Why would 196 house republicans vote against the right to contraception? Is there a poison pill in the legislation? Plan B?
Can someone on the right explain this?
- Thread starter BuilderBob6
- Start date
I'd want to see the entire bill. Perhaps something else in there they don't like.
Here's your side.
House passes contraception bill that GOP argues violates religious freedoms - Washington Examiner
The House passed legislation that ensures the right to access contraception, a bill that lawmakers on the Right argue violates religious freedom. The lower chamber on Thursday passed the bill, the Right to Contraception Act, in a 228-195 vote, with eight Republicans joining all Democrats in...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
No link to the bill? Just what the Washington Examiner has to say about it? Who cares what they say?Here's your side.
House passes contraception bill that GOP argues violates religious freedoms - Washington Examiner
The House passed legislation that ensures the right to access contraception, a bill that lawmakers on the Right argue violates religious freedom. The lower chamber on Thursday passed the bill, the Right to Contraception Act, in a 228-195 vote, with eight Republicans joining all Democrats in...
Will you be providing the left’s side or just the right’s which you obviously oppose?Here's your side.
House passes contraception bill that GOP argues violates religious freedoms - Washington Examiner
The House passed legislation that ensures the right to access contraception, a bill that lawmakers on the Right argue violates religious freedom. The lower chamber on Thursday passed the bill, the Right to Contraception Act, in a 228-195 vote, with eight Republicans joining all Democrats in...
For a poster who asks for a link anytime a subject or opinion makes him uncomfortable and reactionary, he sure walks away when asked for one.
I asked for the bill, not some article.Here's your side.
House passes contraception bill that GOP argues violates religious freedoms - Washington Examiner
The House passed legislation that ensures the right to access contraception, a bill that lawmakers on the Right argue violates religious freedom. The lower chamber on Thursday passed the bill, the Right to Contraception Act, in a 228-195 vote, with eight Republicans joining all Democrats in...
Droid just posted it. Look up.
@BuilderBob6 So my issue with this bill is that it's being presented as if it's a constitutional right, which it isn't. You have a right to have access to it, but not a right to just get it.
I also don't understand why they are arguing what the international community does. We are the United States with a very specific and unique constitution. We aren't the same as other international countries.
Being presented as? It matters what it is, doesn't matter what it's being presented as.
What does "just to get it" mean? The law would guarantee the right to purchase and use contraception. Does that have to be specified in the constitution? If that right is is in danger of being taken away, what can else be done to protect it?
No state is preventing the sale of contraception. Many don't want it to be provided for free. There's a massive difference. That's the point.
That's because they can't, at the moment, based on Supreme Court precedent in Griswold vs. Connecticut. But certainly at least some are interested in it...those in the Marsha Blackburn camp.
It doesn't appear there's anything in the bill that specifies that it would be available for free? Did I miss it? Though, free access to contraceptives would seem like an effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, abortions, would it not?
As I said above, at the moment access to contraception IS a constitutional right, according to current Supreme Court precedent. The bill appears intended to prevent the Court from, potentially, overruling that precedent, thereby allowing the states to restrict it if they want to. It seems prudent, given that the Court ruling that protects access to contraception rests on similar justification as did Roe.
Last edited:
And Justice Thomas........which is what is driving this......as you alluded to.
This is a dumb-dumb test and an indicator that of someone who didn't begin following politics until 2016.
You introduce a bill that is obvious - no one wants to ban birth control. But, then you put in so many poison pills that the opposition can't vote for it.
You then use the main thrust of the bill as a talking point and fundraising tactic. Attack ads.
You introduce a bill that is obvious - no one wants to ban birth control. But, then you put in so many poison pills that the opposition can't vote for it.
You then use the main thrust of the bill as a talking point and fundraising tactic. Attack ads.
It would be dumb for them to prevent the sale of contraception. The arguments I have always heard in the past is that they (certain states) don't want federal dollars to be spent on free contraception. That there were certain religions that are against that (which is dumb IMO). I have never heard the argument before that they don't even want a store to carry it for sale.
This is exactly what I was thinking. This bill had to have a bunch of riders that made it to where people on the right couldn't vote for it, giving the left something to point to and call the right extreme. This type of shit happens all the time. Politics 101
that’s fine, but, near as I can tell this bill doesn’t make contraception free. Again, did I miss it? Assuming I didn’t, this is not an argument against this specific bill.
Agreed.
Well, quite publicly, Marsha Blackburn and Samuel Alito have called for revisiting Griswold. Should Griswold be overturned, states could do just that. Maybe no state would do it, but that doesn’t they should be allowed to. “Nobody’s arguing that,” until they are.
I'm all for overturning bad decisions that really have no root in the constitution. We need more of that IMO. However, with the internet and everything, I'm sure people could buy stuff online and have it shipped if they can't go to a store and get it (even though I think it would be idiotic to ban the sale of it in stores).
