The House passed a bill today to codify the right to contraception. 195 Republicans voted against it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/house-contraception.html

The measure is almost certain to fail in the evenly divided Senate, where most Republicans are also likely to be opposed. The vote was the latest election-year move by Democrats to draw a sharp distinction with Republicans on a social issue that has broad support.

The measure passed 228 to 195, with eight Republicans joining Democrats in support. It would protect the right to purchase and use contraception without government restriction. The legislation drew only slightly more Republican support than two bills that the House passed last week, which aimed to ensure access to abortion in the post-Roe era; almost all Republicans were united in opposition.

It was a far different result than just days earlier, when Democrats forced a vote on legislation to enact federal protection for same-sex marriage rights and drew the support of 47 Republicans — far more than expected.

The flurry of legislative action is a direct response by the Democratic-led Congress to the Supreme Court’s ruling last month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the nearly 50-year-old right to abortion. The decision raised alarm that other longstanding rights could be at risk at the hands of the conservative court.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly said that other precedents, including those protecting same-sex marriage and the right to contraception, “should be reconsidered.”

The constitutional right to contraception has been protected for over five decades by the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Democrats on Thursday tried to paint Republicans as a party of extremists seeking to roll back firmly established rights and as out of step with the views of most voters.

“An extreme G.O.P., an extreme Supreme Court, they want to take away your freedom and your control over your own lives,” said Representative Angie Craig, Democrat of Minnesota. “We are in an absurd time.”

She said before the vote that “quite frankly, I’m appalled that we have to vote on this damn bill at all. This is not an extremist issue. This is an extremist G.O.P.”

Republicans, in turn, claimed that Democrats were intent on finding novel ways to increase access to abortion. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican of Washington, said she supported access to contraception but that she vehemently opposed the bill, which she described as a “Trojan Horse for more abortions.”

Ms. McMorris Rodgers said part of her concern was that the bill would send more taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services in addition to contraception.

“Rather than work with us, Democrats again are spreading fear and misinformation to score political points,” she said.

Democrats viewed the vote as a way to show voters that they were doing everything they could to safeguard rights that are broadly popular in the United States — and that Republicans were standing in the way. It came as progressives have harshly criticized Democrats after the demise of Roe for failing to do more to safeguard abortion rights and for being slow to respond when the Supreme Court struck them down in a widely expected ruling.

While the marriage equality bill garnered far more support among Republicans than anticipated, less than one quarter of G.O.P. representatives backed it. Still, the margin was enough to propel that measure from a messaging bill bound to die in the Senate to a legislative vehicle with a chance — albeit a slim one — of enactment.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said he was surprised by the amount of Republican support for that bill. He added that he would work to bring it to the floor and muster support from 10 Senate Republicans to ensure that it could move past a filibuster.

So, most republicans in the House are now openly against people's right's to access contraception. I feel like even republican voters here should be at a loss on the thought process of this one as it's pretty obviously something most people in the country support. Not to mention this bill is the essence of small government as it helps keep the government out of what people do in their own bedroom. So when you think it makes no sense to continue supporting democrats, just remember shit like this, republicans don't want you to have access to contraception.

FREEDOM!

Government gotta be pretty small when they want into the most private parts. :P

it small and tig.......... off to jail i go... but once one... the good one or bad one(moving to fl)

Now we play the waiting game to see how shitty the Senate will be.

I'm not sure what is wrong with the GOP anymore. They've definitely taken leave of their senses and how any rational person could support them is beyond my understanding. Very radicalized party.

Wait, you don't have access to contraceptives now? When did this happen?

Also, if this part is true...

The constitutional right to contraception has been protected for over five decades by the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Then what the **** are you talking about that turning down this bill means you suddenly don't have that right? You people sure love getting worked up over the smallest nothingburgers.

Oh, like the right to an abortion? Piss the hell off with this nonsense. If it's 'established' law via SC decision then it should a no brainer to solidify it in a quick vote, same with same sex marriage. But we all know the real answer is that the GOP wants to do away with it the same way they did Roe v Wade.

It would certainly satisfy the 'hurr durr, it's not enumerated!!!!', crowd.

You'd think the anti-abortion crowd would love the certify access to contraceptives since it prevents unwanted pregnancies. But we all know they aren't anti-abortion, they're pro birth and only want to control women's bodies.

GOP, the party for regressive mouth breathers.

Thank you! Any idiot can see where this is going, because the people in power are actively telling us what they want to do.

