s/o You can get birth control online

[lewelma]

I have also not seen any politician say that we needed a supply of *white* babies to adopt.  That is also a leap that people are making. Might be true, but still a leap. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I have also not seen any politician say that we needed a supply of *white* babies to adopt.  That is also a leap that people are making. Might be true, but still a leap. 

The line about the dearth of adoptable babies is literally in the draft SCOTUS opinion. As there is no ACTUAL under-supply of adoptable babies, only WHITE DOMESTIC INFANTS, the white is the unstated subtext. Politicians (unless you count a SCOTUS jurist) didn’t say that part.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Matryoshka]

10 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I have also not seen any politician say that we needed a supply of *white* babies to adopt.  That is also a leap that people are making. Might be true, but still a leap. 

The draft opinion (linked and quoted above) literally says that we need a supply of newborn babies as there is demand to adopt (quoted as over 1 million in 2002) as the supply is 'virtually non-existent'.  Since there is no shortage of non-white infants in the system; they are instead sent to temporary homes and shuffled around with in fact a shortage of families willing to adopt them, indeed, the 'white is silent'.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Matryoshka

[lewelma]

So I think that there are clear ramifications of the likely SCOTUS decision: IVF, hormonal BC, investigation of all miscarriages

Then, there are likely implications of a court requiring it must be IN the constitution: gay marriage, interracial marriage

Then there are leaps based on fears that this leads to more authoritarian rule: Men sign off on BC 

Edited May 10, 2022 by lewelma

[lewelma]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The line about the dearth of adoptable babies is literally in the draft SCOTUS opinion. As there is no ACTUAL under-supply of adoptable babies, only WHITE DOMESTIC INFANTS, the white is the unstated subtext. Politicians (unless you count a SCOTUS jurist) didn’t say that part.

Ah, got it. I knew domestic supply was in the draft opinion, I did not know that there was an excess of non-white babies available already in the USA.  Here in NZ, we don't have adoption (only 20 per year to strangers), and Māori babies are kept within their whanau (extended family). 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, lewelma said:

So I think that there are clear ramifications of the likely SCOTUS decision: IVF, hormonal BC, investigation of all miscarriages

Then, there are likely implications of a court requiring it must be IN the constitution: gay marriage, interracial marriage

Then there are leaps based on fears that this leads to more authoritarian rule: Men sign off on BC, white babies to rich families 

No ma’am. Pre-Roe, male consent was required for access to contraceptives. Period. That may not be true where you are but that is US history. Returning to pre-Roe resets us to 1970 when, yeah, contraception was, in fact, banned without spousal consent in many states. We also have politicians SAYING OUTLOUD, they’re open to that.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, lewelma said:

Ah, got it. I knew domestic supply was in the draft opinion, I did not know that there was an excess of non-white babies available already in the USA.  Here in NZ, we don't have adoption (only 20 per year to strangers), and Māori babies are kept within their whanau (extended family). 

Yes, here there are plenty of babies. They’re just the wrong color.

[lewelma]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No ma’am. Pre-Roe, male consent was required for access to contraceptives. Period. That may not be true where you are but that is US history. Returning to pre-Roe resets us to 1970 when, yeah, contraception was, in fact, banned without spousal consent in many states. We also have politicians SAYING OUTLOUD, they’re open to that.

Overturning Roe, does not put us back to the 1960s where women couldn't open bank accounts and men signed off on BC. This is a leap in my opinion assuming as I said that we are headed to more authoritarian rule.  Might be true, but it is not directly linked to the overturning of Roe. There are direct ramifications and indirect ramifications which is what I was trying to distinguish between.

Edited May 10, 2022 by lewelma

[lewelma]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We also have politicians SAYING OUTLOUD, they’re open to that.

Who? I haven't seen this.

[Tanaqui]

American infants in foster care are not just the wrong color, but they also have families and histories - two things which really screw with the game of pretend that some people prefer, which is that they don't have either of those things. Obviously most adoptive parents are reasonable and decent people who genuinely want what's best for the kid, not for their carefully constructed fantasy life - but the other group really, really, really wants to drag us back to the baby snatch years, where shame, social pressure, and financial constraints forced many young women to give up their babies at birth.

Fun fact: Most people do not report regretting an abortion. Quite a lot of people have lingering regrets from adoption, especially in the old days where virtually every outside-the-family adoption was a closed adoption.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Who? I haven't seen this.

