Senator Ernst Spikes Democrats Birth Control Bill

It’s so horrible, right? It’s sent most of the Credentialed Media outlets into a tizzy

GOP Sen. Joni Ernst Blocks Bill Protecting Right To Birth Control

Democratic legislation that would protect the right to birth control and other contraceptives was blocked by Senate Republicans on Wednesday, a little more than a month after the Supreme Court reversed nearly 50 years of precedent and overturned abortion rights.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) objected to a request to pass the bill via unanimous consent. If any senator opposes such a request on the Senate floor, it is rejected.

Ernst claimed the Democrats’ bill “purposefully goes far beyond the scope of contraception” and said it could fund abortion providers and protect abortion-inducing drugs.

The House passed the Right to Contraception Act last week amid fears that the high court may come for reproductive health care next. Democrats pointed to an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting the court should reexamine precedent that guaranteed the right to contraception.

Well, see, it rather does attempt to make an end around States Rights regarding abortion

(Catholic News Agency) In a letter to Congress ahead of the vote, SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser cautioned against the bill that seeks “to bail out the abortion industry, trample conscience rights, and require uninhibited access to dangerous chemical abortion drugs.”

“The bill states that contraceptives include drugs, devices, or biological products intended for contraception, ‘whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs,’” Dannenfelser wrote. “This could include noncontroversial applications of the drug but could also include the use of the drug to induce abortion.”

The bill also overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 1993 law clarifies the standards that should be used in judging religious freedom disputes involving the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. That clause says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The bill directly criticizes state conscience protections for health care providers who refuse to provide contraception.

Worth reading that whole piece. See, Democrats could have simply gone for a straight-forward, above board legislation, but, not, they tried to get all sorts of tricky. Back to the original piece

Ernst on Wednesday sought to pass her own bill that would expedite over-the-counter access to birth control. Democrats objected, saying it wouldn’t prevent states from restricting or even banning access to birth control.

“Her bill would not ensure access to birth control, and it fails to codify the constitutional right to birth control across the United States,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said.

Democrats do not want easier access to birth control, because then groups like Planned Parenthood would lose money. And then more women would use it, which is bad for the abortion on demand business.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Senator Ernst Spikes Democrats Birth Control Bill”

  1. Elwood P Dowd says:

    Shouldn’t it be up to the state legislatures to decide if their people can access birth control or who they can marry?

  2. alanstorm says:

    “Her bill would not ensure access to birth control, and it fails to codify the constitutional right to birth control across the United States,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said.

    Ed, there IS no Constitutional right to birth control.

    You’re welcome.

    If you want to make an ACTUL argument for your side, please proceed.

  3. Elwood P Dowd says:

    The Supreme Court has ruled their IS a Constitutional right to contraception. The concern is that the current dysfunctional court will repeal that right.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Oh the concern!
      Bwaha! Lolgf

      • david7134 says:

        Can you imagine had intolerable Jeff would be without his morning birth control pill.

    • Dana says:

      Actually, what the Supreme Court ruled was that there is a constitutional right to privacy, and that since artificial contraception does not injure any other person, the state has no right to intrude on that right when it comes to contraception.

      The case was Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1964), which you may read at the link. In no place in the decision does it state that there is any right to use contraception; it states that the marital relationship is covered by the right to privacy.

      The Court noted that the then-current laws of the Nutmeg State covered only the rights of married couples to use contraception, and specifically noted that there was nothing in the law which prohibited the manufacture of or importation of contraceptive devices into the state; that was not at issue, and the Court left open the possibility that a state could do such.

      Though not mentioned in the decision of the Cout, Justice Arthur Goldberg, with whom Justice William Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren joined, noted that acting against adultery and fornication were legitimate state goals, but that the ant-contraceptive statutes were very much overbroad and not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

      The very functional and currently extremely wise Supreme Court could not “repeal (the) right” to use contraception because there is no state which has done or is trying to do so, and therefore no case at hand on which to rule.

      We fully recognize that the distinguished Mr Dowd is not an attorney, but he should at least make some efforts to get his statements right.

  4. Hairy says:

    Incells (who vote GOP) are THE most outspoken of any group about sex
    Supermad that others are having all that sex they don’t have

  5. Elwood P Dowd says:

    Republicans/conservatives always lie. When they say they have no intention of restricting contraception they intend to limit contraception. Keep in mind that Repcons don’t care about babies, fetuses or children but DO care about controlling the sexual behaviors of women.

    Remember how they lied to Cogress during the confirmation hearings of cavanagh, barette and some other guy.

    Cons always lie; cons always project.

    • Dana says:

      Non-abortifacient contraception does not kill a living human being, and therefore conservatives have no basis on which to oppose it.

      Look at it this way: while we want our wives to bear us as many strong, healthy sons as possible, we don’t want our mistresses or the occasional stripper getting knocked up.

      The lovely Amanda Marcotte has been beating the drum of we’ll take away your contraception for years, when she actually tried to document it in one of her books, the most up with which she could come was Quiverfull, a group whose adherents number in the thousands to perhaps low tens of thousands.

      Millions and millions of Americans are opposed to prenatal infanticide, but there is almost no support for banning contraception.

