advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 07, 2022 01:40PM
"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

... seems pretty unambiguous, doesn't it? Does this mean Alito's striking down Roe v. Wade means that we'll also lose our rights to use (or not) birth control? Roe is founded in part on the basis of other cases, such as this one and Griswold.

Fine can of worms this jack@zz has opened.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: mattkime
Date: May 07, 2022 01:55PM
Alito says no, since this is a special case due to the meeting of egg and sperm. That said, even Republicans don’t see the bright line he describes. Expect a shitload of cases checking to see if this is true. What if legislators determine some forms of birth control as equivalent to abortion?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: steve...
Date: May 07, 2022 02:09PM
If using birth control is a crime, does that include getting a vasectomy?





Northern California Coast
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 07, 2022 02:21PM
Quote
mattkime
Alito says no, since this is a special case due to the meeting of egg and sperm. That said, even Republicans don’t see the bright line he describes. Expect a shitload of cases checking to see if this is true. What if legislators determine some forms of birth control as equivalent to abortion?

Of course Alito's ruling opens the door to things like banning IUD's, since they may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, and any and all forms of emergency contraception for the same reason.

I don't think anyone is buying the "special case" argument...

I see this as having a very real potential domino effect. If one falls, they all fall. Since he's rejecting Roe on the basis of there not being any stated right to privacy in the Constitution, then Griswold and Eisenstadt (upon which Roe is based) should also all go out the window.

Quote
steve...
If using birth control is a crime, does that include getting a vasectomy?

Or how about masturbation, where millions of potential babies are being murdereddying each time?




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2022 02:22PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: Acer
Date: May 07, 2022 02:53PM
Quote
mattkime
What if legislators determine some forms of birth control as equivalent to abortion?

They already do. Some hormonal forms of birth control work by making the uterine wall unfriendly to the fertilized egg.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: May 07, 2022 03:48PM
If using birth control is a crime, does that include getting a vasectomy?


GOD, no!

That's a man determining what's best for his future, under the Man is Best Destiny doctrine.

That doctrine is also what allows men to determine what's best for women's futures.

If men gave birth...




I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: Lizabeth
Date: May 07, 2022 04:14PM
Quote
steve...
If using birth control is a crime, does that include getting a vasectomy?

Or how about masturbation, where millions of potential babies are being murdereddying each time?[/quote]

Reckless abandonment…
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 07, 2022 04:30PM
Quote
PeterB
Or how about masturbation, where millions of potential babies are being murdereddying each time?

It’s safely protected under the Second Amendment.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 07, 2022 04:47PM
Quote
Speedy
Quote
PeterB
Or how about masturbation, where millions of potential babies are being murdereddying each time?

It’s safely protected under the Second Amendment.

[instantrimshot.com]




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 07, 2022 06:37PM
How about the flip side of this - doesn't Alito's reasoning allow the state to pass a law requiring anyone it chooses to be sterilized? There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to not be sterilized, is there?



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 07, 2022 06:40PM
Quote
Ted King
How about the flip side of this - doesn't Alito's reasoning allow the state to pass a law requiring anyone it chooses to be sterilized? There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to not be sterilized, is there?

Sterilized only after you have given birth to the required number of babies.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 07, 2022 06:58PM
Quote
Speedy
Quote
Ted King
How about the flip side of this - doesn't Alito's reasoning allow the state to pass a law requiring anyone it chooses to be sterilized? There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to not be sterilized, is there?

Sterilized only after you have given birth to the required number of babies.

I think I goofed in that post. The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." I imagine that "secure in their persons" should cover freedom from forced sterilization.



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 07, 2022 07:03PM
Quote
Ted King
How about the flip side of this - doesn't Alito's reasoning allow the state to pass a law requiring anyone it chooses to be sterilized? There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to not be sterilized, is there?

Yes, that point (or one very similar to it) was brought up by Lawrence Tribe in his review of the Alito decision that I posted awhile back.

Alito's argument appears to be that sterilization isn't "deeply rooted" in the traditions of the country... but you could actually make a good argument that it is, because up until 1981, we were sterilizing folks for supposedly genetically-based social defectives (e.g., eugenics):

[www.thoughtco.com]
North Carolina has an especially terrible history of this: [www.nytimes.com]

Edit:
Quote
Ted King
I think I goofed in that post. The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." I imagine that "secure in their persons" should cover freedom from forced sterilization.

Right, but shouldn't being "secure in their persons" also cover womens' rights neither to be forced into giving birth nor aborting a fetus?




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2022 07:07PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Eisenstadt v. Baird
Posted by: pdq
Date: May 08, 2022 09:43AM
Quote
PeterB

Right, but shouldn't being "secure in their persons" also cover womens' rights neither to be forced into giving birth nor aborting a fetus?

Yes it absolutely should, and previous Supreme Court rulings have held exactly this. A local letter-writer (not me, BTW) said in today’s dead-tree paper:

Quote

While it’s true that the Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion, it also says nothing explicitly about criminal suspects being advised that anything they say can be used against them, or that people can’t be treated differently based on their race, religion, or gender - yet now we* embrace these and many other …rights as fundamental…

The writers of the Constitution had no super-powers enabling them to see into the future and anticipate every contingency that might arise in a changing world. That’s why they wisely designed a sturdy foundation…for our democracy.

…and then they cited the fourth amendment, just as PeterB did above. I thought this was particularly well put. If some nutjob wanted to ban, say, cell phones as the work of the devil (well, some days wink smiley) and felt entitled to do so since they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (or the Bible), nor were “deeply rooted” in our history, most people of reason would laugh them off. But this is Alito’s reasoning.

———-

*and yes, I recognize that some conservatives would like Miranda and it’s warnings to go away, or be applied (or ignored) as convenience dictates.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 103
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020