Tate Reeves, Gov. Of Mississippi has said he’s open to signing legislation that outlaws *ALL* forms of contraception. So has the minority leader in the US senate (WRT a nationwide ban) and members of his caucus have said (see Blackburn, Marsha) that BC should only be available to married women. He just doesn’t want to talk about it ‘now’. Stop trying to gaslight American women. The threats are real and serious.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sneezyone

[lewelma]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Stop trying to gaslight American women.

Um. I am making a distinction between direct and indirect implications. I think this is a valuable addition to this conversation. I am fully aware of the implications to American women, my son and his SO are in the USA, and she has an IUD for medical reasons as does my sister. Please do not try to silence what I have to say. Distinctions between different types of arguments people use need to be identified so that we can hold even faster to what needs to be done. IMHO classifying ramifications leads to stronger and more powerful arguments.

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Um. I am making a distinction between direct and indirect implications. I think this is a valuable addition to this conversation. I am fully aware of the implications to American women, my son and his SO are in the USA, and she has an IUD for medical reasons as does my sister. Please do not try to silence what I have to say. Distinctions between different types of arguments people use need to be identified so that we can hold even faster to what needs to be done. IMHO classifying ramifications leads to stronger and more powerful arguments.

There *IS NO DISTINCTION* between direct and indirect consequences when the experiences of live women and girls are at stake but you do you. I’m not trying to silence you. I’m REFUTING you as must needs happen when the impact doesn’t change based on direct/indirect. If you think, for a second, politicization of your DILs IUD isn’t already underway, I don’t know what to tell you. Congrats Grandma??

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Um. I am making a distinction between direct and indirect implications. I think this is a valuable addition to this conversation. I am fully aware of the implications to American women, my son and his SO are in the USA, and she has an IUD for medical reasons as does my sister. Please do not try to silence what I have to say. Distinctions between different types of arguments people use need to be identified so that we can hold even faster to what needs to be done. IMHO classifying ramifications leads to stronger and more powerful arguments.

I recognize that you don’t live in the US and may not know many older women who had to get their husbands permission to go on the pill, but it was COMMON until Roe. So common idk if there are existing laws on the books that will go back into effect but I’d have trouble believing there aren’t. There are still OBGYNs in this country who won’t perform a tubal ligation without speaking to the woman’s husband. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Katy said:

I recognize that you don’t live in the US and may not know many older women who had to get their husbands permission to go on the pill, but it was COMMON until Roe. So common idk if there are existing laws on the books that will go back into effect but I’d have trouble believing there aren’t. There are still OBGYNs in this country who won’t perform a tubal ligation without speaking to the woman’s husband. 

Not just speaking to, getting VERBAL CONSENT.

[ktgrok]

53 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Is there anything someone can link me to that shows that leaders are having the thought that men would need to sign? How is this a thing? Even from their own logic, if it’s wrong it’s wrong, a man’s signature doesn’t make it right. 

But it is tradition in this country. Also, remember, "making sense" has nothing to do with making law, sadly. 

29 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Who? I haven't seen this.

I linked to someone running for Senate in Arizona that wants to ban contraceptives. 

[ktgrok]

On 5/3/2022 at 9:12 AM, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Just an FYI, as this is how I’ve gotten my birth control for years till this year—if you’re over 40 they’re incredibly picky on what they’ll prescribe.  They wanted to me to go off yaz, which I’ve been on for years and years, as soon as my 40th birthday hit.

Other than that both Lemonaid and NurX have been great.  K health is good too. 

FYI, Nurx prescribed me the Nuva Ring after age 40, I think because it has lower levels and is more localized than maybe some pills? 

[ktgrok]

On 5/3/2022 at 9:12 AM, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Just an FYI, as this is how I’ve gotten my birth control for years till this year—if you’re over 40 they’re incredibly picky on what they’ll prescribe.  They wanted to me to go off yaz, which I’ve been on for years and years, as soon as my 40th birthday hit.

Other than that both Lemonaid and NurX have been great.  K health is good too. 

FYI, Nurx prescribed me the Nuva Ring after age 40, I think because it has lower levels and is more localized than maybe some pills? 

