All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General oppose Griswold v Connecticut

[RandySF]

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=JoSSEGNsdqJJV4v7DhcNKQ

Dana Nessel
@dananessel
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception.

You read that right.

Terrifying.

[niyad]

1. Fuck these damned woman-hating gestational slavers.

[Jeebo]

2. If I remember correctly, both the man and the woman were arrested.

Both Griswolds were arrested in the case that led up to that Supreme Court decision. They were arrested for possessing condoms in their residence. Not just the woman. If I remember correctly. What right-wingers are about is keeping people from having sex. Not just women, but men and women both, and making sure that they suffer all kinds of burdensome consequences for it if they have sex anyway. Including the nine months of hard labor for the woman, and the 21 years of bills, burdens and responsibilities for both the man and the woman. I agree with your characterization of right-wingers as gestational slavers, I like that phrase and will use it myself, but I believe that characterization applies to right-wingers' attitude toward both the man and the woman, not just the woman.

-- Ron

[SharonClark]

3. That position will make a great ad for any Dem

running against which ever nut wins. Even RWNJs like their birth control.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. The right to privacy is under attack

This is the asshole who drafted the Texas abortion law. This asshole wants to strike down the implied right of privacy by getting Roe overruled which would/could lead to striking down the right to same sex marriage and other rights

Link to tweet

https://www.comicsands.com/jonathan-mitchell-overturn-gay-marriage-2655065691.html

Though Mitchell's brief, also signed by his co-counsel Adam Mortara, dedicates much of its time to the Texas abortion law's defense, it also questions "lawless" pieces of legislation, namely the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which decriminalized gay sex nationwide, and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Though the brief does not say reversing Roe v. Wade would threaten the same-sex marriage ruling, it does say that

""the news is not as good for those who hope to preserve the court-invented rights to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage …
"These 'rights,' like the right to abortion from Roe, are judicial concoctions, and there is no other source of law that can be invoked to salvage their existence."

It goes on to add that while the Supreme Court should not necessarily overturn Lawrence and Obergefell, it should consider these two rulings as "lawless" as Roe v. Wade and, by extension, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"This is not to say that the Court should announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe and Casey in this case."
"But neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are as lawless as Roe."

The brief drew the attention of Melissa Murray, who teaches at New York University's School of Law.

Link to tweet