There is a pattern-The GOP is going after Griswold (the right of privacy) and other rights

[LetMyPeopleVote]

The right to privacy is an implied right that was first recognize in the Griswold case which struck down laws prohibiting birth control. Out of the Griswold case, a number of important SCOTUS decisions arose including Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia (on interacial marriage), Lawrence v. Texas (on consensual homosexual sex), and the right for same sex marriage.

The GOP has decided to go after all of these right by going after Griswold

Link to tweet

With this in mind, much of the GOP senator’s statement was forgettable, including Blackburn’s claim that she was “shocked” when Jackson said in writing that she doesn’t have a judicial philosophy, per se. But in the same video, the Tennessean, reading carefully from a teleprompter, eventually said something genuinely interesting:

“Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut, Kelo v. City of New London, and NFIB v. Sebelius confuse Tennesseans and leave Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances.”

The rhetoric came less than a month after Republican candidates for state attorney general in Michigan also denounced the Griswold v. Connecticut precedent.

Circling back to our earlier coverage, Griswold was a landmark case in modern American history. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples’ access to birth control. The court majority said such statutes are impermissible because they violate Americans’ right to privacy.

This is part of a pattern of going after Democrats on social issues like abortion, same sex marriage, interracial marriage and even consensual homosexual sex.

Last summer, the Republican Study Committee’s issued an unsubtle memo that was literally titled, “Lean into the culture war.” The document added, “We are in a culture war ... we are winning.”

The Mississippi and Texas abortion laws are also part of this pattern

[Girard442]

1. The plan is to claim that some contraceptives are abortifacients and outlaw them.

Nothing says you want to reduce abortions by creating demand for more abortions.

[Hekate]

17. Yes. They started redefining the most reliable forms of BC as abortifacients *years ago*...

That’s when I knew it was not just about abortion, but more deeply about every social advance women have made since we got the vote. Every social advance we’ve made since Margaret Sanger went to prison for telling women how they could avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Having a prospective employer say, “But you’ll just get pregnant,” or having your current employer say straight up the reason you as a married woman can’t get that promotion is because “You’ll just get pregnant” is something that will return in a heartbeat when contraceptives are once again unavailable. Because it will once again be true.

It goes further. My grandfather, born in the 1880s, told his 3 daughters that college for them was pointless because they were just going to get married and have babies. His 3 sons went to college.

I hate the RW GOP so much there are hardly words for it.

[Walleye]

2. No privacy for the people. But for the Republican elected officials, secrecy

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. JFC!! Contraception is vital to reducing the need for Abortions in the first place!

Marsha Blackburn seems to have made it her mission to make Contraception ILLEGAL??

The right to PRIVACY for every American to make personal decisions for themselves is one of the bedrocks of FREEDOM. The Republicans will go so far as to argue before the US Supreme Court WHAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL are.....
1) Equal Education
2) Access to a safe abortion
3) Marriage Equality
4) Interracial Marriage
5) Civil Rights Act of 1964
6) The Voting Rights Act of 1965
7) Access and use of Contraception

How much further are Republicans willing to go I wonder?

Power in the hands of the few is a DICTATORSHIP. This country is on the verge if Republicans win.

[Probatim]

6. If they can force a child to bear her rapist's baby, they've got other horrors up their sleeves.

It's just a matter of time before someone leaves their playbook unattended.

[Jilly_in_VA]

9. Maybe Marsha's parents

should have used contraception. Spared Tennessee (and the rest of us) the embarrassment of this harridan.

[JHB]

20. They want the 19th century back. Sometimes they disagree over which parts of it, but...

...they all agree that the 20th century needs to be reversed.

[cbabe]

4. So, anyone can walk into her house? Rifle through her underwear drawer? No right to privacy. Right?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

5. It's past time to formulate a Democratic Rights defense.

The right to privacy in normal American times would be popular and insisted upon by a vast majority. Is it only the contraception aspect that is so egregious to the religious right?

They're cornered. They have to defend their culture war no matter what. It's all they've got. They say they're winning. But only in red states.

On the other hand, white rural families have chosen a side. And the emotion of this culture war can override all logic when fear of unbridled liberalism moves down the street. Too close to home. They want purity.

pu·ri·ty
/ˈpyo͝orədē/

noun
freedom from adulteration or contamination.
"the purity of our drinking water"

freedom from immorality, especially of a sexual nature.