[lewelma]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

There *IS NO DISTINCTION* between direct and indirect consequences when the experiences of live women and girls are at stake but you do you. I’m not trying to silence you. I’m REFUTING you as must needs happen when the impact doesn’t change based on direct/indirect. If you think, for a second, politicization of your DILs IUD isn’t already underway, I don’t know what to tell you. Congrats Grandma??

I am imagining talking to my dad who is a moderate non-Trumpian conservative. He starts making fun of fear mongering on the political left.  All those crazy women talking about men's sign off for BC. How ridiculous. Then I say, well Dad actually there is a fear that changing this one thing could snowball to more authoritarian rule against women.  He says, that is ridiculous. So I respond that although it is not a direct consequence of the overruling Roe, it is an indirect consequence that many people are worried about. And the conversation goes on to discuss the probability of this happening. 

This approach would be more effective at educating him, than me just yelling at him and walking out the door. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

 

One oddball senator or one woman 20 years ago or one lady on this whole board, that isn’t the norm? That definitely wouldn’t get backing by even a percentage of enough people? While I don’t think any concerns that compromise freedoms are silly, I also feel like it isn’t much of a fear? This is just me thinking out loud. 

I hear where you’re coming from because I have wondered about hyperbolic reactions too. One thing that doesn’t make sense to me if “they” plan to ban birth control is this: most men DO NOT want more kids. In my anecdotal experience, men are more enthusiastic supporters of birth control than women even are. And a lot of men do not want a V, even if they don’t want more kids and they are more than happy for their wife to have an IUD. 
 

I even wonder how this figures in to the abortion issue, because I’m confident there have been many men who either did not oppose their partner’s abortion decision or “encouraged” that decision. I have talked to men before who were party to an abortion, or even more than one, and - in those instances at least - they had agreed that it was the best choice for all involved. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, lewelma said:

I am imagining talking to my dad who is a moderate non-Trumpian conservative. He starts making fun of fear mongering on the political left.  All those crazy women talking about men's sign off for BC. How ridiculous. Then I say, well Dad actually there is a fear that changing this one thing could snowball to more authoritarian rule against women.  He says, that is ridiculous. So I respond that although it is not a direct consequence of the overruling Roe, it is an indirect consequence that many people are worried about. And the conversation goes on to discuss the probability of this happening. 

This approach would be more effective at educating him, than me just yelling at him and walking out the door. 

 

Maybe so. It’s one I’d probably use with my dad too. At the same time, it’s COMPLETELY non-productive with respect to Opening the eyes of women and girls who live here. You’re dad might not be able to distinguish a fallopian tube from a uterus or know why the ability to name either or why that matters. 
 

but, for the love of God, we are mostly women!! If we can’t see what’s at stake here, there’s no hope for our less-informed kids who’ve relied on us for information and guidance.

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Quill said:

I hear where you’re coming from because I have wondered about hyperbolic reactions too. One thing that doesn’t make sense to me if “they” plan to ban birth control is this: most men DO NOT want more kids. In my anecdotal experience, men are more enthusiastic supporters of birth control than women even are. And a lot of men do not want a V, even if they don’t want more kids and they are more than happy for their wife to have an IUD. 
 

I even wonder how this figures in to the abortion issue, because I’m confident there have been many men who either did not oppose their partner’s abortion decision or “encouraged” that decision. I have talked to men before who were party to an abortion, or even more than one, and - in those instances at least - they had agreed that it was the best choice for all involved. 

That's the thing - you'd think that it wasn't something to worry about, since most men want their wives to have contraception. BUT...most men also are okay with abortion, and yet here we are. So...seems "most people feel" isn't protective like it should be. 

[Sneezyone]

27 minutes ago, Quill said:

I hear where you’re coming from because I have wondered about hyperbolic reactions too. One thing that doesn’t make sense to me if “they” plan to ban birth control is this: most men DO NOT want more kids. In my anecdotal experience, men are more enthusiastic supporters of birth control than women even are. And a lot of men do not want a V, even if they don’t want more kids and they are more than happy for their wife to have an IUD. 
 

I even wonder how this figures in to the abortion issue, because I’m confident there have been many men who either did not oppose their partner’s abortion decision or “encouraged” that decision. I have talked to men before who were party to an abortion, or even more than one, and - in those instances at least - they had agreed that it was the best choice for all involved. 

