Frank wrote on Aug 19
th, 2022 at 5:19pm:
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 19
th, 2022 at 7:16am:
Good colleges in the states that ban abortion will find student numbers decrease as girls in senior HS will chose colleges in states that allow safe abortion. Not just abortion—these hell holes want to ban contraception! As some speculate—this crap (abortion bans) is to increase white numbers!
Businesses in states that ban abortion are already looking to grow their businesses outside of those states.
Cheeses!!!
The Pill was hailed as the turning point for women's liberation. Now it's abortion or nuffin'. Nobody is contemplating the banning of contraception that prevents conceptions.
You do know, Baldrick, that state law can be changed by the electorate. A SCOTUS decision cannot. Abortion is not banned by the overturning of Roe. Laws regulating it are simply recognised to be the responsibility of State legislatures (JUST LIKE IN AUSTRALIA).
And "growing the abortion business"?? A good thing??
Quote:Nobody is contemplating the banning of contraception that prevents conceptions.
Rubbish it is exactly what the right to life group want and it is what various states may decide to deliver.
You comment is so uneducated that you see to not even be aware that this is exactly what Supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas argued in his official support to the Dobbs decision.
This means that the belief that banning contraception is an expected result of the Dobbs decision - only one of many..
Quote:Thomas voted with the 6-3 majority that struck down Roe. In a concurring opinion, however, he expressed the view that he would go further — much further — than the majority in thinking through the implications of today’s decision. One passage in particular captured people’s attention:
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
The key concept is the term “substantive due process,” which refers to the idea that the Constitution protects rights that are neither purely procedural (like rights to fair trial procedures) nor explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (like the freedom of the press). Thomas is arguing that such “unenumerated” rights are basically made up: not just the right to abortion protected in Roe, but also protections for birth control in Griswold v. Connecticut, same-sex sexual relations in Lawrence v. Texas, and same-sex marriage in Obergefell.
Here he is asking for (soliciting) cases to be brought to the supreme court to allow things like contraception and same sex marriage to be banned.
You say nobody is calling for this but the truth is that it could hardly be a more high profile push for exactly that.