Rachel Maddow's Op-Ed in the WaPo

[AnnieBW]

Go Rachel!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-maddow-the-gop-war-on-birth-control/2012/02/10/gIQAbZ734Q_story.html

War on birth control

In 2008 in Colorado, a rebel faction of antiabortion activists decided to pursue a “personhood” initiative. Over the objections of the mainstream antiabortion movement, they proposed amending the state’s constitution to redefine the word “person” to include zygotes. Under the proposal, “from the moment of fertilization,” a woman would be considered two people under Colorado law. When the initiative went before voters, it failed by more than 40 points.

The same activists brought up the measure again in 2010. They changed the “moment of fertilization” language to “the beginning of biological development,” but the intent — and the electoral result — were the same. Even with that year’s conservative electorate, Colorado voters said no to “personhood” by more than 40 points. Again.

After Mississippi rejected “personhood” and its threat to contraception, after Colorado rejected it twice, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul attended (Paul by satellite) a Personhood USA candidates forum in South Carolina. All signed a pledge to pursue “personhood” at the federal level. Mitt Romney did not attend the event, but when asked on Fox News before the Mississippi vote last year whether he would have supported such a measure as Massachusetts governor, he replied, “Absolutely.”

[66 dmhlt]

1. A pretty good "Rule of Thumb"

"Old men who wear funny dresses, funny hats, funny shoes and are celibate should NOT be able to DICK-tate to women the kind of medical services to which they have access"

[glowing]

2. But its not just women who use birth control prevention... Many men, Catholic Men, will

use a condom to prevent unwanted surprises as well. It just so happens that the pill is something that a Dr has to prescribe and is probably a good thing since different pills have different hormone combinations and women have different bodies that respond differently to different pill options, plus its a good thing for a woman to have a yearly gyno- exam.. If anything, women using the pill, is a good thing for detection of other female issues... My friend caught pre-cancerous cells in the cervix. I had some cysts to deal with. And other women have even had breast cancer detected that goes along with the check-up. If anything, that once a year, renewal of the pill pack plan, has been a good thing for women who might not bother with the exam if they weren't trying to prevent unwanted children. Its not exactly like stripping naked in a cold room with one's legs stuck up in stirrups and a pinching fore cep up one's yahoo is something most women love to schedule for. The unwanted baby and the pill prescription is the main reason women schedule that wonderful exam... LOL.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. K&R..thanks for posting.

[jonthebru]

4. Look everyone, they won't stop until...

they have complete religious based control over all aspects of every persons life including their reproductive tendencies.

They do not feel that any individual has the personal power or intelligence to make the "correct" decision in their view regarding that individuals sexual interactions and everything else in their lives.

They want Women to make many children, all of whom will be baptized into their sect.

Ironically the Evangelicals hate, and I mean HATE, the Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church feels they are the only real Christian faith and everything would be fine if everybody were Catholic.

The Dominionists want to make the United States Of America's Government a Theocracy. They are very secret about that but there are hints everywhere in this Republican Presidential field. Santorum is the worst candidate, but Gingrinch would tacitly play along to gain power.
Frankly they are all a bunch of perverts in my view. Sick perverts.

[ellisonz]

5. Griswold v. Connecticut

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a 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".

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional.

Since Griswold, the Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in several rulings, most notably in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where the Court ruled that a woman's choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor. For the most part, the Court has made these later rulings on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale. The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism" by many conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._connecticut

Opinions: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html