6 ms·

This is great, now it can easily be shipped across state lines and given to women that can't access it because the state deemed it illegal

giantg2 3y ago
Which states have deemed it illegal?
- phone8675309 3y ago
  None yet, but you have to have your head buried in the sand to think that at least a few won't make it illegal in the next decade.
  - rcstank 3y ago
    Is this not a slippery slope fallacy?
    - jshier 3y ago
      Not when people have publicly stated they're actively working to ban birth control, no.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. There are articles and even draft legislation published by these groups from 15+ years ago detailing the ultimate goal being bans on contraceptives. You could believe they can't achieve those goals, I guess, but believing they want to is not a fallacy in this context come on.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        I can see that. It's very similar to significant minorities in the gun control movement. On either issue, premature movement to counteract them could bring more harm than good. Edit: why disagree?
      - skissane 3y ago
        > It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. Many of them want to ban contraceptive methods they view as “abortifacient”. We can argue about whether they are right to give certain methods that label-but there are contraceptive methods nobody calls that, such as condoms. People are ignoring the distinction between “want to ban some methods of contraception” and “want to ban all methods of contraception”-almost nobody belongs to the second category. Few other than conservative Catholics are completely morally opposed to condoms, and very few of those want the state to enforce that particular moral judgement. From the logic of their own beliefs, condoms are a sexual sin but not the taking of innocent life, so there is not the same need for the state to ban it.
        phone8675309 3y ago
        What the fuck business is it of the government or other people not directly involved in the sex act what birth control I am using so long as it is not harmful to the people using it or the public at large?
        giraffe_lady 3y ago
        Who cares though? It makes no difference to the people whose lives are affected by the banning of contraceptives. This sort of sophisticated model of their interiority is simply not valuable to me. I don't care if they're internally consistent I care what they want to do.
        skissane 3y ago
        I think it is important to steelman one’s opponents rather than strawman them, to seek to present their position accurately rather than oversimplifying it. To me that is an important norm of civil discourse, and I care about the norms of civil discourse. That increasingly many people don’t doesn’t bode well for society’s future.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago
        One really distinct american political dynamic of the last decade or two is liberals caring about the norms of civil discourse while the far right succeeds in its wildest dreams by ignoring them. There's no referee to call when they do that, there's no virtue in losing civil rights but keeping the moral high ground.
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      No - historically the Comstock laws in the US banned distribution of contraceptives and contraception information and abortifacients and information on abortion. This is something that the US has done in the past and has support among many of the current day anti-abortion crowd. It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you've already climbed the hill and someone greases it behind you. People said similar things about Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court recently overturned it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe with Dobbs. Additionally, some state abortion bans have been interpreted as impacting birth control, causing access disruptions (this happened in Idaho with their trigger ban, but clarifying language was passed after the impact began being felt.)
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe with Dobbs. I’m not aware of any state lawmakers in the US proposing to ban contraception in general. There have been proposals to ban ”abortifacient contraceptives”-although in those cases there is disagreement over whether certain contraceptive methods are “abortifacient” - which I think is mostly semantic, many of these methods have some (small but non-zero) probability of preventing implantation or causing post-implantation spontaneous abortion, which causes their opponents to label them as “abortifacient”; defenders disagree with using that word that way, and insist a contraceptive method should not be labelled “abortifacient” if spontaneous abortion is not the primary method of action (more a rare side effect). Putting those semantic disputes aside, there are methods of contraception which are universally agreed upon as being non-abortifacient, such as condoms. The laws struck down by Griswold were bans on contraception in general, not bans only on specific forms of it. Unless SCOTUS was really eager to overturn Griswold (Thomas is but I doubt Roberts and Kavanaugh are), SCOTUS can uphold those laws by distinguishing them from Griswold, by narrowing it, rather than overturning it altogether.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rvcdbn 3y ago
do you know of any states where it isn’t legal? google searching lead me to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/birth-control-plan-b-roe-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/birth-control-plan-b-r... which seems to suggest that it’s legal everywhere
- runako 3y ago
  Is there anything in current US politics around pregnancy that might make you consider that the legal regime in this area might be changing?
  - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    Even abortion hasn’t yet become illegal in as many places as the doomsayers predicted. The pill is extremely popular by comparison.
    - runako 3y ago
      Back to my point though, what is the trajectory of the legal landscape? Has that trajectory changed recently?
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      > Even abortion hasn’t yet become illegal in as many places as the doomsayers predicted. I'm sure the women who live in the areas where it has been made illegal are happy that the "doomsayers" over estimated the number of places.
  - rvcdbn 3y ago
    sure but the previous comment made it sound like it was already illegal which would have been really surprising to me. I’m no fan of recent regressions in abortion law but the arguments made by pro-lifers that I’ve heard would not apply to birth control (ie that abortion is essentially killing a human). so I would actually expect them to favor birth control as a way to prevent abortion. that’s assuming their position is really based on their stated beliefs and not something else unstated or irrational (and I decline to take a position on this question at this time).

