A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects married couples’ ability to obtain and use birth control is “constitutionally unsound,” according to Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn.
Blackburn made the remarks in a video posted to Twitter on Sunday, as the Tennessee Republican prepared for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Committee member Blackburn is among other Republicans who have said it is time to reconsider landmark court rulings with an ascendant conservative majority on the Court.
In her video, Blackburn called out the Supreme Court’s 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision that struck down a state law banning the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” The Court ruled the law violated the constitutional right to privacy, which later served as the basis for the right to receive access to abortion care in the U.S.
“Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut…confused Tennesseans and left Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances,” said Blackburn.
[…]
With Roe potentially on the chopping block, some Republicans are hoping the Court will go even further.
Three Republican candidates for Michigan Attorney General said in February that Griswold was wrongly decided, according to a report in left-leaning Mother Jones. Two candidates later told The Detroit News they didn’t want a ban on birth control.
Dana Nessel, Michigan’s current Democratic attorney general, reacted with a tweet calling the opposition to the ruling “terrifying.”
In a 2012 Republican presidential debate, candidates Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney (now a senator from Utah) also said they opposed Griswold.
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 argued he has 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.”
As Idahoans plan for a future without abortion rights, a leading Republican in the Idaho House would support holding hearings on legislation banning abortion pills and morning-after pills.
House State Affairs Committee Chairman Brent Crane, R-Nampa, said he would hold hearings on legislation banning emergency contraception and abortion pills during a Friday interview with Idaho Public Television.
“IUDs, I’m not for certain yet on where I would be on that particular issue,” he said, referring to intrauterine devices, which are a long-lasting form of contraception.
In a Saturday interview, Crane clarified that he supports contraception, including IUDs, and would not support hearings banning contraception generally. Instead, he said that he has heard of safety concerns with emergency contraceptives, like Plan B, and abortion pills, and would therefore be willing to hold hearings about them.
Crane said that there have been reports of “complications” caused by morning-after pills and of abortion pills causing “health concerns for the mom,” despite years of research showing the safety of both medications.
So once again, this has nothing to do with “protecting kids” and everything to do with using using reproduction as a form of control.
Like it’s already hard enough to get a reliable birth control (and even the most reliable ones are never 100%), and they want to make them harder or impossible to get.
-
I cannot fathom how “Have kids, or die a virgin,” is seriously what they’re pushing for here. “If you have sex you should have kids.”
That does nothing to protect kids, and is fucking WORSE for the kids. You either wind up with a parent who doesn’t want you or you get sent into the hell that is foster care.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion that he believes that overturning Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptive rights) should also be considered in the near future. (Not to mention also overturning Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing gay sex) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing gay marriage). These are not just discussions happening on the local level, but at the highest level of the Judicial system. Every case that was built in some part off of Roe v. Wade (or contributed to its passing, like Griswold v. Connecticut) is at stake here. A dark future looms ahead of us if you don’t take action NOW.
it’s such a common experience for disabled people to downplay our own experiences, i know, i do it too. i’m going to write this post for anyone who needs to hear this: back when i was working retail, i would come home from work and think for hours about how my life would just be so much easier if i got a wheelchair, that it would solve so many of my problems, that all i need to do is just be able to sit down and not have to walk and feel the shock in my knees and hips.
and then i would go, oh, but im not disabled enough for that, and move on and forget about it. until the next day when i came home from work, dragging myself across the walls with my arms to get to my room because the pain was too bad, where i’d start the process all over again. i would wish that i was “more” disabled so i could justify having one.
if you are thinking that you need a mobility aid for ANY reason: you ARE disabled enough, you don’t need to be “more” disabled, and this is your sign you really should look into your options for getting a mobility aid that suits your needs. seriously. it doesn’t have to wait for later. preventative measures go a long way.
[ID: the bugs bunny in a suit meme, which is edited to read “I wish all lesbians a very pleasant”, with the image of the lesbian flag with white text that reads “Lesbian Visibility Week 2022 Monday, April 25 and ends on Sunday, May 1” /end ID]
Sick of being told I should feel bad for things I can’t help health wise. Sick of having the same exact conversations over and over again. Sick of explaining myself and why I do things all to be blamed again just a short while later. I am trying and won’t be told that I’m not. I’m not apologizing for things I can’t help and that I am actively trying to better.
