What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Many conservative Christians also believe that IUDs and Plan B are a form of abortion, and there are already motions to ban both.

[alfred russel]

The thing is contraception is already banned in some states, those laws just are dormant because of Griswold. I wouldn't wager money on a state like Alabama explicitly unbanning contraceptives even in 2022, were Griswold to fall.

I'd wager extensive amounts of money. What base would there be for Alabama to keep a contraceptive ban? Even its normal conservative christian churches don't favor it.

Yes I agree that some forms of birth control could be banned on the basis they constitute abortion, but that isn't the same as a blanket ban on contraception.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean states like Alabama are banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest (a position even a majority of Republican voters oppose), I think you're significantly overestimating the degree to which state legislatures are bound to popular will.

If something is very unpopular with the Republican primary voting base, yes, it might cause them to pass legislation. Is explicitly legalizing birth control, something that will be seen as "caving to the libs", going to fall into that category? I don't know. I think given all the legislation coming out of red state legislatures which frequently represent a minority opinion even within the broader GOP electorate means it's pretty silly to assume anything.

[alfred russel]

I mean states like Alabama are banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest (a position even a majority of Republican voters oppose), I think you're significantly overestimating the degree to which state legislatures are bound to popular will.

If something is very unpopular with the Republican primary voting base, yes, it might cause them to pass legislation. Is explicitly legalizing birth control, something that will be seen as "caving to the libs", going to fall into that category? I don't know. I think given all the legislation coming out of red state legislatures which frequently represent a minority opinion even within the broader GOP electorate means it's pretty silly to assume anything.

There is a difference between pushing unpopular positions that have support in the southern baptist convention such as banning abortion in all cases, and pushing an unpopular opinion that is going to make illegal the family planning that is a part of southern baptist family planning ministries.

I don't think you understand the dynamics. I also think you are ignoring other cultural topics such as the recent change of the state flag of mississippi by the legislature, that incorporated the confederate flag. They made it a point not to let voters choose whether to have a confederate option when they chose a new flag, out of fear it would be the one chosen. The reason is obvious: there is a business oriented power base: and they believed (correctly) that the flag was holding them back.

The legislatures of the states are going to be inclined to what their power bases want: the protestant churches, the gun nuts, business groups. None of them want to ban contraception. The voters don't want to ban contraception.

[grumbler]

Some number of states will not have to do anything to ban contraceptives if Griswold is overturned.  The laws on the books will simply become active again.  Probably stayed by a court, but still on the books.  I can't see southern politicians touching the third rail by trying to change the laws.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is space between a blanket ban on all contraception and laws that restrict it partially - e.g. bans on certain types, age requirements, prescription requirements, need to show marriage license, etc.  Somewhere in bountiful America, some legislature will do something like this and then the Supreme Court will be back on the spot.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean states like Alabama are banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest (a position even a majority of Republican voters oppose), I think you're significantly overestimating the degree to which state legislatures are bound to popular will.

If something is very unpopular with the Republican primary voting base, yes, it might cause them to pass legislation. Is explicitly legalizing birth control, something that will be seen as "caving to the libs", going to fall into that category? I don't know. I think given all the legislation coming out of red state legislatures which frequently represent a minority opinion even within the broader GOP electorate means it's pretty silly to assume anything.

There is a difference between pushing unpopular positions that have support in the southern baptist convention such as banning abortion in all cases, and pushing an unpopular opinion that is going to make illegal the family planning that is a part of southern baptist family planning ministries.

I don't think you understand the dynamics. I also think you are ignoring other cultural topics such as the recent change of the state flag of mississippi by the legislature, that incorporated the confederate flag. They made it a point not to let voters choose whether to have a confederate option when they chose a new flag, out of fear it would be the one chosen. The reason is obvious: there is a business oriented power base: and they believed (correctly) that the flag was holding them back.

The legislatures of the states are going to be inclined to what their power bases want: the protestant churches, the gun nuts, business groups. None of them want to ban contraception. The voters don't want to ban contraception.