Are you kidding me right now? MEN LIE. Just like women. Over and over and over again. They ‘support kids, mothers, birth, and then abuse girls, traffic/rape women, pay prostitutes, make porn,  encourage abortion, and then piously attend church, hold up bibles and say they’re pro-life.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sneezyone

[lewelma]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Maybe so. It’s one I’d probably use with my dad too. At the same time, it’s COMPLETELY non-productive with respect to Opening the eyes of women and girls who live here. You’re dad might not be able to distinguish a fallopian tube from a uterus or know why the ability to name either or why that matters. 
 

but, for the love of God, we are mostly women!! If we can’t see what’s at stake here, there’s no hope for our less-informed kids who’ve relied on us for information and guidance.

My dad is actually pro abortion even though he in an incredibly religious evangelical christian because he was a surgeon in the 1960s and saw what happened before Roe was in place. 

As for my distinction, I was simply parsing arguments because it helps me, and maybe it would help someone else here on this board talk to a friend or relative. If you thought I was trying to convince you of something, then I am very sorry. We are on the same side.

Edited May 10, 2022 by lewelma

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

That's the thing - you'd think that it wasn't something to worry about, since most men want their wives to have contraception. BUT...most men also are okay with abortion, and yet here we are. So...seems "most people feel" isn't protective like it should be. 

Maybe. But yet, what if it is all intended to freak people out, so everyone who has the slightest inclination towards voting blue will cram-pack the voting booths? I mean, if the outcome is a net positive, I guess I don’t care how we get there either, but it does give me pause. A draft opinion from scotus being “leaked” - I think that is literally unprecedented. I do believe the leaker has an agenda. 

[Sneezyone]

40 minutes ago, lewelma said:

My dad is actually pro abortion in first trimester even though he in an incredibly religious evangelical christian because he was a doctor in the 1960s and saw what happened before Roe was in place. 

As for my distinction, I was simply parsing arguments because it helps me, and maybe it would help someone else here on this board talk to a friend or relative. If you thought I was trying to convince you of something, then I am very sorry. We are on the same side.

I understand, thanks. I’m admittedly annoyed (understatement) because the real issue WRT the biological subjugation of women is WOMEN, not men. Men can’t do all of these awful things without the tacit acceptance and support of willing women who derive their power from men.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sneezyone

[lewelma]

Just now, Quill said:

 I do believe the leaker has an agenda. 

Unfortunately, I think it is going to cause the 5 to hunker down in their opinions. Roberts is now very unlikely to be able to sway one of them to turn.

[lewelma]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

I understand, thanks. I’m admittedly annoyed (understatement) because the real issue WRT the biological subjugation of women is WOMEN, not men. men can’t do all of these awful things without the tacit acceptance and support of willing women who derive their power from the men.

Yup. Foot binding and FGM are case in point.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Quill said:

Maybe. But yet, what if it is all intended to freak people out, so everyone who has the slightest inclination towards voting blue will cram-pack the voting booths? I mean, if the outcome is a net positive, I guess I don’t care how we get there either, but it does give me pause. A draft opinion from scotus being “leaked” - I think that is literally unprecedented. I do believe the leaker has an agenda. 

I believe the leaker had an agenda too. I believe it was to stop the Chief Justice from subverting this catastrophe in the making. The outcry would be no different in July from the left (still weak before political silly season). 

[Pam in CT]

re direct v indirect, and immediate v near term, effects

33 minutes ago, lewelma said:

So I think that there are clear ramifications of the likely SCOTUS decision: IVF, hormonal BC, investigation of all miscarriages

Then, there are likely implications of a court requiring it must be IN the constitution: gay marriage, interracial marriage

Then there are leaps based on fears that this leads to more authoritarian rule: Men sign off on BC 

 

7 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Um. I am making a distinction between direct and indirect implications. I think this is a valuable addition to this conversation. I am fully aware of the implications to American women, my son and his SO are in the USA, and she has an IUD for medical reasons as does my sister. Please do not try to silence what I have to say. Distinctions between different types of arguments people use need to be identified so that we can hold even faster to what needs to be done. IMHO classifying ramifications leads to stronger and more powerful arguments.

I also think making such distinctions is valuable.

The immediate direct effect of gutting the Constitutional right to privacy that the prior Court found specifically in Roe will be to turn abortion issues over to the states. Some states have no-exceptions statues already on the books ready to go; patients presenting with ectopic pregnancy or hemorraging spontaneous miscarriage in those states will immediately be endangered. Other states have "fetal personhood" statutes already on the books; IVF will immediately become illegal in Georgia, where my cousin practices. Many other states are calling special sessions to get in on the party before the formal opinion is issued. As you say, the immediate effects in states inclined to go there include constrained treatment for miscarriage and high-pregnancies, IVF, Plan B and etc, and any contraception method that legislators deem, science or not, to possibly affect implantation.

The near term effect will be for states to do with Griswold and Eisenstadt (unmarried women's access to contraception) and Belotti (teenagers < 18 access to contraception without parent's permission) and Bolger (information about contraception through the mail) and Ferguson v Charleston (hospital policy of mandatory drug testing of pregnant women) and etc, what they've done with abortion legislation over the last 18 months -- pass legislation that chips these privacy-framed rights away, expect legal challenges, and wait for the challenges to get to the newly privacy-gutting SCOTUS.

You are correct in that the cycle of new legislation -> legal challenges -> appeals -> SCOTUS overturning those types of decisions (and others affecting interracial and LGBGT marriage similarly predicated on the now-eliminated right to privacy) will take more than a year.

I wouldn't call that "indirect," though.

Just "a little bit later."

Because the legal reasoning is quite direct, and the societal disinterest against women's reproductive decisionmaking is pretty palpable.

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Are you kidding me right now? MEN LIE. Just like women. Over and over and over again. They ‘support kids, mothers, birth’, and then abuse girls, traffic/rape women, pay prostitutes, make porn,  encourage abortion, and then piously attend church, hold up bibles and say they’re pro-life.

I don’t understand your response. I’m talking about the basic nature of men I know, either intimately or as friends. They don’t want more babies. They are in favor of birth control. Some hate condoms and are thrilled if their partner will have an IUD or be on BCPs. 
 

That’s all I’m saying. I have a hard time imagining any developed country, much less the US, where all/most of the men want the womenfolk to be pregnant all the time. I mean, it’s pretty niche. 

[Dmmetler]

You also have to kind of look at the other legislation that has been passed.

For example, the trans health care ban in AL is likely to make hormonal BC difficult to impossible to get for any teen who might be interpreted as possibly having any possible gender dysphoria. So, if you’re a teen girl who’s breasts get impossibly sore due to your cycle…good luck with that, because if you express that, you’re likely making it illegal for them to give you the pill, implant, depo shot, or a hormonal IUD. 

TN’s telemedicine/abortion pills by mail requires them to be physically handed to the patient by a physician. So much for the Church health clinics for low income people, the Little Clinics and Minute Clinics,  planned parenthood clinics that aren’t doing surgical abortions, college health centers…those all have most of the care provided by NPs, and rarely have a doctor on site. It is easy to imagine this being required for prescription BC, too, and would drastically limit access without having to outlaw it. 

In both cases, there are laws already passed and in effect that, while they do not directly address BC can easily be seen to have significant implications on it, and with a SC decision that indicates that the courts would sustain such laws, there is little to keep state legislatures in conservative areas from doing so. As far as “vote them out”, take a look at the TN electoral map in effect in 2020 and the one now in effect. There is absolutely no reason for chopping districts that span parts of several counties as they have except that they want to dilute the urban population centers that vote blue vs the much less populated rural areas. 
 

 

 

[Grace Hopper]

1 hour ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

This is so interesting. I had no idea. When I heard they may move these decisions to the state level then in my mind “anything that can be moved to a state decision should” because I’m all for states having more freedom and say. I figured they would figure out the details on the state level and if the majority is for it then this would be worked out by the people via who they put into office. I didn’t know that it included contraception. I know that I need to be more informed with all of this. I need to read up on it and understand.  

It will also affect the way doctors make decisions about treating women’s obstetric emergencies, in a detrimental way. I am personally pro life but understand the multiple consequences of what appears to be on the horizon regarding the welfare of *all* residents of our nation. 

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t understand your response. I’m talking about the basic nature of men I know, either intimately or as friends. They don’t want more babies. They are in favor of birth control. Some hate condoms and are thrilled if their partner will have an IUD or be on BCPs. 
 

That’s all I’m saying. I have a hard time imagining any developed country, much less the US, where all/most of the men want the womenfolk to be pregnant all the time. I mean, it’s pretty niche. 

