, including Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case that granted married couples the right to buy and use contraceptives. The majority opinion, however, said the decision should not call into question other precedents.In his opinion, Thomas expressed skepticism around the doctrine of substantive due process, which refers to the court's power to protect certain rights, even if they are not explicitly named in the Constitution. Contraception falls into that category.
So the court has plenty of leeway to interpret how the Constitution may have dealt with contraception access, she added. The more immediate question, however, is whether a case could be made that current bans on abortion also cover methods of contraception that prevent pregnancy after fertilization. "A legislature might proactively make clear that when they say abortion, they mean all devices that prevent implantation," Bridges said.Parmet she does not expect Griswold v. Connecticut to be challenged right away, nor does she expect widespread bans on birth control.
It could also pave the way for states to increase abortion. That's the whole point. The 'experts' are at it again...
“Experts”….
Fearmongering intensifies
The day after pill is not abortion
Abortion involves another life. That’s a fact!
Next, they will ban condones.
Replace your experts!
They won’t. The media in this nation is our biggest enemy.
Of course it will. It’s about control and nothing else
Oh good grief…
😡
Wrong!
No more sex. Get a dildo!
🤣 sure
We know how reliable experts have been lately, especially TWO experts. 😂😂
I think some protest too much
Democrats hate it when the people actually do get the power. Roe versus Wade is a victory for women everywhere. Now by the power of vote and majority we will let our voices be heard. We the women will decide what is humane and what isn't.
Utterly medieval
Yes. Clarence told us this today.
When you have criminals on the Supreme Court what can you expect?
I think republicans just caught the car…. I think they are going to regret that sooner than they thought possible.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I wonder if those 'two legal experts' have a certain bias 🤔
Ultimately, the government shouldn’t be involved in any of these decisions. Liberty to make choices should be battle number one.
Archaic.
Fake nees
More fear mongering, just what we need.
2. Wow. A whole 2.
Fascist dictators love power
No they won’t