(06-25-2022 02:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 01:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The domino effect

Funny when conservatives worry about the slippery slope, as in gun laws, the liberals pooh-pooh the very idea.

Another group of myna bird crayon eaters.

In order:

------------------------

interracial marriage --- firmly protected by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th, with no necessary support from 'right of privacy'. Inherent on the racial issue and the explicit language of that.

-----------------------

gay marriage --- Obergfell was decided with a an adjunct of a 'right of privacy' as a basis, but not *due* as a basis on the 'right of privacy.

In fact Obergfell was decided with a full independent basis on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. And, the Obergfell court noted that it could equally apply the Due Process clause of the 14th, but since there was already a sufficient basis, did not do so explicitly.

-------------------------

Contraception --- have to agree the cases that struck 'contraception' bans would be 'at risk' Constitutionally. But, be fing real -- who in their right mind as a state action will ban rubbers being sold in that state in 2022. Get a fing clue and get a solid grip in the real world.

-------------------------

Yep they scream 'domino effect', but they are simply screaming their membership in the crayon eaters club. I can understand it from the drool factor of the people being interviewed, but the spiel by legal correspondents in/for the media would simply be akin to malpractice.

Thomas' concurrence did say 'this ruling' might expand to those areas --- but 'this' ruling is solely concerned with the world of substantive due process and architected- bases for designed rights. He would be correct that the 'right of privacy' concerns for those issues might be a topic.

But anyone with a warm body realizes gay marriage and interracial marriage has far stronger ties into actual, explicit issues in the 14th Amendment, that are almost certainly unbreachable. As for kicking the base of 'right of privacy' from those -- it devolves to a 'who cares, there is plenty of readily more and readily more explicit bases for those decisions' aside from a 'right of privacy' schtick.

As for the one that doesn't, no state in their right mind will curtail contraception.

These folks arent fing rooted in the realities of the law nor in the realities of the states.

But holy hell it makes for vainglorious media coverage.

Fing crayon eaters. But probably necessary for a group to have bunch of zomboids to throw at a cause, I surmise.

I do not see any state trying to limit contraception such as condoms or birth control. But IUDs and the morning after pills are not out of the question, based on how they function and the focus that has already been placed on them by some pro-life law makers.

I would also not be surprised if some states try to get a court case to challenge gay marriage, especially with the writings from Thomas, which basically encourage that to happen.

By the way the morning after pill is more properly classified as an aborficant than contraception.

And no, I don’t share your paranoia on a state prohibiting IUDs.

When one pops up to do so, I’ll acknowledge I need a little more blue shaded red pill.

Plan B is most commonly known as emergency contraception - absolutely disagree that it is more properly classified as an abortifacient. It works pretty much just like normal birth control by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, stopping fertilization, or stopping implantation. My understanding is that it has a different mix of compounds, and is more likely to work by stopping uterus implantation. Why do you think it’s better classified as a abortifacient?

IUDs are technically banned under any law that defines life starting at the fertilization of the egg because some stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

The thing is, both of these are targets because they often work by stopping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. So my concern is that some states, which decide to legally define life as starting at fertilization, will deem these methods illegal, since they often operate as described above. There are already examples of lawmakers pushing to ban IUDs.

I hope that I am wrong and that neither of these are on the table in any state. But I am going to be skeptical until the dust settles. I was told that states like Louisiana would not be implementing the king of highly restrictive anti-abortion legislation that they have already, that it was just a bill getting out of committee, but look at where we are. The problem with primaries is that the most extreme of both sides are often voted in to office, so nothing is off the table, IMO.