We don’t know the same men. Most I know, while fearful of monetary consequences, see offspring as a badge of honor/sign of conquest.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We don’t know the same men. Most I know, while fearful of monetary consequences, see offspring as a badge of honor/sign of conquest.

Yeah, we don’t. There’s a cultural difference there Im not familiar with. I’ve heard of it but I haven’t experienced it. 

[Sneezyone]

16 minutes ago, Quill said:

Yeah, we don’t. There’s a cultural difference there Im not familiar with. I’ve heard of it but I haven’t experienced it. 

The most prolific men wrt offspring are also the least able to provide financially. The one aspect of manliness/manhood they can control is procreation.

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, lewelma said:

Unfortunately, I think it is going to cause the 5 to hunker down in their opinions. Roberts is now very unlikely to be able to sway one of them to turn.

I STRONGLY suspect that that was its aim.  I think it's far more likely that the leaker was a conservative who wanted to keep anyone from changing their minds.  

[Katy]

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

The most prolific men wrt offspring are also the least able to provide financially. The one aspect of manliness/manhood they can control is procreation.

Well, that’s sad. I have never talked to any man with that view. The closest thing I have seen directly is evangelical men who, like the Duggars, see it as a sign of god’s favor if they have an impractical number of kids. Gotthard types. But fortunately I don’t know many of those, either .

[Ann.without.an.e]

What I see presented here or the media isn’t my personal experience. I live in a fairly conservative, fairly pro-life town in the south. In all of my years I’ve only met two people (both Catholic) who would be opposed to contraceptives. In all my years, I’ve only met one super far right man who gave me the creeps and had the ideals that media seems to use to form their entire picture of a conservative man from. I recently met one lady who is Q’Anon who won’t be apart of the churches or communities around here because she says her ideas are not accepted there (her words). My dad is a pro-life baptist pastor. He is not against contraceptives. No one I know is tbh. The first line of defense for everyone I know is to avoid pregnancy unless you want a child and go for adoption if there’s an oops. I don’t know a single man who is for oppressing women. The most hateful man I’ve ever met toward women is my atheistic, liberal FIL. Sure, he’s pro-choice because he is big on population control but it has nothing to do with respecting women. My MIL is one of the most oppressed, controlled women I’ve ever met. They (as a couple) are the most racist couple I’ve ever met. My conservative friends ARE adopting non-white babies from the foster system all over the place. We wanted to adopt from foster care too but my liberal in laws from the PNW (not the south) had a literal hissy fit at the idea of a non white or non biological grandchild. 
 

I’m a libertarian and pretty moderate. I feel like both sides are fear mongering and dividing for their own purposes. I’m not saying that there’s absolutely no need to fear. I just feel like we’re all falling prey to a divisiveness that is pitting us against one other to accomplish some other purpose. 
 

All of this to say @Quill that it’s not my experience either. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Ann.without.an.e

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I think that’s what is so hard for me in all of this - what I see presented here or the media isn’t my personal experience. I live in a fairly conservative, fairly pro-life town in the south. In all of my years I’ve only met two people (both Catholic) who would be opposed to contraceptives. In all my years, I’ve only met one super far right man who gave me the creeps and had the ideals that media seems to use to form their entire picture of a conservative man from. I recently met one lady who is Q’Anon who won’t be apart of the churches or communities around here because she says her ideas are not accepted there (her words). My dad is a pro-life baptist pastor. He is not against contraceptives. No one I know is tbh. The first line of defense for everyone I know is to avoid pregnancy unless you want a child and go for adoption if there’s an oops. I don’t know a single man who is for oppressing women. The most hateful man I’ve ever met toward women is my atheistic, liberal FIL. Sure, he’s pro-choice because he is big on population control but it has nothing to do with respecting women. My MIL is one of the most oppressed, controlled women I’ve ever met. They (as a couple) are the most racist couple I’ve ever met. My conservative friends ARE adopting non-white babies from the foster system all over the place. We wanted to adopt from foster care too but my liberal in laws from the PNW (not the south) had a literal hissy fit at the idea of a non white or non biological grandchild. 
 

I’m a libertarian and pretty moderate. I feel like both sides are fear mongering and dividing for their own purposes. 
 

All of this to say @Quill that it’s not my experience either. 

