Skip to main content

North Carolina state House Speaker Thom Tillis
U.S. Senate candidate and state House Speaker Thom Tillis won't say if he thinks North Carolina should ban contraceptives.
North Carolina's Republican candidates for U.S. Senate believe that the state has the right to ban contraceptives. Candidates Ted Alexander, Greg Bannon, and Heather Grant think states should be able to ban contraceptives, but claim they don't think North Carolina should actually do so. Mark Harris thinks states should be able to do so, but doesn't think any ever would. And state House Speaker Thom Tillis, the likely frontrunner in the primary, thinks states should have the right to ban contraceptives and won't say whether he thinks North Carolina should.

So basically, it's "give us the right to take away your contraceptives ... but trust us." Let's just say that on this issue, they're out of step with the voters they hope to represent: Public Policy Polling asked voters if "the state of North Carolina should have the power to ban birth control" and 75 percent said no, with just 12 percent saying yes. Since 99 percent of all sex-having women have used birth control at some point, that 12 percent is either overwhelmingly male or contains quite a few hypocrites.

Obviously, Republican candidates who are willing to talk about the right to ban contraceptives are uniformly in favor of a fetal personhood amendment, which—oh, look at that—might lead to a ban on certain forms of birth control. Funny how that circles back, isn't it?

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:15 AM PDT.

Also republished by North Carolina BLUE, Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  'baggers cry "FREEDOM!!" (18+ / 0-)

    except when they say no...

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:24:29 AM PDT

  •  No more pictures of Tillis (11+ / 0-)

    I was eating lunch.

    This land is your land and this land is my land, sure, but the world is run by those that never listen to music anyway. ~ Bob Dylan ~

    by NCTim on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:28:39 AM PDT

  •  Of course States do ban products (7+ / 0-)

    Drugs being the most common example. Moonshine, pornography, alcohol (dry counties). I'm sure that there are other exampes.

    So the question becomes, what is the extent of the government's authority to ban a product. The answer to that may depend on the constitutions of the various states and of course the national constitution.

    I don't see that any state could get away with banning newspapers or crucifixes on 1st ammendment grounds.

    •  Griswold vs the STATE of Connecticuit (45+ / 0-)

      As much as the Fundies hate to admit it, the issue was settled back in 1965.

      Some choice quotes:

      From Justice Douglas:

      The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

      We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

      From Justice Goldberg's concurrence:
      I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment. Although I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments, I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding.

      The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

      And a bit later (my favorite counter-argument to the Fundgelicals):
      The logic of the dissents would sanction federal or state legislation that seems to me even more plainly unconstitutional than the statute before us. Surely the Government, absent a showing of a compelling subordinating state interest, could not decree that all husbands and wives must be sterilized after two children have been born to them. Yet by their reasoning such an invasion of marital privacy would not be subject to constitutional challenge because, while it might be "silly," no provision of the Constitution specifically prevents the Government from curtailing the marital right to bear children and raise a family. While it may shock some of my Brethren that the Court today holds that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy, in my view it is far more shocking to believe that the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution does not include protection against such totalitarian limitation of family size, which is at complete variance with our constitutional concepts. Yet, if upon a showing of a slender basis of rationality, a law outlawing voluntary birth control by married persons is valid, then, by the same reasoning, a law requiring compulsory birth control also would seem to be valid. In my view, however, both types of law would unjustifiably intrude upon rights of marital privacy which are constitutionally protected.
      The whole thing's a treasure, actually.

      Radarlady

    •  This isn't about a "product" (10+ / 0-)

      It's about a fundamental hatred and contempt for women and the official imposition of the belief that ANY woman who has sex for enjoyment — for any reason other than procreation — is a slut who deserves punishment. Since we're seeing slut-shaming in high schools declared a form of bullying, this is even a more massive and general form of bullying directed at ALL women. And yes, I do think women who take these positions have a contempt for their own sex and a belief that most OTHER women are weak and promiscuous and need to be controlled, not "good" women like themselves.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:11:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Threat to Religion (5+ / 0-)

        Christianity is a fear-based system centered around sexual-related sin.  And for thousands of years Christianity sought to control the masses by making “sins” out of everything sexual. Because it was a male-dominated society and because it was women/girls who get pregnant, women were expected to be the “gatekeepers” to sexual activity, thus preventing sin. If a woman failed in her role as gatekeeper, she was “punished” with an unplanned pregnancy.  Beginning in the 1960s with the availability of the birth control pill, women were suddenly able to circumvent the punishment of pregnancy and dispose of the burden of being sexual gatekeepers.  With women relieved of this burden, women were able to engage in sexual activity for pleasure just as men had been doing for centuries. With the advent of artificial contraception, the very concept of sexual sin is called into question, and tradional gender roles go out the window. Artificial contraception shakes Christianity to its core.

