Contraception
President Obama and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) followed the recommendations of a medical panel that strongly suggested requiring health insurance providers to fully cover birth control, including the “morning-after” pill. HHS included very limited and specific conscience protection for religious organizations, but still sticks taxpayers with the bill for drugs intended to kill embryos (babies). In a press release, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said, “Covering birth control without co-pays is one of the most important steps we can take to prevent unintended pregnancy and keep women and children healthy.” This quote demonstrates the way our culture often sees pregnancy as a preventable health condition (using medication, not abstinence) instead of a child being knit together in its mother’s womb. It is a sad reality that while a majority of Americans are pro-life, our government continues to devalue pre-born human life.
Archive Related Items

'...the other legal rights based on the theory may still be valid...'

6/26/22
from The Gray Area:
6/26/22:

According to the Washington Post, and much emotion & hyberbole within the legacy media, Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote on Friday that the high court should open up for review other precedents that may be deemed “demonstrably erroneous” ... including 'extreme positions' on contraception & same sex marriage. The subject lights more fire under the progressive left's political narratives about extreme Conservative positions and as such get a lot of media play. This is selective reporting regarding what he said. The fact is that, as is usually the case, the media is leaving out the 'rest of the story' concerning what he said. The rest of the story is she said in that opinion, Based on the reasoning in the Dobbs decision, the court should now revisit other cases based on the “substantive due process” theory, Thomas said. Notably, the justice wrote that the other legal rights based on the theory may still be valid, though the court must look for a different textual basis for them. Clearly he was focusing on the legal and Constitutional issues, not the questions of specific rights. It is those law & Constitutional errors he said 'need to be corrected', not the rights. Those specific rights could still work under a different, and presumably more accurate, Constitutional provision(s). Thus not setting up erroneous precedents for future Courts to have to 'erroneously' decide. It is certainly reasonable to expect that people with skin in the game of those 'specific rights' could feel uncomfortable about any 'review' of the cases on which they were based. But, blaming Justice Thomas for attacking those rights directly is just not true. It's more of the position the left takes on the Constitution, which is, the Constitution is an obstacle, so use it any way you want to get what we want politically. This and related stories make the issue conservative justice Thomas, not the law or the Constitution. Whenever you see a headline like this in the legacy media, know there is more to the story, and that 'more' will usually change the headline for accuracy.

More From The Washington Post:

More From Daily Wire:



365 Days Page
Archive Related Items
Comment ( 0 )