The Red Pill Is Light Blue

Ohhh, fuck.
*headdesk*

From:

This is just a tragedy.

From:

Yeah.
I guess now's the time to call PP for that IUD...thank g-d for 10-year birth control...

From:

Can they eliminate "birth control in general"?

From:

The right to abortion in Roe v. Wade is based on the right to privacy. The right to privacy was first invoked in Grisold v. Connecticut, which was about the right to have birth control. They are based on exactly the same logic and the religious right wants to ban birth control.

From:

fuck.

maybe I should stock up?

From:

I suspect condoms will be easier to obtain regardless. Hormonal BC, on the other hand...

From:

but everyone knows that hormones are evil.

From:

of course! we should all just appreciate the bodies g-d gave us!

"Roland, why do you always have to make everyone feel so awkward about your differently-abled-ness?" -Hilary Faye, in Saved!

From:

I just saw that movie a couple days ago.

From:

While abortion rights are a real issue, I think birth control is a total red herring. Fundie Christian protestants use birth control all the time, and consider it biblically allowable (within marriage, ok, but still...) It's only a small subset of ultra-conservative Catholics in the US that are for a ban on contraception, and the majority of their rank-and-file do not agree with that stance.

Now, I'll agree that when it comes to abortion or contraception availability, women under 18 are gonna have increasing difficulty obtaining either. They can't vote, and "protecting the children" is the one mantra that makes the liberal Democrats lie down and surrender every time.

From:

You might want to look at all the focus on allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control pills as a matter of conscience. The religious far right is repainting hormonal birth control as a form of abortion.

From:

There's a fair difference of degree between allowing a pharmacist to decline to dispense the "morning-after pill" (the only specific contraceptive I've seen the religious right targeting) and a state or federal government actually banning hormonal birth control in general.

Not that I agree with the former case in any way - any pharmacist who feels he can't perform hir duties for religious reasons should quit and find another job. Allowing this type of precedent could lead to all sorts of mischief. "I can't come to work on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays as a matter of conscience because my Guru has strictly forbidden it!" I suspect the more moderate pro-commerce "business Republicans" are not gonna like what their religious nutball brethren are pushing here.

I guess my overall point is that we should all focus on the actual issues before us (of which abortion and contraception are two, along with many other civil liberties threats) and organize to fight and resist. But let's not despair, exaggerate or panic or feel that it's too late and the battles are already lost. Right now, I think we all should write letters and emails and try and hold the Senate Democrats' feet to the fire, since they have shown way too much willingness to capitulate to Bush on his appointments. John Kerry even said before the election that he would have "no objection" to considering appointing an overtly anti-choice justice to the Supreme Court, and Kerry not only supported Scalia's appointment, but made a speech on the Senate floor warmly endorsing his "good friend." This is the danger we're up against - not that Bush will do what Bush does, but that the so-called "opposition" will blindly sell the rest of us out yet again. If the Senate Dems hadn't let Scalia sail through 99-1, we might not be in such a crisis over O'Connor's resignation right now.

From:

[quote]There's a fair difference of degree between allowing a pharmacist to decline to dispense the "morning-after pill" (the only specific contraceptive I've seen the religious right targeting) and a state or federal government actually banning hormonal birth control in general.[/quote]

The religious right is targeting all forms of birth control pills. And they are promoting "conscience" bills that not only allow pharmacists to not dispense BCP without charges of derelecting their duty as pharmacists, but in some states, there are bills to prevent firing based on a refusal to dispense.

Emergency contraception is just a publicity wedge because they can dupe people into thinking it's RU486.

They can't really do more than that now because of Grisold. But once Roe goes, Griswold is pretty much dead because it relies on the exact same legal precedent.

From:

I don't think so. Wasn't it Rehnquist himself who wrote the order declining to reconsider the Jane Roe case, since it would upset so many subsequent decisions and precedents? The judicial branch is usually all about precedent, and this is especially true of the Supremes. And of course any true "strict constructionist" would be all about that, not that Bush would ever actually appoint a real "strict constructionist" to the court. Souter is about the closest thing to that that we have, whereas a nutball like Scalia often writes decisions that really do "legislate from the bench" - supposedly anathema to the right wing, but there ya go.

The virtue of the Roe v Wade decision ultimately lies in the implied "right to privacy" based on the 9th and 10th amendments. To attempt to overturn that rationale would open up a lot of privacy and personal autonomy issues that even the radical right would get royally pissed about, especially after the recent tortured and ill-considered eminent domain decision.

Oddly enough, it's generally pro-choice "liberals" like Biden and Feinstein that have shown the most hostility to the idea of an inherent "right to privacy" in other spheres. I presume that's 'cause their left hands have no idea what their right hands are doing.

From:

The last two abortion cases have been 5-4 with O'Connor on the pro-choice side.

Roe v. Wade and the right to a legal abortion in the US is over.

From:

Neither of those cases had to do with reconsidering Roe v Wade itself, though.

Yes, you'll see the Supremes allowing continued whittling of abortion rights for minors, ugly regulatory and reporting requirements for physicians, etc., but the essential decision and rationale behind Roe v Wade is not gonna be touched. The Supremes are simply not gonna want to revisit the hundreds of subsequent precendents and decisions that have been ruled on already over the past 20-odd years.

From:

malwae.livejournal.com

The pharmaceutical companies make far, far too much money from selling birth control for them to allow it to become illegal.

As unpopular as it might be to say so, big mega corporations which are willing to defy anything in the interests of profit actually do benefit humanity from time to time.

Hell will freeze over before they will lose the US birth control market.

Sad about O'Connor though; I had thought Renquist would retire first. He's in worse shape healthwise.

From:

So far birth control has been losing in the legislatures. And I can't see how you overturn Roe v. Wade without overturning Griswold v. Conn.

It's really clear that the religious reich sees banning BCP as within it's grasp.

From:

In what state is the sale or purchase of contraceptives actually illegal? I think they're even legal in Utah.

I mean, yes, let's fight, but let's not panic or despair. Not yet, anyway. :) The radical christian right is still only 8-10 percent of all US voters. It may be the best thing in the world for the Bushies to start believing their own propaganda on these issues 'cause the backlash from normal American voters will likely be tremendous.

From:

dashingdeviant.livejournal.com

I don't they'll get as much as a backlash as we'd hope for - they've got a large chunk of the population marching in lockstep, with their eyes closed and ears plugged.

From:

akasa.livejournal.com

I live in TX. Pharmacists have refused birth control to people IN MY AREA trying to use the "it can cause an abortion" arguement.
Then there was a case that went to the courts saying that not only can they refuse to fill the prescriptions, but they can also refuse to refer the person to a pharmacist that will.

You want to keep acting like its not going to happen, keep on. Just know it IS.
I NEED BC for medical reasons, not to keep me from having kids, but to keep from being curled in a fetal position most the time. They don't care. They see it as a liscence for women to be sexually active, and we can't have that! (Grrr.)

From:

tribadd.livejournal.com

I noticed that you added me, just wanted to say Hi.
-Micha.

From:

hi hi!

From:

mon462.livejournal.com

To say that O'Connor retiring scares me puts it mildly. Considering that Rehnquist is ill and possibly also retiring soon petrifies me. The thought of Bush appointing two Supreme Court justices is making me strongly consider leaving the country permanently. There are several rights, other than abortion and BC at stake here. For now, thank goodness I live in a blue state that still respects some of my personal rights. I fear that the feds may try to take those away soon. Remember that Stevens is 85. That scares me even more. Canada is looking better and better. Maybe my new company can transfer me to Toronto or Vancouver.

From: