All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control

[Deleted member 586536]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ntrol-republicans-join-democrats/10117979002/

Can I even be surprised?
"The eight Republicans who voted in favor of codifying contraceptive access are Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Maria Salazar of Florida and Fred Upton of Michigan.

The House's final tally of 228-195 was largely along party lines."

 

[tofino]

"can i even be surprised?"
no, no you can't.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

no, no you can't.

I wish it was surprising. But it's not. From the same party that removed access abortion, they now want to remove conceptives. Takes "pro life" into a entirely (not really) new meaning. They're pro birth. Just nothing relating to the safety or finacies of that. Or helping that life out...

 

[Hanafuda]

Can I even be surprised?

Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??

Seriously, Article I Section 8. What enables Congress to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the people of the United States a right to contraception ... or that they have to right of "access" to any particular thing at all? I'm sure the DNC has lawyers ready to make interstate commerce arguments in Court, but it's a stretch. An absurd twisting of the intent that Congress should regulate commerce between States and with other nations, but it won't be the first time such strained arguments have been made.

If Congress has no Constitutional authority to pass such a law, should members of Congress be voting for it?

The right to contraception along with a lot of other "rights" that the Supreme Court has been declaring out of thin air for the last 60 years or so, using a theory of "substantive due process" ... is just a made up bit of legal hocus pocus to give the Supreme Court and the Federal govt. powers which the Constitution does not establish. "Substantive due process" is an invention of the 20th century, and nothing established under this umbrella is actually in the Constitution. Unenumerated. Inferred. Wish-list. The Supreme Court says it's a right, and just like that we have to pretend the Constitution intended it.

It's not that people shouldn't have the right to contraception, or gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever else ... the issue is that if you want a new, explicitly enumerated right for the people, it's supposed to require an amendment. Otherwise, it's a state-level issue.

 

[Lacius]

Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??

Seriously, Article I Section 8. What enables Congress to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the people of the United States a right to contraception ... or that they have to right of "access" to any particular thing at all? I'm sure the DNC has lawyers ready to make interstate commerce arguments in Court, but it's a stretch. An absurd twisting of the intent that Congress should regulate commerce between States and with other nations, but it won't be the first time such strained arguments have been made.

If Congress has no Constitutional authority to pass such a law, should members of Congress be voting for it?

The right to contraception along with a lot of other "rights" that the Supreme Court has been declaring out of thin air for the last 60 years or so, using a theory of "substantive due process" ... is just a made up bit of legal hocus pocus to give the Supreme Court and the Federal govt. powers which the Constitution does not establish. "Substantive due process" is an invention of the 20th century, and nothing established under this umbrella is actually in the Constitution. Unenumerated. Inferred. Wish-list. The Supreme Court says it's a right, and just like that we have to pretend the Constitution intended it.

It's not that people shouldn't have the right to contraception, or gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever else ... the issue is that if you want a new, explicitly enumerated right for the people, it's supposed to require an amendment. Otherwise, it's a state-level issue.

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that precludes codifying contraceptive access into federal law, lol.

 

[Hanafuda]

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that precludes codifying contraceptive access into federal law, lol.

Where in Article I, Section 8 does the Constitution give the legislative branch such power? The Constitution is not a document that allows the Federal government the power to do anything the Constitution doesn't "preclude." It's just the opposite. The 10th Amendment states very clearly that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people. If the Constitution doesn't say Congress can do it, then Congress doesn't have that power.

 

[Lacius]

Where in Article I, Section 8 does the Constitution give the legislative branch such power? The Constitution is not a document that allows the Federal government the power to do anything the Constitution doesn't "preclude." It's just the opposite. The 10th Amendment states very clearly that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people. If the Constitution doesn't say Congress can do it, then Congress doesn't have that power.

The Commerce Clause says hi.

 

[SonowRaevius]

Not really surprising for the party that seems to want to drag the rest of the country back to the early 1900's, voted against same sex and interracial marriage yesterday, who put up bounty websites for their own citizens, are trying to track women by their period info, and are also trying to make it so pregnant women can't cross state lines, thus taking away their Right to Travel and Freedom of Movement.

 

[Hanafuda]

The Commerce Clause says hi.

I already addressed that above. I think that argument fails, as it likely would if a codification of Roe were tested*. But it's all moot since this is all just pre-midterms theatrics just like the 'assault weapon' ban the House is whipping up. "They voted against it!!" is all the Democrats want out of this.


*I'm not the only one who thinks it's shaky at best. These are re: Roe, but address using the commerce clause to justify a Federal Law that would effectively guarantee a 'right' to something:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...ve-the-constitutional-authority-to-codify-roe
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/opinions/codifying-roe-scotus-abortion-nourse/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/04/roe-overturned-congress-abortion-law/

 

[WeedZ]

Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??