IME my pro-life Southern Baptist female relatives are pro-choice in many more situations than they realize when they have a discussion about nuanced topics.  They always want a doctor to save the mother's life, even if the risk of death is less than 30%.  They don't want a woman to have to appeal to a judge if she's raped.  They don't want a raped child to go through the additional trauma of a pregnancy and a trial.  They want people to choose to be responsible and do the right thing, but they don't want anyone interfering in their own birth control choices. So basically though they call themselves conservative, they're far more liberal than the people on the Supreme Court.  And they have no idea that this pro-life choice is going to restrict their freedoms and that their own sister's ectopic pregnancy would have killed her. They don't see how any of this isn't pro-life.  If you ask about getting to hold a dying baby making up the majority of "late term abortions" they'll say that's not what they were against because that's not what the propaganda was about.  But what they voted for and what they are getting aren't the same. And too many women are going to end up dead because they can't see past the propaganda.

[Ann.without.an.e]

11 minutes ago, Katy said:

So basically though they call themselves conservative, they're far more liberal than the people on the Supreme Court. 

Maybe this is the problem? And thank you for the clarification. It’s just so hard because it feels like fear mongering when you don’t see this irl. It feels sometimes like both sides are taking the most extreme person or two they can find on the opposite side and using them to represent a whole group of people. I speak as someone sitting in the middle with friends who are on both sides.
Also, do you know that they are more liberal than those on the Supreme Court or does the left just want us all to fear the other side? I feel deeply that this is just a ploy to swing votes and that nothing will actually come of this at all. But I could be wrong. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Well, that’s sad. I have never talked to any man with that view. The closest thing I have seen directly is evangelical men who, like the Duggars, see it as a sign of god’s favor if they have an impractical number of kids. Gotthard types. But fortunately I don’t know many of those, either .

There are a lot of perspectives people on this forum have never encountered.

[Pam in CT]

re as-yet-not-encountered perspectives

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

There are a lot of perspectives people on this forum have never encountered.

And I've "seen" perspectives on this forum that I have never encountered in my IRL circles. It's one of the reasons I keep coming here even as I've given up Facebook and etc.

[DoraBora]

6 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Here is one, GOP senate candidate from Arizona https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-blake-masters-campaigning-against-birth-control-2022-5

This guy doesn't seem to be interested in banning contraception.  (I haven't had time to read the other articles posted yet.)

"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." 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

This guy doesn't seem to be interested in banning contraception.  (I haven't had time to read the other articles posted yet.)

"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." 

Describe the functional difference between overturning Griswold and opening the door to/banning contraception?

[lewelma]

There is something I would like to discuss. People keep saying that the supreme court is super conservative on abortion, but they seem to me to be conservative on constitutional law.  Let the States do what they want. They are not passing laws to restrict abortion, they are letting States decide either pro or con. They are not striking down pro-abortion laws like in NY.  Now the two views (abortion rights and constitutional law) may be confounded in some judges like Alito and Thomas (or all 5), but seems to me that their ruling is not exactly anti abortion.  The state legislatures passing the laws are clearly anti abortion. I think this is an important distinction, because if it were just anti-abortion, then we wouldn't have to worry about all the other previous rulings they are likely to reconsider (gay marriage, interracial marriage etc). Seems like a conservative constitutional law approach is more dangerous. But it is founded in an intellectual argument.  My dad (the pro choice religious surgeon) feels like the legislature should be the ones passing the laws or amending the constitution (as they are elected) and the supreme court has overstepped for the past 50 years by basically legislating outside of the constitution. He feels like a conservative constitutional law approach is the valid one.

I'm not in this to pick a fight. Happy to hear what people have to say, so please don't 'shout' at me. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by lewelma

[ktgrok]

50 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

What I see presented here or the media isn’t my personal experience. I live in a fairly conservative, fairly pro-life town in the south. In all of my years I’ve only met two people (both Catholic) who would be opposed to contraceptives. In all my years, I’ve only met one super far right man who gave me the creeps and had the ideals that media seems to use to form their entire picture of a conservative man from. I recently met one lady who is Q’Anon who won’t be apart of the churches or communities around here because she says her ideas are not accepted there (her words). My dad is a pro-life baptist pastor. He is not against contraceptives. No one I know is tbh. The first line of defense for everyone I know is to avoid pregnancy unless you want a child and go for adoption if there’s an oops. I don’t know a single man who is for oppressing women. The most hateful man I’ve ever met toward women is my atheistic, liberal FIL. Sure, he’s pro-choice because he is big on population control but it has nothing to do with respecting women. My MIL is one of the most oppressed, controlled women I’ve ever met. They (as a couple) are the most racist couple I’ve ever met. My conservative friends ARE adopting non-white babies from the foster system all over the place. We wanted to adopt from foster care too but my liberal in laws from the PNW (not the south) had a literal hissy fit at the idea of a non white or non biological grandchild. 
 