I think you frankly misunderstand the dynamics if you think the Southern Baptist Convention has that much say in Republican State legislatures. The SBC if anything is seen as insufficiently political by most of the far right these days, and fairly milquetoast in many ways. The actual powerbase in the South is cultural Christianity. The SBC is actually theologically, and religiously, Christian. If you were writing that post in 1995 or 1985 you'd be spot on, but the political system has moved beyond the churches now. Evangelicalism is mostly important as a vehicle for distilling cultural grievances now, and the organized churches are at all time low levels of influence. Where churches have influence it is usually mega churches that are non-denominational lead by prominent charismatics.

And again--there's a lot of things the voters, even Republican voters, don't want that are getting passed. When general elections are no longer competitive, the Republican voter writ large is just not that important. What is important are the Republican primary voters, who are a quite small percentage of the total Republican electorate, and in most Southern and Midwestern states, the primary GOP voter is much more culturally conservative and elderly than the overall GOP voting base.

[alfred russel]

I think you frankly misunderstand the dynamics if you think the Southern Baptist Convention has that much say in Republican State legislatures. The SBC if anything is seen as insufficiently political by most of the far right these days, and fairly milquetoast in many ways. The actual powerbase in the South is cultural Christianity. The SBC is actually theologically, and religiously, Christian. If you were writing that post in 1995 or 1985 you'd be spot on, but the political system has moved beyond the churches now. Evangelicalism is mostly important as a vehicle for distilling cultural grievances now, and the organized churches are at all time low levels of influence. Where churches have influence it is usually mega churches that are non-denominational lead by prominent charismatics.

And again--there's a lot of things the voters, even Republican voters, don't want that are getting passed. When general elections are no longer competitive, the Republican voter writ large is just not that important. What is important are the Republican primary voters, who are a quite small percentage of the total Republican electorate, and in most Southern and Midwestern states, the primary GOP voter is much more culturally conservative and elderly than the overall GOP voting base.

I don't think I understand and think you are out of touch and politics is rotting your brain.

I was raised catholic and recently married into a family in a protestant church in upstate south carolina. I've been in a zillion conversations about why catholics are weirdos against contraception. Contraception is part of conservative protestant ministries.

There is a massive difference between republican legislatures pushing aggressive abortion bans that are unpopular even among republicans but are supported by conservative churches, and making illegal portions of conservative protestant churches ministries. And whose use is ubiquitous.

Even in Utah they have condom dispensers in bathrooms...presumably that could be regulated but the fact it isn't is telling.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Again, Protestant churches are largely not informing Republican policy. Republican policy is being driven by what issues animate the "riled up base", which largely corresponds to cultural conservatives, and overlaps heavily with "people who vote in Republican primaries."

Evangelical Protestants as a group have a number of very conservative positions that means their voting interests will often overlap with the cultural conservatives. It should also be noted a huge % of the cultural grievance conservatives identify as evangelical, but probably most of them aren't really. I define evangelical as someone who attends an evangelical church on multiple times a month basis. People who were baptized and "born again" 20 years ago but attend church 5 times a year and who spend their free time "trolling the libs" on Twitter aren't really part of the actual evangelical religious affiliation, they are simply cultural Christians who probably are only vaguely spiritual and may even be agnostic in all reality.

There's actually a lot of issues where you can find a divergence in opinion between evangelicals when you find polling that asks how often they attend Church. Refugee resettlement is a big one--most genuinely religiously active evangelicals have long supported refugee resettlement efforts as part of a Christian duty. Cultural evangelicals who are largely informed by culture war issues view refugees as minority "invaders" and oppose them.