giantg2 3y ago

Which states have deemed it illegal?

phone8675309 3y ago
None yet, but you have to have your head buried in the sand to think that at least a few won't make it illegal in the next decade.
- rcstank 3y ago
  Is this not a slippery slope fallacy?
  - jshier 3y ago
    Not when people have publicly stated they're actively working to ban birth control, no.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. There are articles and even draft legislation published by these groups from 15+ years ago detailing the ultimate goal being bans on contraceptives. You could believe they can't achieve those goals, I guess, but believing they want to is not a fallacy in this context come on.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      I can see that. It's very similar to significant minorities in the gun control movement. On either issue, premature movement to counteract them could bring more harm than good. Edit: why disagree?
    - skissane 3y ago
      > It is not. Significant minorities of the anti-abortion movement are also anti-contraceptive. Many of them want to ban contraceptive methods they view as “abortifacient”. We can argue about whether they are right to give certain methods that label-but there are contraceptive methods nobody calls that, such as condoms. People are ignoring the distinction between “want to ban some methods of contraception” and “want to ban all methods of contraception”-almost nobody belongs to the second category. Few other than conservative Catholics are completely morally opposed to condoms, and very few of those want the state to enforce that particular moral judgement. From the logic of their own beliefs, condoms are a sexual sin but not the taking of innocent life, so there is not the same need for the state to ban it.
      - phone8675309 3y ago
        What the fuck business is it of the government or other people not directly involved in the sex act what birth control I am using so long as it is not harmful to the people using it or the public at large?
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        Who cares though? It makes no difference to the people whose lives are affected by the banning of contraceptives. This sort of sophisticated model of their interiority is simply not valuable to me. I don't care if they're internally consistent I care what they want to do.
        skissane 3y ago
        I think it is important to steelman one’s opponents rather than strawman them, to seek to present their position accurately rather than oversimplifying it. To me that is an important norm of civil discourse, and I care about the norms of civil discourse. That increasingly many people don’t doesn’t bode well for society’s future.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago
        One really distinct american political dynamic of the last decade or two is liberals caring about the norms of civil discourse while the far right succeeds in its wildest dreams by ignoring them. There's no referee to call when they do that, there's no virtue in losing civil rights but keeping the moral high ground.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    No - historically the Comstock laws in the US banned distribution of contraceptives and contraception information and abortifacients and information on abortion. This is something that the US has done in the past and has support among many of the current day anti-abortion crowd. It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you've already climbed the hill and someone greases it behind you. People said similar things about Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court recently overturned it.
dragonwriter 3y ago
Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe with Dobbs. Additionally, some state abortion bans have been interpreted as impacting birth control, causing access disruptions (this happened in Idaho with their trigger ban, but clarifying language was passed after the impact began being felt.)
- skissane 3y ago
  > Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe with Dobbs. I’m not aware of any state lawmakers in the US proposing to ban contraception in general. There have been proposals to ban ”abortifacient contraceptives”-although in those cases there is disagreement over whether certain contraceptive methods are “abortifacient” - which I think is mostly semantic, many of these methods have some (small but non-zero) probability of preventing implantation or causing post-implantation spontaneous abortion, which causes their opponents to label them as “abortifacient”; defenders disagree with using that word that way, and insist a contraceptive method should not be labelled “abortifacient” if spontaneous abortion is not the primary method of action (more a rare side effect). Putting those semantic disputes aside, there are methods of contraception which are universally agreed upon as being non-abortifacient, such as condoms. The laws struck down by Griswold were bans on contraception in general, not bans only on specific forms of it. Unless SCOTUS was really eager to overturn Griswold (Thomas is but I doubt Roberts and Kavanaugh are), SCOTUS can uphold those laws by distinguishing them from Griswold, by narrowing it, rather than overturning it altogether.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rvcdbn 3y ago

do you know of any states where it isn’t legal? google searching lead me to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/birth-control-plan-b-roe-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/birth-control-plan-b-r... which seems to suggest that it’s legal everywhere

runako 3y ago
Is there anything in current US politics around pregnancy that might make you consider that the legal regime in this area might be changing?
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Even abortion hasn’t yet become illegal in as many places as the doomsayers predicted. The pill is extremely popular by comparison.
  - runako 3y ago
    Back to my point though, what is the trajectory of the legal landscape? Has that trajectory changed recently?
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    > Even abortion hasn’t yet become illegal in as many places as the doomsayers predicted. I'm sure the women who live in the areas where it has been made illegal are happy that the "doomsayers" over estimated the number of places.
- rvcdbn 3y ago
  sure but the previous comment made it sound like it was already illegal which would have been really surprising to me. I’m no fan of recent regressions in abortion law but the arguments made by pro-lifers that I’ve heard would not apply to birth control (ie that abortion is essentially killing a human). so I would actually expect them to favor birth control as a way to prevent abortion. that’s assuming their position is really based on their stated beliefs and not something else unstated or irrational (and I decline to take a position on this question at this time).