I’m a libertarian and pretty moderate. I feel like both sides are fear mongering and dividing for their own purposes. I’m not saying that there’s absolutely no need to fear. I just feel like we’re all falling prey to a divisiveness that is pitting us against one other to accomplish some other purpose. 
 

All of this to say @Quill that it’s not my experience either. 

Most people are not against contraceptives, or abortion, but the actual literal wording of some of these laws would actual ban abortion, AND anything that ends the "life" of an embryo, with "life" starting at fertilization. That is explicitly and literally stated. Given that many birth control products have a potential effect on implantation, they fall within the definition of abortion. Now, does that mean they will choose to prosecute someone using birth control? No, they may never do that - but they could, legally. The law would allow them to. 

19 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I feel deeply that this is just a ploy to swing votes and that nothing will actually come of this at all. But I could be wrong. 

The "trigger" laws are already passed and signed. Why do you think nothing will come of this? That the SC didn't actually mean what they wrote? I know it was just a brief, but they didn't know it would be leaked, so they had no reason to fake their opinion to sway votes. Which means it was actually their opinion. And unless they change it, and we have no proof they will, yeah, stuff will happen. It's already written into law. 

[Sneezyone]

21 minutes ago, lewelma said:

There is something I would like to discuss. People keep saying that the supreme court is super conservative on abortion, but they seem to me to be conservative on constitutional law.  Let the States do what they want. They are not passing laws to restrict abortion, they are letting States decide either pro or con. They are not striking down pro-abortion laws like in NY.  Now the two views (abortion rights and constitutional law) may be confounded in some judges like Alito and Thomas (or all 5), but seems to me that their ruling is not exactly anti abortion.  The state legislatures passing the laws are clearly anti abortion. I think this is an important distinction, because if it were just anti-abortion, then we wouldn't have to worry about all the other previous rulings they are likely to reconsider (gay marriage, interracial marriage etc). Seems like a conservative constitutional law approach is more dangerous. But it is founded in an intellectual argument.  My dad (the pro choice religious surgeon) feels like the legislature should be the ones passing the laws or amending the constitution (as they are elected) and the supreme court has overstepped for the past 50 years by basically legislating outside of the constitution. He feels like a conservative constitutional law approach is the valid one.

I'm not in this to pick a fight. Happy to hear what people have to say, so please don't 'shout' at me. 

The inconvenient truth is that BUT FOR the right to privacy upon which birth control access, interracial marriage, abortion, same sex marriage, and MANY other rights rest (they weren’t decided on equal protection grounds), this would be a VERY different, less open and free nation. Half (or more) of the country would happily trade those rights away because they don’t feel like they need them or affect them if lost. There’s never been a time in American history when rights were REMOVED from people vs expanded/broadened but that’s where we are.

The states rights argument is also DEEPLY fraught because it’s historically tied to the argument that states are/should be free to allow the trade of, sale of and enslavement of humans by virtue of their genealogy/skin color. That right, also, was not enumerated in the constitution and yet, even conservatives EVENTUALLY (it took them over a century) realized it was antithetical given the totality of the text. Most Americans aren’t interested in waiting another century for a reversal.

Minority rule cannot stand.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

There are a lot of perspectives people on this forum have never encountered.

Of course. It’s a big country and there are quite a lot of differences between people generally in different regions, but even in specific sub-cultures. It’s like, when the pandemic first began and everywhere I went here, mask compliance was 100%. Yet people on this forum were talking about going into stores where almost nobody was masking; churches where the pastor defied Covid precautions - it was like they described a different country. 
 

So I guess this is another example of that. I have liked in a “Blue” state all my life. Even conservatives here often have many progressive beliefs; they just don’t realize it.