If anything, the influence of the "organized" evangelical denominations in terms of policy is at an all time low within the GOP. Most political influencers among conservative Christians are not part of an organized denomination at all. The modern equivalent of Jerry Falwell for example, his son Jonathan Falwell, is focused almost entirely on ministry and is not politically active. His brother Jerry Jr (who is not ordained, and seems to only be vaguely affiliated with a church at all) is a culture warrior who is part of evangelical culture but not particularly involved with a Church. The original Jerry Falwell was both of those things, and that sort of unified figure is no longer very prominent or mainstream in Republican politics.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also, one is usually being a little foolish if you try to generalize too much about groups like the SBC. The SBC has several influential leaders, including in some of its leading seminary organizations, that have been preaching against birth control for over 10 years. The SBC is something people think of in terms of politics because of Pat Robertson's days in the political limelight, but it is really more of a very loose confederation of churches that doesn't even have that rigorous a mechanism for enforcing doctrinal homogeneity. There are tons of Southern Baptist pastors who preach that you largely should not interfere with God's plan as to how many children you are going to have.

That is echoed throughout the evangelical community broadly. I don't believe any large / organized evangelical denomination has something equivalent to the Catholic Church's sweeping prohibitions on things like the birth control pill, but there are absolutely tons of evangelical pastors and voters who are against the use of contraception of any kind on moral grounds. The random church you married into not withstanding broader trends.

[Berkut]

More importantly however is its impact on tangential issues, like availability of birth control, sexual education, and teen pregnancy and that oh so cherished religious fundy principle of "abstinence".

[Jacob]

More importantly however is its impact on tangential issues, like availability of birth control, sexual education, and teen pregnancy and that oh so cherished religious fundy principle of "abstinence".

My minimum expectation is that GOP controlled states will default to "parental control" reasoning, as well as allowing "ethical" opt-outs significantly lowering availability except to the well-off middle class with high levels of social and financial capital.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I want to make clear, I do not at all expect a wave of State legislation banning all contraception. I do suspect that there is going to be a case that challenges Griswold, and that Griswold will be overruled by the Guardian Council-cum-Supreme Court.

At that point, I do think there are going to be a few ruby red States where it ends up that there is some form of restriction or ban on contraceptives still on the books. Prior to Griswold a very common law was that single women and married women without children were not generally allowed birth control pills, but married women with children were. I haven't done the research on what laws are still on the books and where. It would not at all surprise me if say, Alabama had a typical pre-Griswold law like that, that you wouldn't find significant support in the Republican state legislature to overturn it. Why? The people they care about--Christian married women, are basically protected by the law. They will certainly not be very interested in passing a law that helps liberal married women choose to not have kids (no good Christian woman would intentionally have zero children, obv), or single women--heaven forbid, being able to fuck out of wedlock without having to worry about a pregnancy (which she also can no longer abort in Alabama.)

I don't see many, or maybe even any, prosecutions over these laws. However, that doesn't mean they will not have an impact. A lot of these laws were more regulatory and aimed at physicians. There is no innate right to a prescription medication without a doctor's approval, the whole concept of a prescription medication (which birth control still is), is that you need a doctor's approval to acquire it. While I would not expect to see the Religious Police roaming around checking women's purses for birth control pills, if some old regulation goes back into force that limits a doctor's prescribing authority--doctors are not prone to willfully breaking medical regulations, and they are mostly going to follow the law. Without any prosecutions or anything like it, it will suddenly become very, very hard for women to get birth control in such a State.

I have zero reason to expect this isn't somewhat likely in our current environment.

[alfred russel]

Again, Protestant churches are largely not informing Republican policy. Republican policy is being driven by what issues animate the "riled up base", which largely corresponds to cultural conservatives, and overlaps heavily with "people who vote in Republican primaries."

Neither conservative institutions like the protestant churches or "people who vote in republican primaries" are in favor of contraceptive bans. Where is this going to come from? Are we just going to assume that anything that owns the libs is liable to be enacted? Burqas may be mandated because oh boy would democrats hate that!

With abortion, it is worth pointing out that later tonight there we will get the results on a referendum in Kansas to give the legislature the right to ban abortion there. Polling indicates it is going to be a close vote--wiht the point being that even in a very conservative place like Kansas abortion is not a slam dunk--and banning abortion actually has popular support vs. contraceptive bans.

[mongers]

Weird that no one was mentioned the head of AQ been killed by a likely CIA drone strike in Kabul.