      In other words, quit your lying. You already knew what I just wrote, because I’ve said it before. You knew that what you commented was a lie, yet you said it anyway.

  6. Elwood P Dowd says:

    In your opinion, should emergency contraceptives and IUDs be permitted?

    • CarolAnn says:

      Contraceptives stop the sperm and egg from uniting they don’t kill humans. That’s what conta means, against, contrary and ception, a layering or nesting. There is no human life unless there is a fertilized egg.

      So what the hell is “emergency” contraception?

      IUD’s stop fertilization so why would they not be permitted?

      Whatever you push, you are advocating pre natal genocide. So admit it and move to the light side. Once the sperm and egg unite they have taken the first step in the development of a human. That’s a fact jack. Sperm by itself is not a human life, neither is a female egg by itself. But when they get together something beautiful and remarkable occurs and all you leftist want to kill it. It’s called human life.

  7. Elwood P Dowd says:

    And doesn’t the Catholic church oppose “artificial” contraception?

    • CarolAnn says:

      What do you care what the Catholic church opposes? Are you a Catholic? The churches concern is with people’s soul which is none of your business. And the Catholic church does not make our laws.

  8. Elwood P Dowd says:

    Rather than cursing darkness one can Google ’emergency’ contraception. In brief, it’s a pill (levonorgestrel) to be taken after unprotected intercourse or suspected contraceptive failure. It’s often referred to as the ‘morning after pill’ and is effective in preventing pregnancy up to 3 days (even 5 days) after intercourse. It’s available without prescription, even for girls under 16.

    Older studies support that IUDs block implantation.

    Should rape victims be allowed to get an abortion?

    There was beaucoup controversy over the 10 year old rape victim needing to travel out of Ohio to have her baby murdered. What say you?

    • CarolAnn says:

      If what you say is true (?) and levonorgestrel “prevents” pregnancy then it is a conceptive. If you are lying about what the pill actually does and rather than prevent anything it either kills the baby or causes a spontaneous abortion it is not a contraceptive, it is an abortion in a pill form.

      That “controversy” you mentioned was not a controversy at all. It was all contrived and you know it. The girl could have gotten an emergency abortion in Ohio had her physician requested it. You should be more concerned about illegals raping and impregnating 10 year olds than having a shit fit to kill the innocent baby.

      Should rape victims be allowed to get an abortion? Does the rape make the child any less human? You believe the child should be killed because of what the father did? Of what crime is the child guilty that should be punished by death? How many people alive today, the product of rape would rather be dead?

      Your complete lack of empathy and compassion for the child is revolting. The mother will carry that child for 9 months, give it up and go on with her life. The child would be dead. Why does that not register in your moral being?

  9. Elwod P. Dowd says:

    Commenter: That “controversy” you mentioned was not a controversy at all. It was all contrived and you know it. The girl could have gotten an emergency abortion in Ohio had her physician requested it. You should be more concerned about illegals raping and impregnating 10 year olds than having a shit fit to kill the innocent baby.

    That is not true. The Ohio law (post Roe v Wade)

    provides no exceptions for rape or incest. The only exceptions beyond this point are for medical emergencies “to prevent the patient’s death or ‘a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.’

    In addition:

    Before a procedure, patients must receive state-directed counseling, including information “designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.”

    “Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two trips to the facility.”

    Under these circumstances it therefore seems unlikely that, unless the pregnancy was thought to be life-threatening, that an exception would have been made.

    Most children who are raped are not raped by immigrants.

    So yes, you would have the state force a ten year old to carry a monster’s baby to term. Why don’t you have compassion for an actual existing human child? You will risk her life to save a ball of cells? Your complete lack of empathy and compassion for the child is revolting.

    The Ohio AG is a militant forced-birther.

    Hours after Roe v. Wade was overturned, AG Yost went to federal court to lift a stay on Ohio law banning abortions once fetal cardiac activity can be detected (around six weeks into pregnancy).

    If you think for one minute that he wouldn’t punish the child and any Ohio provider, you’re wackadoodle.

    We understand that militant forced-birthers want to cover the stench of your post-Roe efforts, but you need to own up to how your political ‘victory’ has real world consequences on actual humans. So yes, pre-teen girls will have to travel outside of their home state to get an abortion or be forced by their home state to carry to term. That may seem like a small price to pay to salve your conscience but it costs you nothing.

  10. david7134 says:

    You are exchanging comments with a dumb shit who has zero knowledge of the topic. I Apache assure you that no matter what laws might be passed, doctors would not allow a 10 year old to carry a pregnancy or deliver one. Arguing the subject, or even bring it up a s Jeff does, is absolutely rediculous.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Every year in the US, some 2000 babies are born to girls 14 years and younger. Probably thousands more pregnancies are terminated.

      Is Apache Porter saying that doctors would break Red State laws and terminate the pregnancy of a 10 year old girl? Or refuse to deliver the baby?

      • CarolAnn says:

        So now you want to target the 2000 that escaped? The “thousands more” dead babies don’t satisfy your blood lust?

        You have the character of a gnat and the morals of a communist. Life means nothing to you.

Pirate's Cove