Seriously, Article I Section 8. What enables Congress to pass a Federal law guaranteeing the people of the United States a right to contraception ... or that they have to right of "access" to any particular thing at all? I'm sure the DNC has lawyers ready to make interstate commerce arguments in Court, but it's a stretch. An absurd twisting of the intent that Congress should regulate commerce between States and with other nations, but it won't be the first time such strained arguments have been made.

If Congress has no Constitutional authority to pass such a law, should members of Congress be voting for it?

The right to contraception along with a lot of other "rights" that the Supreme Court has been declaring out of thin air for the last 60 years or so, using a theory of "substantive due process" ... is just a made up bit of legal hocus pocus to give the Supreme Court and the Federal govt. powers which the Constitution does not establish. "Substantive due process" is an invention of the 20th century, and nothing established under this umbrella is actually in the Constitution. Unenumerated. Inferred. Wish-list. The Supreme Court says it's a right, and just like that we have to pretend the Constitution intended it.

It's not that people shouldn't have the right to contraception, or gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever else ... the issue is that if you want a new, explicitly enumerated right for the people, it's supposed to require an amendment. Otherwise, it's a state-level issue.

Sounds to me like your saying we need an amendment for every right we wish to have. I'm pretty sure that's not how that's supposed to work. We're supposed to have presumed liberty until a law is made to limit it some way for the good of the people. The freedom is the default, not the other way around.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Not really surprising for the party that seems to want to drag the rest of the country back to the early 1900's, voted against same sex and interracial marriage yesterday, who put up bounty websites for their own citizens, are trying to track women by their period info, and are also trying to make it so pregnant women can't cross state lines, thus taking away their Right to Travel and Freedom of Movement.

Did you ever think that people vote against bills because they think the federal government has no business doing those things? Why would anybody support having to go ask the government permission and give them money for a license just to get married?

You must have been really mad when California banned unvaccinated people from traveling there.

 

[Hanafuda]

Sounds to me like your saying we need an amendment for every right we wish to have. I'm pretty sure that's not how that's supposed to work. We're supposed to have presumed liberty until a law is made to limit it some way for the good of the people. The freedom is the default, not the other way around.

Sure. It's legal until it's not. But for the Federal government to step in and prevent States from making something illegal (or to ban something nationally) there has to be Constitutional authority behind that. Either an amendment is passed (ban slavery, give women the vote, ban the sale of alcohol), or during the latter half of the 20th century the commerce clause was often used as a way via the Courts to justify Federal laws over the States. Civil rights, controlled substances act, lots of regulatory agency action. But since the 90's, the Supreme Court has been shrinking the scope of the Commerce Clause back to where it was before WWII ... i.e. just about actual buying and selling of goods. The Commerce Clause was denied, for example, as a justification for Obamacare (but it was ok'd as being under Congress' power to tax).

 

[MikaDubbz]

Alternate headline: Hive Mind Stays a Hive Mind

 

[SonowRaevius]

Did you ever think that people vote against bills because they think the federal government has no business doing those things? Why would anybody support having to go ask the government permission and give them money for a license just to get married?

You must have been really mad when California banned unvaccinated people from traveling there.

Since you are being extremely naive and gullible allow me to sell you a bridge as well.

The people that are voting against these thing are overly-religious and hate filled individuals that are only voting this way because it lines up with their own personal feelings and religious dogma and nothing more.

As for the government stepping in, maybe they didn't teach you this in school, or homeschool in your case, but before the government stepped in people literally didn't even have the freedom to marry those they loved. In fact many people were threatened, beaten, lynched, subjected to electro shock treatment, or even outright killed just for existing or "loving the wrong person" and this includes children as well.

Also, this would be a good point, if you know, the situations were actually similar in more ways than one. For instance, and I just want to make sure, did you know that viruses are contagious and pregnancies aren't? I am just making sure because some of you folks don't seem to know the difference.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Did you ever think that people vote against bills because they think the federal government has no business doing those things? Why would anybody support having to go ask the government permission and give them money for a license just to get married?

You must have been really mad when California banned unvaccinated people from traveling there.

Because there are states who wouldn't recognize that right. "State's rights" can trump national rights once they start universally enforcing and observing human rights. Until then? Tough shit. Don't like it, leave.

 

[WeedZ]

Sure. It's legal until it's not. But for the Federal government to step in and prevent States from making something illegal (or to ban something nationally) there has to be Constitutional authority behind that. Either an amendment is passed (ban slavery, give women the vote, ban the sale of alcohol), or during the latter half of the 20th century the commerce clause was often used as a way via the Courts to justify Federal laws over the States. Civil rights, controlled substances act, lots of regulatory agency action. But since the 90's, the Supreme Court has been shrinking the scope of the Commerce Clause back to where it was before WWII ... i.e. just about actual buying and selling of goods. The Commerce Clause was denied, for example, as a justification for Obamacare (but it was ok'd as being under Congress' power to tax).

