PDA

View Full Version : Scalia suggests women have no right to contraception



MadMan1978
07-30-2012, 07:33 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-suggests-women-have-no-right-to-contraception/

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 09:37 AM
Scalia's mother is the perfect example of why we need contraception.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 09:58 AM
Here is his reasoning. Rights are not given to us by the federal government. They are given to us by God. The Constitution is a document of negative liberties, placing limits on the federal government's power to infringe upon our rights. It does not, in and of itself, create rights. Thus, there is no Constitutional right to contraception, just like there is no right to privacy, right to vote, or right to marriage. Nevertheless, you do have the right to us contraception if your state allows it (states having the power to police pretty much anything). This is how the Constitution was written and intended to have been construed. To say, as the author does, that Scalia suggests women don't have the right to use contraception is either incredibly dumb or misleading.

MadMan1978
07-30-2012, 10:02 AM
one statement and i am done discussing this with you

the Separation of Church and State...it is for that very reason....If that is the thought of the GOP right wing Conservatives...the GOP is in big trouble...

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 10:03 AM
Here is his reasoning. Rights are not given to us by the federal government. They are given to us by God. The Constitution is a document of negative liberties, placing limits on the federal government's power to infringe upon our rights. It does not, in and of itself, create rights. Thus, there is no Constitutional right to contraception, just like there is no right to privacy, right to vote, or right to marriage. Nevertheless, you do have the right to us contraception if your state allows it (states having the power to police pretty much anything). This is how the Constitution was written and intended to have been construed. To say, as the author does, that Scalia suggests women don't have the right to use contraception is either incredibly dumb or misleading.


:frusty:

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 10:09 AM
one statement and i am done discussing this with you

the Separation of Church and State...it is for that very reason....If that is the thought of the GOP right wing Conservatives...the GOP is in big trouble...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 10:10 AM
:frusty:

What of that do you have a problem with veg, and why?

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 10:17 AM
What of that do you have a problem with veg, and why?


Your suggestion that non christians are subject to follow christian beliefs that are irrelevant to a secular society.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 10:35 AM
Your suggestion that non christians are subject to follow christian beliefs that are irrelevant to a secular society.

I didn't mean to suggest that. Where are you getting that from?

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 10:39 AM
I didn't mean to suggest that. Where are you getting that from?

See post #6.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 11:14 AM
See post #6.

That is a line from the Declaration of Independence.

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 11:15 AM
That is a line from the Declaration of Independence.


Understood but that is not an actual law nor is it the basis for any actual laws.

MadMan1978
07-30-2012, 11:21 AM
Well that's play roles here

I now have taken your right to receive ANY Birth form of birth control...
No Condoms...NOTHING

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 11:22 AM
Well that's play roles here

I now have taken your right to receive ANY Birth form of birth control...
No Condoms...NOTHING

I'm sure that will do a lot to curb the spread of sexually transmitted disease. :rolleyes:

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 11:54 AM
Understood but that is not an actual law nor is it the basis for any actual laws.

It is not actual law, but it clearly demonstrates the basis for our founders declaring their independence.

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 11:56 AM
It is not actual law, but it clearly demonstrates the basis for our founders declaring their independence.


Our founding fathers were also big on freedom of religion, which by nature includes the right not to follow any religion at all if one choses.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 12:02 PM
Our founding fathers were also big on freedom of religion, which by nature includes the right not to follow any religion at all if one choses.

Nobody is saying that anyone has to follow any particular religion. The point is that rights are natural and belong to man. They are not granted by the government.

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 12:07 PM
Nobody is saying that anyone has to follow any particular religion. The point is that rights are natural and belong to man. They are not granted by the government.

Understood but on the same token the gov't has no business restricting anyone's right to obtain and use birth control.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 12:10 PM
Understood but on the same token the gov't has no business restricting anyone's right to obtain and use birth control.

That's what scalia is saying. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to allow or restrict anyone's ability to obtain and use birth control.

mrveggieman
07-30-2012, 12:14 PM
That's what scalia is saying. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to allow or restrict anyone's ability to obtain and use birth control.

State law must follow federal law so if the federal gov't cannot restrict anyone for obtaining or using birth control neither can the state.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 12:39 PM
State law must follow federal law so if the federal gov't cannot restrict anyone for obtaining or using birth control neither can the state.

That's not how it works. States can make you eat broccoli for every meal if they want. States, however, cannot infringe on a right that is specifically protected in the constitution. The "right" to use contraception is not one of these protected rights. That's why we have different laws in different states. Otherwise, there would be no need for state law, and we would all just live under the rule of the federal government.

tpeichel
07-30-2012, 12:47 PM
That's not how it works. States can make you eat broccoli for every meal if they want. States, however, cannot infringe on a right that is specifically protected in the constitution. The "right" to use contraception is not one of these protected rights. That's why we have different laws in different states. Otherwise, there would be no need for state law, and we would all just live under the rule of the federal government.

It saddens me that this concept is foreign to so many people.

MadMan1978
07-30-2012, 01:23 PM
That's what scalia is saying. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to allow or restrict anyone's ability to obtain and use birth control.

Your right...ONLY Republicans do....

Wickabee
07-30-2012, 01:29 PM
Here is his reasoning. Rights are not given to us by the federal government. They are given to us by God. The Constitution is a document of negative liberties, placing limits on the federal government's power to infringe upon our rights. It does not, in and of itself, create rights. Thus, there is no Constitutional right to contraception, just like there is no right to privacy, right to vote, or right to marriage. Nevertheless, you do have the right to us contraception if your state allows it (states having the power to police pretty much anything). This is how the Constitution was written and intended to have been construed. To say, as the author does, that Scalia suggests women don't have the right to use contraception is either incredibly dumb or misleading.

If states have the power to police everything, and the US (as I see it) is very much about States' power, why is there any federal law at all? How can the federal government make a sweeping national drug policy and then turn around and say "The federal government has no place making a law regarding gay marriage".

Now, that couldn't be because the constitution loving Republicans are for the war on drugs and against gay marriage, could it? Because that's what it looks like.

Here's a question for Republicans/Conservatives. Would you rather give up the war on drugs or the fight against gay marriage? I ask because, as I see it, the Federal US government should have no right to make either law.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 02:42 PM
If states have the power to police everything, and the US (as I see it) is very much about States' power, why is there any federal law at all? How can the federal government make a sweeping national drug policy and then turn around and say "The federal government has no place making a law regarding gay marriage".

Now, that couldn't be because the constitution loving Republicans are for the war on drugs and against gay marriage, could it? Because that's what it looks like.

Here's a question for Republicans/Conservatives. Would you rather give up the war on drugs or the fight against gay marriage? I ask because, as I see it, the Federal US government should have no right to make either law.

Because the constitution does grant to the government certain powers. For instance, it has the power to coin money, to regulate interstate commerce, to tax, and to declare war. However, the constitution expressly limits the power of the federal government to those powers enumerated therein and gives all other police powers to the several states.

As for your second question, I am for giving up on the war on drugs and letting states decide on gay marriage. Those matters fall within the police powers of the states IMO.

AUTaxMan
07-30-2012, 02:44 PM
Your right...ONLY Republicans do....

These are the kinds of remarks that take away from, as opposed to contribute to, the discourse here. Not only is it blatantly untrue, it is also inflammatory.