        "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die." --Senator Ted Kennedy

        by Blue Silent Majority on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:37:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Banning birth control is unconstitutional (36+ / 0-)

    There is absolutely no possible legal theory, that would stand up to federal court challenges, that states could pass a comprehensive law banning all birth control devices and drugs in 2014. The idea is nonsensical.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:37:50 AM PDT

  •  So if states can ban contraception, (14+ / 0-)

    does that mean if we got a female majority in a state (female governor and control of the state legislature), we could ban erectile dysfunction drugs? Works both ways, guys...

    There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

    by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:30:45 AM PDT

  •  Griswold v Connecticut (12+ / 0-)

    Wiki

    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy.
    To get rid of Roe v Wade, you must get rid of Griswold V Connecticut. It's not just circling back to some forms of birth control; unless you overturn Griswold, you can't hope to overturn Roe.

    And then you know that the Quiverfull evangelicals and the die-hard Catholics will be after condoms and everything else.

    Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

    by blue aardvark on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

  •  Man, these people are assholes! n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "There must be something beyond slaughter and barbarism to support the existence of mankind and we must all help search for it."

    by camlbacker on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:57:09 AM PDT

  •  already settled this guys (5+ / 0-)

    Griswald.  Done.  You can move on to the next "topic" like whether or not slavery should be allowed, or women can vote or interracial marriage is ok.

    SPOILER ALERT: Those are already settled too.

    •  Griswold (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radarlady, raincrow, HeyMikey

      should have listened to spell check.

    •  How is it settled? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      If Griswold granted an absolute right to privacy, then weed would be legal.  The government wouldn't be able to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.  

      What makes a birth control drug so special compared to other drugs?  Why can the gov't ban some, but not all?

      Another thing, there is no absolute right to the birth control pill.  It has to be prescribed by a doctor.  And if a doctor refuses for some medical reason, poof, no birth control.  My wife can't take the pill because of a hormone imbalance.

      •  no one said (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HeyMikey

        Griswold granted an absolute right to privacy.  There are no "absolute rights" anywhere in the Constitution, so not sure your point other than creating a straw man.

        •  If not absolute, it's not settled. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fixed Point Theorem

          Either the government can tell us what we can put in our bodies, or it can't.  As long as we allow our rights to be taken away from us, as long as we allow the government to treat us like children, nothing is settled. Birth control can be banned at any time just by using the language of the illegal drug wars. It's just a "recreational" drug after all, with possibly dangerous side effects.

          Don't be so complacent.

          •  Study some legal history. (0+ / 0-)

            You're being completely unrealistic. Completely.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:01:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have, and I'm not (0+ / 0-)

              Explain to me how a government that can throw a person in prison for a decade for smoking weed, can't ban birth control.

              •  Legal history. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Norm in Chicago

                Because:

                (1) The government follows Supreme Court decisions. Especially where those decisions are in line with the real-life practices of most Americans.

                [Note: I did NOT just say that the Supreme Court automatically defers to the real-life practices of most Americans.]

                (2) Griswold (1965) is not the end point; its principles have been developed in a number of decisions since. If the Supremes were to undo Griswold, they'd have to undo the whole framework of privacy rights built on it. They're not going to do this. They've never done anything similar.

                (3) The Supremes have never held the network of privacy rights extends to recreational drugs. Maybe someday they will; but they haven't.

                The fact a given school of legal thought has not yet reached its logical end point does not mean the whole school of thought is up for grabs. E.g., the fact same-sex marriage seemed legally uncertain in 2005 did not mean, in 2005, that there was any real danger interracial marriage could again be outlawed, undoing Loving v. Virginia (1967).

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 07:55:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I hope you're right (0+ / 0-)

                  But I'll feel a whole lot better when privacy rights extend to everything we can do with our bodies.