Why would they be against contraceptives? That is something that actually reduces abortion rates, in a safe manner.

This is SUPER low IQ.

Clarence Thomas said Griswold v. Connecticut should be revisited. F*ck anyone that says we should ignore these decisions since they are currently legal via prior rulings. Enshrine it in law. Anyone that doesn't vote to protect it is OK with it being overruled by a majority of Christo-facsict judges.

The House passed a similar bill supporting same sex marriage protections too.

If all of these Republicans say that legalized gay marriage is 'the law of the land' they should have no problem codifying it into official law via bills. It would be a wonder if we saw both of these pass and get codified under Biden.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-house-poised-pass-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-2022-07-19/https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-house-poised-pass-bill-protecting-marriage-equality-2022-07-19/

Republicans: "You should have made it law the real way. SCOTUS is right to undo it."

Also Republicans: "It's currently a constitutional right, you don't need to make this a law. This is just pandering and a nothing burger."

The fact it's the same poster is what makes it even more laughable.

The above is the argument that they keep repeating and its asinine. You did nothing to enshrine it before.....but don't do it now it's law via ruling!!!!!

They obviously know its bullsh*t though. All liars.

I mean -

Opposition Defiant Disorder

• Losing temper
• Arguing with adults
• Refusing to follow the rules
• Deliberately annoying people
• Blaming others for own mistakes
• Easily annoyed
• Angry and resentful
• Spiteful or even revengeful

Check, check, check, check, right?

Dude it's the evangelicals. I know that is getting towards conspiracy theory territory, but all those mega-churches, the 700 Clubs of the world, and so on...they're pooling resources and allying together. GOP is in late-stage at this point, and they know the end is near for them. They will join forces with anyone and anything to retain power.

Sex is for procreation, not recreation. Contraceptives go against god, practice abstinence. Yada yada yada. It's all stuff we've been hearing and laughing at for years.

Yes I know that's dramatic, but we are going to see a coalition of far-right nutjobs in the next ten years the Western world has not seen in many, many, many years and it is going to be the religious far-right at the helm.

These people literally think the devil is at work. And I mean the literal Devil. With a capital D. The film Devil's Advocate is a documentary to them.

Yuuuuuup.

It's fear mongering, and you're falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Nobody is coming after contraceptives, get over it. And there was probably a lot more in that bill than what you were told. There always is.

The Republican party is the most anti-American party this country has ever seen.

Fear mongering? We literally saw this same sh*t happen with Roe v Wade, which in the ruling opinion they called out all previous privacy decisions as targets. Clarence Thomas himself mentioned it BY NAME. But again, if you have no qualms about a right to contraceptives a 5 minutes vote should do you, or any politician, no harm.

No one buys your nonsense.

@HoolaHoopMan: A man with the power to overturn it mentioning overturning it explicitly by name means nothing. Neither does previously overturning the precedent upon which it is based.

You can't judge them by their words or actions.

It's a wonder why they get angry when we call them liars. There's no shame anymore. Just admit it, no one is buying it.

@HoolaHoopMan: Let's run through a hypothetical.

Let's say that a case on this comes before the court. We know the precedent upon which it's based has been overturned. What's the rationale for keeping it without that precedent? How does every right granted by that which has been overturned not crumble?

Contraceptives should be banned anyway. All one needs is "personal responsibility".

Haven't read the bill, but are they voting against the right to contraception or are they voting against that specific bill? Not sure what is in that bill, but sometimes parties put other less palatable things in a bill in an attempt to pass those items as well. However, if 195 republicans are opposed to people having access to contraception, that is indeed foolish and opposed to the individual freedoms this country so cherishes.

joking right?

Based on preliminary perusing through the media sphere, appears current angst is the overriding of the bipartisan RFRA. Some other grumblings about planned parenthood too.

Yeah he's making fun of idiot conservatives.

This too will be interesting to watch,

Post-Roe bill to codify same-sex marriage could pass Senate - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

ah.

It does crumble and everyone who understands cause and effect, contextualized with the conservatively stacked court, knows that it's at risk. For crying out load Thomas named it personally lol.

How much more clear cut can it be?

"There's no clear historical basis for contraceptive use in the US!!!!!!!! No where in the constitution does it say IUD!!!" - Alito probably.