I see what you're saying. Until the Federal government makes an amendment to prevent a state from making something illegal, they have no constitutional authority to do it. But there's something about the "you don't have the right to infringe on my right to infringe on other peoples rights" argument that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

Cool Cool...lets take away the old fucks Viagra then and see how they like it. Because if you can't get your dick up, it's not god's will for you. I can't believe we are seriously discussing about banning condoms and other contraceptives that we've honestly taken for granted for decades. The balkanization of the US is imminent.

 

[Hanafuda]

Cool Cool...lets take away the old fucks Viagra then and see how they like it. Because if you can't get your dick up, it's not god's will for you. I can't believe we are seriously discussing about banning condoms and other contraceptives that we've honestly taken for granted for decades. The balkanization of the US is imminent.

Well, you'd have to get a State legislature to vote for that. Which is unlikely, since they're predominantly made up of old fucks lol.

And we're not seriously discussing about condoms and other contraceptives. As I mentioned above, this is a grandstanding exercise in an election year.

 

[Foxi4]

I’m a free market guy, these kinds of matters are filed in the “simples” drawer. I’m for complete legalisation of drugs because deciding what people can or can’t ingest isn’t within the federal government’s purview - by definition this includes contraceptive pills. I don’t even know how they would begin to codify physical barriers like condoms since they’re nothing more than a glorified latex/polyurethane balloon. Is “access” to such things a right? No. Should they be available on the market? Yes, absolutely - the market should be free. If there’s a demand for contraceptives, the market must provide them - that’s none of the government’s business.

There are two cited reasons for the decision to oppose the legislation - religious freedom and states’ rights to govern their own healthcare policy. I wholeheartedly disagree with the former, I can stand behind the latter. Religious freedom precludes *you* from doing things, not other people - nobody is forcing anybody to use contraception if they don’t want to. If using it goes against someone’s religious beliefs, they can choose to abstain. Freedom of religion necessarily entails freedom *from* religion, and I’m saying that as a catholic - I don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms, that’s their business. The latter is more agreeable - the people elect their own local government and if they support certain kinds of policies, they elect representatives that push them within the state. That obviously doesn’t make everyone happy, but those who disagree with such decisions can opt to vote accordingly in the next election *or* they can take advantage of their right to freedom of movement and move to a state that more closely aligns with their value system.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the GOP is cutting off its own nose to spite its face, it’s a bizarre visceral reaction to the Roe v. Wade repeal. They’re throwing everything they can at the wall hoping that the things they actually care about stick. Perhaps it’s some kind of harebrained scheme to divert attention from more relevant legislation that they might be sliding under the table. Either way, legislating morality goes against my core beliefs, so I have to tut tut them in this instance. This is a very dangerous game in the run up to an important election - they’re rocking the boat so hard that they’re starting to alienate independents, and that’s not a winning strategy.

 

[Hanafuda]

I’m a free market guy, these kinds of matters are filed in the “simples” drawer. I’m for complete legalisation of drugs because deciding what people can or can’t ingest isn’t within the federal government’s purview - by definition this includes contraceptive pills. I don’t even know how they would begin to codify physical barriers like condoms since they’re nothing more than a glorified latex/polyurethane balloon. Is “access” to such things a right? No. Should they be available on the market? Yes, absolutely - the market should be free. If there’s a demand for contraceptives, the market must provide them - that’s none of the government’s business.

There are two cited reasons for the decision to oppose the legislation - religious freedom and states’ rights to govern their own healthcare policy. I wholeheartedly disagree with the former, I can stand behind the latter. Religious freedom precludes *you* from doing things, not other people - nobody is forcing anybody to use contraception if they don’t want to. If using it goes against someone’s religious beliefs, they can choose to abstain. Freedom of religion necessarily entails freedom *from* religion, and I’m saying that as a catholic - I don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms, that’s their business. The latter is more agreeable - the people elect their own local government and if they support certain kinds of policies, they elect representatives that push them within the state. That obviously doesn’t make everyone happy, but those who disagree with such decisions can opt to vote accordingly in the next election *or* they can take advantage of their right to freedom of movement and move to a state that more closely aligns with their value system.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the GOP is cutting off its own nose to spite its face, it’s a bizarre visceral reaction to the Roe v. Wade repeal. They’re throwing everything they can at the wall hoping that the things they actually care about stick. Perhaps it’s some kind of harebrained scheme to divert attention from more relevant legislation that they might be sliding under the table. Either way, legislating morality goes against my core beliefs, so I have to tut tut them in this instance. This is a very dangerous game in the run up to an important election - they’re rocking the boat so hard that they’re starting to alienate independents, and that’s not a winning strategy.

I liked the first part of your post, but as for the last part ... you do understand this is the Democrats' bill to impose a "right" to access to contraceptives, right? The Republicans didn't make this vote happen. The Democrats did, regardless of whether the Congress has the authority to make such a law, and regardless of its likelihood of actually passing the Senate, because they wanted to have the "They voted against it!" moment. (to make discussions like this happen on the internet) Same with the assault weapons ban they're working on.

It's just politics. Republicans would do it too on some issue or other, if they had the numbers in the House.