrong. Of course, my only hope of having an abortion safely. And you are both bewtween 700-1,000 miles away from me. This is inhumane. Many will die.

[deadly-flowers]

A responce to the overturn of Roe v. Wade

How overturning Roe v. Wade could WILL set progress back 50 years

Most of everyone has heard of Roe v. Wade, especially with the leaked draft about the possible overturn. As of now, June 24 2022, Roe v. Wade has officially been overturned, meaning a state can now ban legal abortion. Note how it’s ‘ban legal abortion’ and not ‘stop abortions from happening’? That is because people will continue getting abortions, just via coat hangers, toxic fluids, and infection riddled back alleys. Digressing slightly, for those not in the know, Roe v. Wade was a case that dealt with the ways restrictive state regulations of abortion encroched on womens rights to privacy. It was ruled in 1973, making abortions legal, just under fifty years ago, but on May 2, a draft was leaked concerning the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and now it has officially been overturned, there by letting states ban legal and safe abortion. Concerning and terrifying as the overturn itself may be, another concern arises when the precedent it sets is considered, because Roe v. Wade was a case based, among all things, on privacy. Its overturn could prove as a precedent to the overturn of other cases based upon privacy, leading to a regression of over 50 years, almost 60 years in fact, of social progress.

First and foremost, the case that would see the first of the regression would most likely be one of the most recent, having only been passed in 2015. Obergefell v. Hodges was the 2015 case that led to the legalization of gay marriage, which was a big step in regards of progress, as it was an important thing to the Queer community. Despite its ruling now nearing a decade ago, there is still a large group of people that would wish to get rid of the Queer community. In fact, two thirds (64%) of the Queer community have faced anti-LGBTQ+ violence or abuse, and only 1 in 3 of respondents in a survey who needed care or support were able to access it. What’s more, conversion therapy, which has been described as torture by professionals, is still legal in 29 states. 

In addition to this, in recent memory, there have been many anti-trans bills being passed in the United States. In 2021 alone, 39 states have passed a grand total of 147 anti-transgender bills. Among them was the bill in Idaho making gender-affirming care a felony punishable by a prison sentence, an advancing legislation in Alabama that would make the prescription of puberty blockers, hormones, or the recommendation of surgery for gender affirmation, a crime and a ban in Arkansas concerning gender confirming treatment. It has not been an unprecedented thing to go from attacking the trans community, often one of the most vulnerable communities of the LGBTQ+ acronym, to attacking the other groups under the Queer umbrella, which was seen in formerly venerated, now TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) author J.K. Rowling. 

The next case that could fall prey to the regressive mindset of the government, timescale wise, at least, would be Virginia v. Loving, the case that legalized interacial marriage. Passed in 1967, interacial marriage has simply become another day to day occurrence, to the point there may be a demographic of children who will be shocked to know of its former illegality. Though it has been around a long time, there are still people who are against those using their right to love each other and marry, despite it having no effect on their lives. The group may be small but the problem that arises is in the demographic of those who don’t care, and who exactly are against interacial marriage. Statistically speaking, 12% of white people believe interacial marriage was a change for the worse, and 47% don’t care. On the age demographic, however, it shows that those who are against interacial marriage are those of older generations. Those same old white people who are running America. Let that sink in. 

Another problem arises due to age. Everyone is bound to have heard someone say they wished they were back in the good old days. The same good old days when water fountains were segregated. Once again, this is from the same group of old white people that include those in charge in the government. It’s made even more apparent by the rise of ‘Make america great again’ hats, and the very words and actions of the late president Donald Trump, the president who tried to build a wall to stop immigration. There is a precedent of the government being on a sliding scale from not the best to full on racist, and that could mean a lot in terms of Loving v. Virginia sticking around.

Finally, the third on the list of ‘Privacy based cases the government wants gone’ is Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the contraceptive-legalizing cases. These cases led to married couples, and later non-married people, to have access to contraceptives. Many people are against contraceptives for moral reasons, and feel the need to push their morals and opinions about what other people are doing onto them. These morals consists of notions such as them being unnatural, them being anti-life, them separating sex from reproduction, and contrceptives being a form of abortion. These views are all of the conservative christian kind, and similar to arguments against abortions. It is not that far of a leap to see these cases overturned since abortion has been overturned.

Now, contraceptives may not sound like a big issue to somebody other than those trying to avoid conceiving, but consider this. Abortions can be made illegal, and most likely will. How many would depend on contraceptives, because it’s their body and they would like to do something they enjoy without having the so-called ‘punishment’ of unwanted pregnancies. Not only that, there are people who shouldn’t conceive for medical reasons, what if they need contraceptives for their own personal health. Of course, we cannot forget another group of people who would need contraceptives. Sexual assault victims may need the moring after pill, and if it’s taken away... These examples seem to have a theme: they are all scenarios mostly affecting women, they affect others, too, but mainly women, and it is not exactly secret that the government would love to take any control it can from women over their own bodies. 

In conclusion, Griswold v. Connecticut passed in 1965, almost 60 years ago. The overturn of Roe v. Wade could, in an terrifyingly possible scenario, lead to the overturn of gay marriage, interacial marriage and the right to contraceptives, effectively rolling back progress by half a century. Most people who are not directly affected probably don’t care, but they need to. Roe v. Wade might not affect them now, but when has the government stopped while they’re ahead? Roe v. Wade is the first, but it most definitely won’t be the last.

[queenvlion]

🚨📣📢⚠️➡️ FLORIDA 🍊 ⚖️ CITES 16 YEAR OLD NOT MATURE TO GET AN ABORTION #DominoEffect #ElectionsMatter 🗳