4 ms·

I don't know where this is coming from. I'm aware that a significant portion of conservatives are very religious and some religious people object to contracept

I don't know where this is coming from. I'm aware that a significant portion of conservatives are very religious and some religious people object to contraception. But I'm not aware of any concerted effort by Republicans to ban or restrict pre-pregnancy contraceptives in my lifetime. And while I have plenty of thoughts about Trump, I'm not aware of him ever suggesting an interest in restricting access to contraceptives.

fzeroracer 3y ago
> But I'm not aware of any concerted effort by Republicans to ban or restrict pre-pregnancy contraceptives in my lifetime. Really? Because Texas has been marching in that direction for some time now. There was a recent ruling that when it comes to contraceptives that agencies cannot protect minor confidentiality from their parents. Multiple republican think tanks push the idea that contraceptives kill babies and should be banned as abortifacients. You can see these attacks starting in multiple locations [1] [2]. The goal is obviously attack anything with dubious claims of abortifacient, then reduce access to anything that is not (by removing contraceptives from sex ed, reducing access, and preventing people from talking to doctors about it). [1] https://www.cathmed.org/catholic-medical-association-applauds-ama-recognition-of-hormonal-contraceptives-link-to-risk-of-breast-cancer/?s=contraception https://www.cathmed.org/catholic-medical-association-applaud... [2] https://studentsforlife.org/learn/contraception/ https://studentsforlife.org/learn/contraception/
- telotortium 3y ago
  Most contraceptive pills have some risk of causing abortion, at least if you count stopping implantation - is that factually incorrect?
- CivBase 3y ago
  > There was a recent ruling that when it comes to contraceptives that agencies cannot protect minor confidentiality from their parents. That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. I already acknowledged there are groups who are opposed to contraception. The Catholic Medical Association and Students for Life of America are examples of such groups. And there are undoubtably Republicans who try to appeal to those groups. But you have not provided compelling evidence of a concerted effort by the GOP to restrict access to pre-pregnancy contraceptives. It's like claiming the Republican party wants to restore segregation because many Republicans oppose affirmative action and there are racist groups who vote for them.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    Students for Life is a republican non-profit organization, same for the Catholic Medical Association. They are pushing concentrated efforts to restrict access to pre-pregnancy contraceptives. You're trying to pull a no true scotsman here and it isn't working. > That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. No, that is exactly the issue. The issue is you have religious parents that are anti-contraceptives. The goal of this is to prevent people from using contraceptives under the watch of their parents. The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird.
    - CivBase 3y ago
      That's not a "no true scotsman" argument. It would be if I claimed something like "they're not real Republicans" but I'm not. Those are indeed Republican organizations and I did not claim otherwise. So what? Republicans aren't a hive mind. They don't agree on everything. You wouldn't claim the Democratic party wants to ban vaccines just because JFK Jr. is an anti-vaxer. Supporters of a party aren't always indicative of that party's stance on all issues. > The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird. How is it weird? Parental rights over their children is a frequent focus of Republican politics. They've recently pushed for similar policies in regards to sexuality and gender identity. I'm not going to pretend there aren't Republican voters whose support for the policy is motivated by the thought process you just layed out. But it's not reasonable to prescribe that motivation to the entire Republican party when there are other explanations that are more consistent with recent and historical Republican ideologies.
robertoandred 3y ago
You shouldn't trust Republicans to not start new efforts. They brought down abortion, do you really think they'll stop there?
- CivBase 3y ago
  The slippery slope you're presenting doesn't hold water. There's a pretty clear difference between abortion and pre-pregnancy contraception. Republicans' stance on the former is not a strong indication of their stance on the later.

fzeroracer 3y ago

> But I'm not aware of any concerted effort by Republicans to ban or restrict pre-pregnancy contraceptives in my lifetime. Really? Because Texas has been marching in that direction for some time now. There was a recent ruling that when it comes to contraceptives that agencies cannot protect minor confidentiality from their parents. Multiple republican think tanks push the idea that contraceptives kill babies and should be banned as abortifacients. You can see these attacks starting in multiple locations [1] [2]. The goal is obviously attack anything with dubious claims of abortifacient, then reduce access to anything that is not (by removing contraceptives from sex ed, reducing access, and preventing people from talking to doctors about it). [1] https://www.cathmed.org/catholic-medical-association-applauds-ama-recognition-of-hormonal-contraceptives-link-to-risk-of-breast-cancer/?s=contraception https://www.cathmed.org/catholic-medical-association-applaud... [2] https://studentsforlife.org/learn/contraception/ https://studentsforlife.org/learn/contraception/

telotortium 3y ago
Most contraceptive pills have some risk of causing abortion, at least if you count stopping implantation - is that factually incorrect?
CivBase 3y ago
> There was a recent ruling that when it comes to contraceptives that agencies cannot protect minor confidentiality from their parents. That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. I already acknowledged there are groups who are opposed to contraception. The Catholic Medical Association and Students for Life of America are examples of such groups. And there are undoubtably Republicans who try to appeal to those groups. But you have not provided compelling evidence of a concerted effort by the GOP to restrict access to pre-pregnancy contraceptives. It's like claiming the Republican party wants to restore segregation because many Republicans oppose affirmative action and there are racist groups who vote for them.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  Students for Life is a republican non-profit organization, same for the Catholic Medical Association. They are pushing concentrated efforts to restrict access to pre-pregnancy contraceptives. You're trying to pull a no true scotsman here and it isn't working. > That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. No, that is exactly the issue. The issue is you have religious parents that are anti-contraceptives. The goal of this is to prevent people from using contraceptives under the watch of their parents. The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird.
  - CivBase 3y ago
    That's not a "no true scotsman" argument. It would be if I claimed something like "they're not real Republicans" but I'm not. Those are indeed Republican organizations and I did not claim otherwise. So what? Republicans aren't a hive mind. They don't agree on everything. You wouldn't claim the Democratic party wants to ban vaccines just because JFK Jr. is an anti-vaxer. Supporters of a party aren't always indicative of that party's stance on all issues. > The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird. How is it weird? Parental rights over their children is a frequent focus of Republican politics. They've recently pushed for similar policies in regards to sexuality and gender identity. I'm not going to pretend there aren't Republican voters whose support for the policy is motivated by the thought process you just layed out. But it's not reasonable to prescribe that motivation to the entire Republican party when there are other explanations that are more consistent with recent and historical Republican ideologies.

robertoandred 3y ago

You shouldn't trust Republicans to not start new efforts. They brought down abortion, do you really think they'll stop there?

CivBase 3y ago
The slippery slope you're presenting doesn't hold water. There's a pretty clear difference between abortion and pre-pregnancy contraception. Republicans' stance on the former is not a strong indication of their stance on the later.