4 ms·

That's fun, but many states are putting the cross hairs on contraception in general. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05

That's fun, but many states are putting the cross hairs on contraception in general. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

endisneigh 4y ago
I agree, that’s an issue. That being said that’s not related directly to this ruling.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  Indeed it is -- the ruling is about the fundamental right to privacy with regards to bodily autonomy. Without some major federal precedent like Roe V. Wade, states are free to impose to their medical will on their populace as they see fit.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    The right to privacy is not related directly contraceptions. Alito said as much in the opinion.
skissane 4y ago
They are targeting specific methods of contraception, which they claim are abortifacient. They have displayed zero signs of wanting to ban contraception in general, as opposed to just specific forms of it. By contrast, the law struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut was an across-the-board ban on all forms of contraception. I think it is unlikely that Griswold will ever be overturned – simply because it is unlikely any state will enact a total contraception ban. To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent. But almost nobody wants such a law now. 1965 (when Griswold was handed down), 1873 (when the law it overturned was enacted) was a very different world – when most Christians still believed that contraception was a sin. Nowadays, the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, etc) accept contraception as moral at least in some cases. And while the Catholic Church teaches artificial contraception is inherently sinful, it displays no signs of any interest in having the government make that sin illegal (unlike the situation with abortion). You might find some crazy Catholic integralist advocating it, but the Bishops and the Vatican aren't going to. The bans on (allegedly) abortifacient contraceptive methods could be challenged, but I expect SCOTUS will uphold them – and the majority will probably just uphold them as state regulation of abortion, not overturning Griswold itself. However, I think a lot of groups are going to refuse to support challenges, on the grounds that they don't want to give this SCOTUS an opportunity to overturn any more precedents they support, rather save it for the day (whenever it may come) when there is a SCOTUS majority more amenable to their views.
- magicalist 4y ago
  > To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent You don't need a new law that seeks to ban all birth control to challenge and lead to a repeal of Griswold. Maybe a former court would have tried to limit scope, but Dobbs vs Jackson wasn't about a total abortion ban, it was a ban at 15 weeks, and yet here we are.
  - skissane 4y ago
    I think it is different though – Roe v Wade wasn't just a court decision, it was a political symbol, and an issue on which many justices have deeply personal feelings (one way or the other). Griswold isn't a political symbol to anywhere near the same extent. And even people who think contraception is a sin, don't get anywhere near as emotive about it as they do on the abortion issue.

endisneigh 4y ago

I agree, that’s an issue. That being said that’s not related directly to this ruling.

f38zf5vdt 4y ago
Indeed it is -- the ruling is about the fundamental right to privacy with regards to bodily autonomy. Without some major federal precedent like Roe V. Wade, states are free to impose to their medical will on their populace as they see fit.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  The right to privacy is not related directly contraceptions. Alito said as much in the opinion.

skissane 4y ago

They are targeting specific methods of contraception, which they claim are abortifacient. They have displayed zero signs of wanting to ban contraception in general, as opposed to just specific forms of it. By contrast, the law struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut was an across-the-board ban on all forms of contraception. I think it is unlikely that Griswold will ever be overturned – simply because it is unlikely any state will enact a total contraception ban. To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent. But almost nobody wants such a law now. 1965 (when Griswold was handed down), 1873 (when the law it overturned was enacted) was a very different world – when most Christians still believed that contraception was a sin. Nowadays, the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, etc) accept contraception as moral at least in some cases. And while the Catholic Church teaches artificial contraception is inherently sinful, it displays no signs of any interest in having the government make that sin illegal (unlike the situation with abortion). You might find some crazy Catholic integralist advocating it, but the Bishops and the Vatican aren't going to. The bans on (allegedly) abortifacient contraceptive methods could be challenged, but I expect SCOTUS will uphold them – and the majority will probably just uphold them as state regulation of abortion, not overturning Griswold itself. However, I think a lot of groups are going to refuse to support challenges, on the grounds that they don't want to give this SCOTUS an opportunity to overturn any more precedents they support, rather save it for the day (whenever it may come) when there is a SCOTUS majority more amenable to their views.

magicalist 4y ago
> To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent You don't need a new law that seeks to ban all birth control to challenge and lead to a repeal of Griswold. Maybe a former court would have tried to limit scope, but Dobbs vs Jackson wasn't about a total abortion ban, it was a ban at 15 weeks, and yet here we are.
- skissane 4y ago
  I think it is different though – Roe v Wade wasn't just a court decision, it was a political symbol, and an issue on which many justices have deeply personal feelings (one way or the other). Griswold isn't a political symbol to anywhere near the same extent. And even people who think contraception is a sin, don't get anywhere near as emotive about it as they do on the abortion issue.