So Taliban Rick Santorum Believes States Can Outlaw The Use Of Contraceptives

[DemocratSinceBirth]

So Rick Santorum believes believes states can outlaw the use of contraceptives and Congress can reinstitute their ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Beside holding views that are positively antedeluvian he needs to inform his ignorant, pandering ass to the fact that the Supreme Court held in Griswold v. Connecticu that there was a right to privacy that prohibited the states from doing just that, ergo:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) was landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Also to his notion that Congress can make unlawful gays serving openly in the military after it passed a law legalizing it, that would be passing an ex post facto law which is specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 , Section 9 ergo:


No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed

Either Taliban Rick is ignorant of Constitutional law or pandering or both. It doesn't matter...

[atreides1]

1. We know he's pandering

As for Constitutional law, it's not even on his mind...the law he believes in is that which has been passed by the Church and is written in the pages of the Bible.

Santorum is a theocrat and like most of his ilk, lacks the courage to come out of the closet and admit it!

[TwilightGardener]

2. I don't think any state would allow it, anyway. There is no state that wants to be

overwhelmed by social-services needs and runaway growth to that extent, just on a practical basis.

[Froward69]

3. Jealous

Jealous others are having and enjoying, child free sex.

[Ineeda]

4. I'd like to know if

this proposed ban on contraceptives includes the ultimate form of contraception and, AFAIK, the only one used by men: condoms. If not, why?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. He Implied States Could Prohibit The Sale Of Condoms Which Is Nonsensical

.

[jwirr]

6. To what end? Overpopulation? More poverty? Politically what does he think this would accomplish?

We already have more poverty than we can handle with an average of 3 children to a family. What would we have if we went back to the 8+ children family with a no mother because she died of birth related issues. He and his religion should mind their own business. If they want to end up poor so be it but most American families have learned that they can not afford that kind of indulgence.