So basically, as per usual, they added a bunch of pork into it they know would get turned down just so they go on TV and claimed the big meanie republicans are against some right to contraception? Yeah, that sounds pretty par for the course in an election year. I cannot imagine how the same group of people fall for this nonsense every time they do it though. You'd think after years of such things, people would learn, it's politics.

@eoten: It's pretty broad in all the language, so when "person" is used but doesn't detail ages... Or doesn't specifically state "adult person" -- another grumbling I read was whether children can fall under the umbrella without the notification of parents?

@Stevo_the_gamer: @eoten: What are your actual objections to it?

It is weird to me that people can be against abortion and against contraceptives. Even the women in the GOP don't want to keep their rights. MTG said it was an easy no vote when discussing contraceptives. She urged other Republicans to vote no out of protest. WTF is this body of government coming to when people are voting against a bill just to oppose the president or to own the libs. As an independent voter, it is making me sick. The GOP is turning more religious. Hell, Lauren Boebert wants to get rid of separation of church and state. I have a hard time supporting people like this. Just me though. I am not saying the left is a lot better, but they understand that contraceptives have more purposes than just stopping pregnancies. Sorry for the rant.

@mattbbpl: The grumblings in regards to the broadness negating the federal RFRA, and missing language to differentiate between minors/adults both have merit. I'm indifferent regardless however, literally none of this will matter to me as a "non birthing person" nor will it matter to me in California. lol

@Stevo_the_gamer: Yeah, explain them to me. I'm only seeing broad hand weavings, including in this thread. What pork was added, for example?

And the slippery slope of Republican dishonesty is at hand. 'If it doesn't say so in the Constiution it isn't a right'. Pick your side on the stupidity of this in context of the disgusting US political culture.

But it does amuse me the US has become completely dysfunctional.

Section: (23) Providers’ refusals to offer contraceptives and information related to contraception based on their own personal beliefs impede patients from obtaining their preferred method, with laws in 12 States as of the date of introduction of this Act specifically allowing health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception.

This is specifically calling out RFRA, specifically conscientious objectors.

Secondly, the bill states clearly "person" but doesn't specifically state adult person, or minor, therefore all are included.

What hand wavings are you seeing?

Yeah they love to be originalists or textualists, but only when it serves them politically:

Second Amendment - Origins and historical antecedents | Britannica

Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings in HellerandMcDonald, many constitutional historians disagreed with the court that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to “keep and bear Arms” for the purpose ofself-defense in the home. Indeed, for more than two centuries there had been a consensus among judges as well as scholars that the Second Amendment guaranteed only the right of individuals to defend their liberties by participating in a state militia.

🤣

@Stevo_the_gamer: Those are clauses establishing it as a right and ensuring access. If those are the objections, then, "Republicans vote against codifying the right to contraception," seems accurate, yes?

Sure, if that makes you happy. lol

Exactly why are we against contraception coverage to minors? Everyone is in near agreement that teenage pregnancy is a BAD thing. If anything it makes the 'pro-life' crowd look even dumber.

I think the argument was the lack of context towards the issuance of "abortion medication" to minors without the knowledge and/or consent of a parent or guardian.

Based on what Steve says the objections are, there is no pork in the bill.

What is abortion medication and why would a parent or guardian need to be informed for a minor buying contraception? The objections to this are still stemming from the same conservative religious nonsense we've heard time and time again. They're not even putting a new coat of paint on it. It's fairly obvious that the GOP doesn't support contraception. These little carve out provisions are an excuse at this point. We heard the same arguments that medical providers should have a religious exemption for abortions too and now Roe v Wade is gone. It's not about the exemptions or exceptions, they just don't want to enshrine it. It's almost an exact facsimile at this point.

Medication issued to terminate pregnancies or prevent pregnancies. Unless you think children should make their own decisions, without their parent/guardian knowledge or consent, regarding decisions related to medications and healthcare? Hmm.

I'm asking specifically, which drugs are in question here? Which bogeyman is scaring conservatives and why shouldn't it follow normal OTC guidelines with respect to age limits on drugs (which aren't all contraceptives)? If we're talking medical procedures or stuff that isn't OTC, I would expect normal limitations to be in place with respect to a professional administering, which again is business as usual. There are already carveouts in place for parents and their say regarding children which would apply to anything here as well.

No one is going to offer roadside IUD installation to 12 years here.

The two are mifepristone and misoprostol. Majority of states require written notification and/or actual consent from a parent for any abortions--but that's assuming this legislation wouldn't supercede those. Is getting consent an undue burden for a juvenile seeking their right to an abortion?