                  But for point #3, a question.  What happens if the right wing gets a hold of the federal government, they decide that only sex without birth control is proper, that all sex with birth control is recreational, and that birth control is therefore a recreational drug that can be banned?  And SCOTUS agrees 5-4.

                  If SCOTUS hasn't ruled that privacy extends to recreational drugs, and if SCOTUS says birth control is recreational, then what?

                  •  Not Gonna Happen. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Norm in Chicago

                    Precedent. Stare decisis. This does not mean the Supremes never reverse their old decisions, but it does mean they only do so for overwhelming reasons--generally including the mores of society at large have shifted in favor of the new decision.

                    Examples (I suggest wikipedia for details):

                    Plessy v. Ferguson gave way to Brown v. Board of Education.

                    Hardwick v. Bowers gave way to Lawrence v. Texas.

                    Bradwell v. Illinois gave way to...something--sex discrimination is now subject to "intermediate" or higher scrutiny.

                    What explains these decisions? I suggest reading up on levels of "scrutiny" in Constitutional litigation:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    Generally, if the court applies strict scrutiny, the government almost always loses to the individual. If the court applies rational-basis scrutiny, the individual almost always loses to the government--but not always. A number of the recent same-sex marriage cases have found the government loses even under rational-basis review. And that's extraordinary.

                    And what triggers strict scrutiny? A "fundamental right." The court has held for decades that marriage and sex and reproduction are fundamental rights; it has never held recreational drugs are fundamental rights.

                    And think about it--millions of Americans live normal lives while abstaining from alcohol, recreational drugs, and even caffeine. So they are obviously not as fundamental as sex and marriage and reproduction.

                    Back to shifting mores--that's what influences the court about what is and isn't a "fundamental right" or "fundamental interest." There is simply no way the public would stand for the Supremes going back on decades of rulings holding that sex and marriage and reproduction are fundamental rights. If that happened, it would be the centerpiece of every Prez campaign until enough Supreme Court seats changed hands to put the court back on its current course.

                    (Even the 2016 GOP Prez field is starting to get on the side of public opinion with same-sex marriage--most notably Rand Paul. This is democracy at work in the best sense--it doesn't matter if the candidates are sincere or if they are craven panderers, the public is going to get what it wants.)

                    The Supremes were, I think, chastened by what happened following Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. School integration did not become reasonably complete till the mid-1970s, and continued to be fought over for another couple decades. Still really today, though in more subtle ways. I don't think the court is eager to get that far away from public opinion again--for better or worse.  

                    There are decades of precedent, and overwhelming public opinion, that sex, marriage, and reproduction are fundamental rights. Neither precedent nor public opinion says taking recreational drugs is a fundamental right or fundamental interest. That's why the right to birth control is secure but the right to drugs isn't.

                    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                    by HeyMikey on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 09:36:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  One quibble on the "fundamental rights" (0+ / 0-)
                      The court has held for decades that marriage and sex and reproduction are fundamental rights
                      Banning birth control doesn't affect those.  Without birth control, people are still free to have sex and reproduce.  It's actually the opposite.  Birth control prevents reproduction, so one could argue that it is counter to that fundamental right.  Marriage and sex and reproduction have no fundamental need for birth control.  They existed just fine for millennia without it.
                      And think about it--millions of Americans live normal lives while abstaining from alcohol, recreational drugs, and even caffeine.
                      And the court could rule that people have a fundamental right to procreative sex, but not a fundamental right to recreational sex with birth control.  They can live "normal" lives without recreational sex if they don't want to reproduce.

                      The fundamental rights of marriage, sex and reproduction don't prevent birth control from being declared a recreational drug.

                      I think you're right that the public wouldn't stand for it, but it doesn't mean the Right-wing wouldn't try.  I still don't see what fundamentally protects birth control.

                      •  READ LEGAL HISTORY. And my last comment. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Norm in Chicago

                        Your worries made sense before Griswold (1965). Those questions have been settled.

                        And the court is sensitive to public opinion--which, believe it or not, is proper (see below). Public opinion is not going to stand for making birth control illegal.