"white is meant to represent purity and innocence"

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. The Texas abortion law is a good example-here is the asshole who wrote that law

This is the asshole who drafted the Texas abortion law. This asshole wants to strike down the implied right of privacy by getting Roe overruled which would/could lead to striking down the right to same sex marriage. interracial marriage, gay sex and other rights

There is a pattern here. These assholes want to get rid of Griswold and undo the right of privacy. That would cause Lawrence v. Texas (consensual same sex intercourse), Cooling v. Virginia (inter-racial marriage), birth control and same sex marriage to be overturned.

Link to tweet

https://www.comicsands.com/jonathan-mitchell-overturn-gay-marriage-2655065691.html

Though Mitchell's brief, also signed by his co-counsel Adam Mortara, dedicates much of its time to the Texas abortion law's defense, it also questions "lawless" pieces of legislation, namely the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which decriminalized gay sex nationwide, and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Though the brief does not say reversing Roe v. Wade would threaten the same-sex marriage ruling, it does say that

""the news is not as good for those who hope to preserve the court-invented rights to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage …
"These 'rights,' like the right to abortion from Roe, are judicial concoctions, and there is no other source of law that can be invoked to salvage their existence."

It goes on to add that while the Supreme Court should not necessarily overturn Lawrence and Obergefell, it should consider these two rulings as "lawless" as Roe v. Wade and, by extension, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"This is not to say that the Court should announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe and Casey in this case."
"But neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are as lawless as Roe."

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Jilly_in_VA]

10. In the words of my former manager, who was Filipina,

"I like to kick his balls!"

[dflprincess]

8. Was the 9th Amendment repealed?

Did I miss that?

[ProudMNDemocrat]

11. The IX Amendment states....

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I do not think so. But Republicans like Blackburn will have one hell of an argument before the US Supreme Court to get it stricken from the Bill of Rights. By then, Judge Jackson will be on the Bench.

[dflprincess]

12. It was a rhetorical question

The only way to remove a Constitutional amendment is to pass another amendent repealing the first one. This was done when the 21st Amendnent repealed the 18th (prohibition)

[Hortensis]

13. Yup. "Can the police strip-search a woman who has been arrested for a minor traffic violation?

Can a magazine publish an embarrassing photo of you without your permission? Does your boss have the right to read your email? Can a company monitor its employees' off-the-job lifestyles--and fire those who drink, smoke, or live with a partner of the same sex?

Although the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution, most of us believe that we have an inalienable right to be left alone. Yet in arenas that range from the battlefield of abortion to the information highway, privacy is under siege."

That's from the inside flap of Caroline Kennedy/Ellen Alderman's The Right to Privacy, first published in 1997. The "information highway" of course includes our right to access and use of the internet.

Good to see alarm's finally being sounded more broadly, the reasons all bad of course. The Griswold right to be left alone by government has a very precarious basis, and the 6 ultraconservative justices are on the court, in part, to kick it over.

[berniesandersmittens]

18. I have read that book too

Very good and recommend it to all.

I think the US missed a big opportunity to enforce privacy laws when Cambridge Analytica took info without expressed permission.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Of course they are, this ties into their white Christian nationalism

the reason they want to ban abortion and contraception is because they view those as ways to reverse the decline in the white birthrate. The original anti-abortion campaigners back in the 19th century used the rhetoric of "race suicide" and being outbred by "inferior races"; they were very open about the racism underlying their goals. Today's Republicans are possibly SOMEWHAT more circumspect, but the motivation remains the same.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. McCarthy thinks that they can win the midterms on culture issues

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. Beyond Roe: With SCOTUS Hearings, GOP Sketches Terrifying Vision For America

These assholes want to use their majority on the SCOTUS to undo a number of major decisions and take away many rights

Link to tweet

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scotus-gop-abortion-interracial-marriage-contraception_n_623b327ce4b009ab9300865a?hj

Despite all their talk against judicial activism, Republicans have made clear they’re rooting for the court to strike down Roe v. Wade. But what’s been new in the past week has been GOP senators starting to talk about other landmark cases they’d like to see overturned ― outcomes that would radically restrict Americans’ rights.

Over the weekend, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) criticized the 1965 ruling Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized access to contraception. She called it “constitutionally unsound.”

On Tuesday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) was skeptical of Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalized marriage equality in 2015. He called it an “edict” and said he was uncomfortable with it because allowing same-sex people to get married was something that creates a conflict “between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith and what the federal government says is the law of the land.”

“That is the nature of a right,” Jackson replied. “When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Link to tweet

[Demovictory9]

19. I vaguely recall that doctors wanted the husbands permission for women to get birth control

not sure if Roe v wade swept those practices away or griswald. I KNOW GOP would love to bring male permission back into the equation.