What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Remember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.

Sometimes it does, though.

[Zoupa]

 

[alfred russel]

Well, I feel better already. Everything is going to be fine, and nobody should be concerned at all about government restricting more women's rights under this Supreme Court, because we can and should have great faith in the rationality and reasonableness of radical evangelical Christians when it comes to their views on women's sexual freedom.

Luckily we have a quote from the Alabama Public Health Department (which has no legislative power, and cannot enact policy without appropriate legislation), so we're all fine.

You are arguing that if supreme court decisions are rendered that reverse rights to contraceptives, places like Alabama will ban them. I'm showing an actual department under the state government of Alabama, created by the legislature of Alabama, that is counseling people on contraceptive use. No supreme court decision mandates state governments do that. If the government of the state of alabama wants to live in a world with contraceptives banned and only the supreme court is holding them back, why are they promoting contraceptive use?

[alfred russel]

AR, you neglected to quote the sentence that appears immediately before the sentence you did quote:

"The Family Planning Program promotes the well being of families, responsible behavior, and healthy mothers and babies."

It was likely an accident of cutting and pasting.

You also neglected to quote the bit that comes immediately after the sentence you quoted:

"There are 81 clinics throughout Alabama offering family planning services."

Also likely an error in your cutting and pasting skills.

If you read the whole of the description on the website (It doesn't take long, its just a few short paragraphs) I am sure you will agree that Otto was not being delusional but accurately describing both what is now in place and what is likely to come.

There wasn't an error in my cutting and pasting skills. I don't see the relevance of those topics to the issue at hand.

[Eddie Teach]

Remember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.

Sometimes it does, though.

Save the panic for when it does.

[Jacob]

Save the panic for when it does.

Sure.

But do the organizing and resisting and fuss-raising now, as it'll increase the chances that in won't happen.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You are arguing that if supreme court decisions are rendered that reverse rights to contraceptives, places like Alabama will ban them. I'm showing an actual department under the state government of Alabama, created by the legislature of Alabama, that is counseling people on contraceptive use. No supreme court decision mandates state governments do that. If the government of the state of alabama wants to live in a world with contraceptives banned and only the supreme court is holding them back, why are they promoting contraceptive use?

For one, I am not saying they will ban them. I am saying existing laws, many of which highly restricted with a specific view to restricting casual use of contraceptive pills to married women already with children, could go back into effect. It would then require State legislation to repeal those currently dormant laws. That's literally just an actual fact of how our constitutional system of laws works. If a State has a Law A, that is in effect, and it is then made dormant by a Supreme Court ruling, if that Supreme Court ruling is overturned, that Law A goes back into effect--sans some state judicial ruling otherwise and/or some State legislative action. That's not speculative, that's just how our laws actually work.

What I am saying, is that in conservative religious States, and there is a significant desire among many religious people to limit use of contraceptives, it is not at all guaranteed that such laws will simply be repealed.

The Alabama Department of Public Health thing you're talking about literally has almost nothing to do with Alabama. That is language and clinics / programs specifically related to Title X, which is a Federal program that provides for family planning services and the State is essentially implementing the requirements to receive those Federal funds. There is no conflict between Title X and Alabama law, but if Alabama (just as an example--this really applies to any conservative State), has a law that restricts birth control pill prescriptions to say, married women with children, those restrictions would still apply. It could be the case the State might lose its Title X funding if it did not repeal those restrictions, but that is an open question and would very much depend on who President--Trump already significantly curtailed Title X funding was when he was in office and a future Republican would likely do the same.

The existence of a Title X program in a State is not really a reflection of anything other than a willingness to comply with the requirements of a Federal grant, it doesn't at all speak to how they would intersect with morality based contraception restrictions. In fact where they have conflicted, States have generally been moving towards morality based restrictions after the Hobby Lobby decision.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Remember, just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.

Sometimes it does, though.

Save the panic for when it does.

That's a pretty brain dead opinion, to be frank. Saving the panic for when it does is how abortion rights people ended up in a 40 year deficit of organizing and planning. It was assumed Roe was sacrosanct. Most people supported the core holdings of Roe. It hadn't been touched in most people's lifetimes. No reason to panic.

Okay.

Maybe we should all cancel our life insurance policies, defund our military, etc too--no reason for any concern for future issues, since in the realm of the perpetually stupid you only have to be concerned about something in the midst of a massive catastrophe.

[Eddie Teach]

People haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.

[Zoupa]

 

[OttoVonBismarck]

People haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.

Okay.

[Jacob]

People haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.

Ah, that makes more sense. You're not commenting on whether it makes sense to start acting right now if you're concerned about the potential for access to contraception being removed. You're saying that if access to contraception is removed in some places, that's okay because it shouldn't matter to folks.

[Valmy]

People haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.

You can read their minds and know this? And why shouldn't it? Having children is generally considered a significant event in people's lives.

[OttoVonBismarck]

People haven't been preparing because the issue didn't matter to them. It still shouldn't.

You can read their minds and know this? And why shouldn't it? Having children is generally considered a significant event in people's lives.

Nah man, they shouldn't worry about it.

[Zoupa]

Yeah, stop panicking folks. What are you, women? You sound hysterical.