                        American law is based on English "common law" jurisprudence. The central consideration in common law jurisprudence is what is "reasonable." What's reasonable is not fixed for all time by some arbitrary standard (though considerations of "natural law" do enter into it); even the Constitution is interpreted in light of what's "reasonable." Rather, what's "reasonable" is largely a function of public opinion or common practice. That's why Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., considered one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices in our history, wrote:

                        The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.
                        The really interesting cases generally arise out of common public hypocrisies--that is, where the public generally believes some principle in the abstract, but refuses to act in accordance with that principle. For instance, everybody agrees in principle that equal protection of the law is good and necessary; but when it turns out that requires abolishing Jim Crow and allowing same-sex marriage, well, that's controversial. The majority wants principles strong enough to protect its own desires, but is surprised when those same principles mean protecting the desires of minorities as well.

                        And that's where we are with pot. We all want our privacy, but the majority are not yet ready to accept that its own privacy is not safe unless the law also respects the privacy of pot users and suppliers. The law will change when the public makes the connection--and not before.

                        Heads up: IMHO the really interesting privacy developments will be driven by ever-more-destructive terrorism getting ever-cheaper because of advancing technology. Someday soon we will have a biological, nuclear, or chemical strike of a scale and sophistication formerly available only to national defense agencies, but it will be pulled off by a few young people working in somebody's basement. Then such strikes will become more common. And we will be forced to confront either allowing Big Brother to observe everything, or...crowd-sourcing the observation of everything, using technology. That discussion is just beginning: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/...

                        My money is on crowd-sourcing winning out. This is neither good nor bad, or rather it is both good and bad. But I think it's inevitable. We will come to see it's the only option that is, compared to the alternatives...reasonable.

                        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                        by HeyMikey on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 02:29:44 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't trust precidence with this court (0+ / 0-)

                          If precidence and will of the people mattered, then SCOTUS wouldn't have overturned over 100 years of settled law with Citizens United. Nothing is settled.

                          Next, marital privacy, a concept the court just made up, and can just as easily throw away. Tell me, if marital privacy is absolute, then it protects smoking pot with my wife, yes?  Wrong!  It only means what the court says it means on any given day. Tomorrow they can decide it doesn't exist.

                          Third, Roberts said with Obamacare that he's not going to overturn bad law. If the people don't like it, they can change it. I have no doubt that Roberts would let an NC birth control ban stand and tell the people of NC to vote in new leaders if they don't like it.

                          Finally, either the right to privacy is absolute or it isn't. So long as it isn't, so long as it is based on made up incramental rulings instead of denying government authority at the source, then it isn't real. There is no true right to privacy, there are only a few privileges granted to special interests.

                          Not saying precident will change. I'm saying there's nothing to prevent it but 5 people in robes. And I don't trust them.

                          •  Read legal history. (0+ / 0-)

                            Seriously dude, you're verging on troll territory.

                            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                            by HeyMikey on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 05:38:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fine, done with you (0+ / 0-)

                            You'd rather cry "troll" than think critically.

                            You'd rather cry "legal history" than admit our rights are built on a foundation of sand.

                            I gave you a huge example - citizens united - where legal history meant jack shit. Legal history means nothing, made up rights mean nothing. Government power is all that matters, and that grows daily.

                            Best of luck defending your "rights" with that level of complacity and naïveté.  

                          •  Plenty of legal history for Citizens United. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Norm in Chicago

                            It could have gone the other way. But it didn't at all come out of the blue. Again, you need to read some legal history. If rights can be successfully defended, it will be by people aware of legal history.

                            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                            by HeyMikey on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 07:51:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  what? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HeyMikey

            OK you're a waste of time.

  •  Good lord. I just scanned that article looking (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radarlady, Aquarius40, martydd, dewtx, JrCrone

    for a rationale for banning birth control.  This is the closest I found:

    The Republican candidates also say the state has the authority to ban contraceptives and favor a “personhood” constitutional amendment that would grant legal protections to a fertilized human egg and possibly ban some forms of birth control.
    and
    At a GOP forum last month, candidates also said they thought states had the right to ban contraceptives. Tillis, who skipped the event, later said he agreed.
    I guess it's the egg/person thing. :(
    Then there was this:
    At an event in November, Brannon put abortion in a moral context and compared it to the end of slavery. “I believe in my heart of hearts what our country went through because people had different color pigment versus the babies in the womb is the same exact battle,” he said.
    I can't even ... just, ugh.
    Why on earth is the Observer's headline "Abortion question divides NC"?  We're talking contraception here.  This is well beyond abortion, and it deserves the headline.

