The other shoe dropped: They're coming for birth control

[Loren Pechtel]

(Link might be problematic)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/26/u-idaho-may-stop-providing-birth-control-under-new-abortion-law/

 

[Ford]

Of course they are.

For decades, the right sold their anti-choice agenda as a "states rights" issue. Right up until the Dobbs decision was handed down, they insisted that it was an issue "best left up to the states."

Within about a nanosecond after the ruling dropped, they proposed a nationwide "fuck what the states want" ban.

Apply the same formula to their "of course we'd never restrict birth control" rhetoric. Of course they're lying. They've been lying since (checks notes) about 1973.

 

[Ruth Harris]

For those without a WaPo subscription: Gift link

Anyone with any sense at all realized that birth control was on the table too as soon as the Dobbs decision was issued. And @Ford is right; the states right statements were nothing more than cover for what they actually want.

Ruth

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow... it was worse than I thought.

Condoms could be provided “for the purpose of helping prevent the spread of STDs,” according to the guidance — but not “for purposes of birth control.”

The pill, Plan B are drugs. I would have expected it to be targeted next, not condoms. What I find odd is they say condoms are okay for preventing the spread of STDs, but not preventing pregnancy. That seems like a hair being split four ways.

 

[laughing dog]

Wow... it was worse than I thought.

Condoms could be provided “for the purpose of helping prevent the spread of STDs,” according to the guidance — but not “for purposes of birth control.”

The pill, Plan B are drugs. I would have expected it to be targeted next, not condoms. What I find odd is they say condoms are okay for preventing the spread of STDs, but not preventing pregnancy. That seems like a hair being split four ways.

Maybe to you, but it isn't to a significant number of people of a certain faith. For example, a former president of my university relented and permitted the availability of condom to prevent the transmission of stds. This was over 25 years ago.

The advice from the legal counsel is confusing. Condoms do not cause abortions. So unless the Idaho law is written poorly (a real possibility), the advice makes little sense. Because if this legal counsel was serious, they should also warn about talking about the rhythm method or pull out method of birth control.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, that is a good point I hadn't thought of. Dobbs doesn't negate Griswold... well, actually Eisenstadt v. Baird as that applied to women (or couples) in general, regardless if married or not. So their take on it is odd because even if Idaho's law is poorly written... it'd be unconstitutional.

 

[southernhybrid]

What century do they think this is?

The Christian Taliban is on its way!

*sigh*

 

[Swammerdami]

Condoms allowed only for STDs? I suppose they will become a prescription item. To prevent hoarding (by men hoping to recover from their STD), will used condoms need to be returned for inspection before new ones issued?

Anyway, I thought the meme was "life begins at conception." The condom ban would seem to imply that life begins at ovulation. Is a chaste but ovulating woman who says No to a stranger guilty of taking a life?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow... it was worse than I thought.

Condoms could be provided “for the purpose of helping prevent the spread of STDs,” according to the guidance — but not “for purposes of birth control.”

The pill, Plan B are drugs. I would have expected it to be targeted next, not condoms. What I find odd is they say condoms are okay for preventing the spread of STDs, but not preventing pregnancy. That seems like a hair being split four ways.

Maybe to you, but it isn't to a significant number of people of a certain faith. For example, a former president of my university relented and permitted the availability of condom to prevent the transmission of stds. This was over 25 years ago.

The advice from the legal counsel is confusing. Condoms do not cause abortions. So unless the Idaho law is written poorly (a real possibility), the advice makes little sense. Because if this legal counsel was serious, they should also warn about talking about the rhythm method or pull out method of birth control.

I read the advice from legal counsel as being "we know what they really want and the only safe course is to comply with the unwritten agenda."

 

[Thomas II]

 

[ZiprHead]

I see this as a CYA.

 

[Terrell]

But, but, but both parties are the same. /sarcasm

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see this as a CYA.

But it goes WAAAAAAYYYYY beyond the scope of Dobbs. If they said they couldn't hand out birth control pills or Plan B... that would be CYA. This is making up a problem out of nothing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What I find odd is they say condoms are okay for preventing the spread of STDs, but not preventing pregnancy. That seems like a hair being split four ways.

Perhaps, they mean that if it were up to them gay sex would be illegal, but since gays might have sex, they should wear condoms when they do. Furthermore, people engaging in straight sex should not wear condoms because babies are always good.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Toni]

What I find odd is they say condoms are okay for preventing the spread of STDs, but not preventing pregnancy. That seems like a hair being split four ways.

Perhaps, they mean that if it were up to them gay sex would be illegal, but since gays might have sex, they should wear condoms when they do. Furthermore, people engaging in straight sex should not wear condoms because babies are always good.

I think it’s less about protecting gay men from STIs than it is about lawmakers protecting g themselves from STIs ( overlap acknowledged)