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:18:16 AM PDT

  •  Because the way to save more baby-lives (6+ / 0-)

    and reduce the number of people living in poverty..

    and not coincidentally make sure red states don't flip to purple then to blue states...

    couldn't POSSIBLY be sex education and provision of free contraception.

    Oh, noes! Republicans have to go the EXACT opposite way: Ban teh nasty books with the dirty pictures (worse smut of all: they're SCIENTIFIC!) and keep people able to get preggers because, gee, I guess no one needs to, I dunno stop saving all those baby-lives the GOPers keep crying about by... NOT CONCEIVING THEM.

    They make no one's lives better with this.
    They save no public budget money at all.
    They remove not one bit of demand for government role in society at all (presumably something they want)
    They get everyone that much more pissed off at Republicans.
    Oh - and because no choice OR choice of contraception there's that many more pissed-off-at-GOP-people

    They really do not think this stuff through, do they?

  •  They should ban it in an election year (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radarlady, Aquarius40

    If they feel strongly about it, they ought to do it right now. Save the cell clusters!


    Every time my iPhone battery gets down to 47%, I think of Mitt Romney.

    by bobinson on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

  •  How the hell does any politician not know (7+ / 0-)

    that this was settled 59 years ago by Griswold v Connecticut?

    Meh, I know  that they do know, they are just misogynist douche-bags.

    Hwær cwom mearg? Hwær cwom mago? Hwær cwom maþþumgyfa? Hwær cwom symbla gesetu? Hwær sindon seledreamas?
    Eala beorht bune! Eala byrnwiga! Eala þeodnes þrym!

    by Alea iacta est on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:39:09 PM PDT

    •  One who used Joe Barton Textbooks? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:57:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  49 years, actually. But the point stands. NT (0+ / 0-)

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:02:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is what comes of typing whilst enraged. (0+ / 0-)

        Math errors and typos (I'm not sure which one that actually is) get missed.

        Hwær cwom mearg? Hwær cwom mago? Hwær cwom maþþumgyfa? Hwær cwom symbla gesetu? Hwær sindon seledreamas?
        Eala beorht bune! Eala byrnwiga! Eala þeodnes þrym!

        by Alea iacta est on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 06:56:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gawd, what's next? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey

    Just tell me what's next, then fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars/Let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars.

    Better still, fly these troglodyte Rethugs!

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:48:55 PM PDT

  •  Is the US Constitution "supreme" to states' const? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JrCrone

    If we still believe that state constitutions are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, then, no, they can't propose and pass legislation that conflicts. We're either a united states where are laws are derived from our national constitution or we're a loose affiliation of 48 separate  contiguous countries. Many of their efforts to control individual behavior will ultimately be rendered unconstitutional.  What a waste of time and resources!

    It's all about my grandchildren

    by suplehdog on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:49:30 PM PDT

  •  Another Republican Rebranding Success Story. (0+ / 0-)

    Heckuva job, Priebus. Carry on.

    Build a better TRAP: Targeted Regulation of Arms/Ammunition Providers.

    by here4tehbeer on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:49:39 PM PDT

  •  Do I have to pay child support (0+ / 0-)

    for my own sperm?

  •  SOME Contraceptives (0+ / 0-)

    Please stop being lazy and misleading people to think that they are after all your contraceptives. They are talking about Plan A, Plan B, and two types of IUDs, not the pill, the shot, the patch, barrier methods, and everything else. My point here is for accurate information and a desire to not have thousands of people knee-jerking to the inaccurate information allowing conservatives to discredit liberals. Thank you.

    •  But some of the contraceptives they wish to ban (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare

      categorically do NOT act the way that they claim, ie as abortifacients. In fact, there is much hand-wringing among the "pro-life" crowd as to how much to even allow those types of contraceptives even within the first 48 hours.

      That's hours, not even days.

      So, while it is distressing to look to the comments here and their "knee-jerking" dismissal of this concept versus your own better-informed one concerning the contraceptives to be banned, I would put it to you that perhaps these commenters have noted the general direction of these legislators. That is, life begins at fertilization, all (human) life is sacred etc etc etc.

      Plan B prevents implantation onto the uterine lining. That is not an abortifacient, unless of course, you believe little zygote is already a person in its own right.

      Here is a link describing how it is that morning after pills are NOT abortifacients.

      http://www.npr.org/...

      Darling, you didn't use canned salmon, did you?

      by JrCrone on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:39:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You really haven't spent considerable time... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JrCrone

      ...among these...fervent activists, have you?

      Absolutists don't stop at "some." They merely regroup for the next Crusade. Anything that affords women some degree of reproductive control is and will always be "on the menu."

      Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:14:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, SCOTUS said no a long time ago... (0+ / 0-)

    Hate to break it to ya, NC RWNJs, but that dog has already been found to be non-hunting.

    Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

    by raincrow on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 04:57:08 PM PDT

  •  Classic GOP double-speak. (0+ / 0-)

    "North Carolina should have the right to ban birth control.  Doesn't mean they should do it, but they should have that right."

    Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure... because if you don't think a state should ban birth control, you don't give a shit if the state has the right to do so.

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:04:23 PM PDT

  •  Repealing Roe v. Wade isn't enough? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey

    Now they want to repeal Griswold v. Connecticut?

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:04:23 PM PDT

  •  registered republicans should be forbidden from (0+ / 0-)

    having sex of any kind, except perhaps with consenting north carolina watermelons

  •  Most of these people are so obscure I can't find (0+ / 0-)

    bios on them, but unless they have a huge family they're probably using birth control of some type.

    You have to marvel at a mind that wants to make something illegal that they're doing themselves.

  •  Look who's getting between patients and doctors... (0+ / 0-)

    Conservatives: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

  •  Where's the NC women and men who... (0+ / 0-)

    say no to banning birth control?

    They better GOTV in NC, boys and girls...

    Ugh. --UB.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by unclebucky on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 05:36:08 PM PDT

  •  So ok for people get guns but not contraception? (0+ / 0-)
  •  The black market for condoms (0+ / 0-)

    Just perked up.

    I suspect most of them just want hormonal birth control banned because they feel it is a fertilized egg that just can't implant. Doubt they'd ban barrier methods, but compliance and reliability with those methods are suspect.

    But who knows with those crazy people.  They want everyone to have 12 children and then say they're irresponsible deadbeats for living beyond their means.  

  •  Whether or not a state is allowed to ban (0+ / 0-)

    contraception (and Griswold v Connecticut says they can't), for what possible reason would they want to?  I mean, what public policy purpose does it serve to have huge numbers of unwanted children?  Is this "A Modest Proposal" territory?

  •  Years ago Jimmy Carter did an interview for (0+ / 0-)

    Playboy.  In it he said that if men were condemned to hell for their lustful thoughts alone, then hell would get pretty crowded (or words to that effect).  But it appears that the religious right is prepared to do exactly that and to make illegal even the thought of sex.  This from the party who would stop any kind fo assistance to babys BEFORE they are born but have a fairly Go TO Hell attitude once you've actually been born.

    It staggers the imagination.  I am fairly certain that the founding fathers did not intend to control our thoughts.  And given the passionate nature of the letters between John and Abigail Adams, sex would be the last thing they would be stopping,.

    UGH, TEXAS. Please secede!

    by u028021 on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:43:05 PM PDT

  •  I really want to know why these (0+ / 0-)

    GOP men are laser focused on women's bodies? And how are we going to take our rights back from them?  This is getting out of hand.  They make my skin crawl.  We need to figure out a way to put an end to their obsession before we can't.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:20:57 PM PDT

  •  US Constitution (0+ / 0-)

    Can anybody point out where in the US constitution it says the several states cannot ban contraceptives? When did contraception become a natural right? Ahhh...Life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please, go ahead and try and ban contraceptives in NC. The people will either vote with their feet or vote these idiots out who think they know best on how you should run your life. Keep the government out of my bedroom, my kitchen, my gun locker (if I actually had one), my emails (hello NSA or FBI or homeland security). It's a personal decision not a governmental one.

    Congress shall make no law...

    by jtabts on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:24:43 PM PDT

  •  Just think (0+ / 0-)

    about this.Birth control is not in the bible.Any one tells you it is.Prove it

  •  Maybe they could ban birth control. (0+ / 0-)

    Griswold was determined on a flawed precedent, given the word "privacy" is not in the Constitution.

    Obviously, even if they could ban something, it doesn't mean they should do it. I don't think there's a constitutional ban on outlawing chewing gum, like Singapore does, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it.

  •  Riddle me this... (0+ / 0-)

    The headline says GOP thinks they can ban birth control, but NC voters disagree, yet they keep electing republicans. WTF?

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 05:35:31 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site