The Faces Of Pro-Lifers

[Coyote]

';lkj

Birth control has only been legal in the U.S. for a little over 50 years. Everyone who couldn't use it prior to that time was "irresponsible" in your opinion?

1960s and after - Sexual revolution and 'The Pill'
See also: Sexual revolution and Sexual revolution in 1960s America
In the early 1950s, philanthropist Katharine McCormick had provided funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960.[31] The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture. It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[32] New forms of intrauterine devices were introduced in the 1960s, increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptives.[33]

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control.

Also in 1965, 26 states prohibited birth control for unmarried women.[34] In 1967 Boston University students petitioned Bill Baird to challenge Massachusetts's stringent "Crimes Against Chastity, Decency, Morality and Good Order" law.[35] On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control.[36] He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam.[36] Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail.[37] He spent three months in Boston's Charles Street Jail.[38] During his challenge to the Massachusetts law, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts stated that "there is nothing to be gained by court action of this kind. The only way to remove the limitations remaining in the law is through the legislative process."[39] Despite this opposition, Baird fought for five years until Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized birth control for all Americans on March 22, 1972. Eisenstadt v. Baird, a landmark right to privacy decision, became the foundation for such cases as Roe v. Wade and the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas.

In 1970, Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;[40] and in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.[41]

Birth control pills
Also in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted as part of the war on poverty, to make family planning and preventive health services available to low-income and the uninsured.[42] Without publicly funded family planning services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[43] According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, publicly funded family planning saves nearly $4 in Medicaid expenses for every $1 spent on services.[44]

In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed mifepristone, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed with a prostoglandin to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month of gestation.[45] To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts.[46]

In 1997, the FDA approved a prescription emergency contraception pill (known as the morning-after pill), which became available over the counter in 2006.[47] In 2010, ulipristal acetate, an emergency contraceptive which is more effective after a longer delay was approved for use up to five days after unprotected sexual intercourse.[48] Fifty to sixty percent of abortion patients became pregnant in circumstances in which emergency contraceptives could have been used.[49] These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, became another reproductive rights controversy.[50] Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it may interfere with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.[51]

In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[52]

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on 23 March 2010. As of 1 August 2011, female contraception was added to a list of preventive services covered by the ACA that would be provided without patient co-payment. The federal mandate applied to all new health insurance plans in all states from 1 August 2012.[53][54] Grandfathered plans did not have to comply unless they changed substantially.[55] To be grandfathered, a group plan must have existed or an individual plan must have been sold before President Obama signed the law; otherwise they were required to comply with the new law.[56] The Guttmacher Institute noted that even before the federal mandate was implemented, twenty-eight states had their own mandates that required health insurance to cover the prescription contraceptives, but the federal mandate innovated by forbidding insurance companies from charging part of the cost to the patient.[57]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[58][59] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[60] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote.[61] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[62]

Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Churches were already exempt.[63] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[64] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[65] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[66] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[67]

In 2017, the Trump administration issued a ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their religious beliefs or moral convictions.[68] However, later that same year federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of the Trump administration ruling.[69]
​

Nice false argument there. First of all, birth control has been around for longer than 50 fifty years. Next you take a timeline out of context to bolster your weak point. Of course it takes weak logic like that to sanction murdering life.

But only for married women....

That would be wrong. Care to try again?

ahh...you are talking birth control, not just the pill?

 

[saveliberty]

ahh...you are talking birth control, not just the pill?

1938 In a case involving Margaret Sanger, a judge lifted the federal ban on birth control, ending the Comstock era. Diaphragms, also known as womb veils, became a popular method of birth control.

1960 The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as contraception.

1965 The Supreme Court (in Griswold v. Connecticut) gave married couples the right to use birth control, ruling that it was protected in the Constitution as a right to privacy. However, millions of unmarried women in 26 states were still denied birth control.

A Brief History of Birth Control in the U.S. - Our Bodies Ourselves

Note that the Supreme Court ruled in 1965, which means women were using it prior. Supreme Court cases are not based in theory, but actual cases. Also 24 states allowed unmarried women to use the pill even in 1965.

 

[saveliberty]

I am going to stop here, because Montrovant and Coyote are my friends.

 

[Coyote]

I am going to stop here, because Montrovant and Coyote are my friends.

Darn...does that mean I can't post any of my funny kitty gifs and memes in retaliation?

 

[Montrovant]

Do you think a lot of adults, particularly young adults, are especially responsible?

Unwanted is certainly not a label a child should have. At least some of the time I would say that it ends up the pregnancy is unwanted, but the child is wanted once it is born.

You are going to trust them to make a decision on killing a human, now all of a sudden they aren't responsible?

They can also drink, own a gun, smoke, vote, drive, join the military, etc. None of that makes the average 18-25 year old especially responsible, particularly when it comes to sex.

That doesn't mean they aren't responsible for what they do, just that young adults are not, IMO, usually the most responsible of people.

There are many things I wouldn't trust someone to do, but that I accept their right to do.

I don't want to get into an argument about the pros or cons of abortion, as that is both a longer and more pointless discussion than the very limited idea of young adults as responsible people.

 

[Montrovant]

I am going to stop here, because Montrovant and Coyote are my friends.

I wasn't planning to argue the merits of abortion! I was just saying younger people are less responsible in general.

Side note: I originally gave your post a funny, but then thought it might be misinterpreted. Sometimes the ratings are just too limited; that's why I just use the 'thanks' one so often.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nice false argument there. First of all, birth control has been around for longer than 50 fifty years. Next you take a timeline out of context to bolster your weak point. Of course it takes weak logic like that to sanction murdering life.

Still disengenously and erroneously calling it murder huh? This is exactly what I was talking about. Do you not understand the definition of murder, merely disagree with it or have you come up with your own defintiion?

The most effective method of pregency prevention besides sterilization is the birth control pill or any administration of the hormone which tricks a woman's body into believing she's pregnant and supresses ovulation yet physicians could not legally prescribe the pills until the Griswold case in 1965. That is factual.

There are online resources that give the percentage of effectiveness and pros and cons of each of the other methods but the fact remains that not everyone had access to the best and most effective forms of birth control available at the time but that hardly makes them "irresponsible" for having "unprotected" sex. There are some people who believe you shouldn't have to use protection with your spouse or your partner in a committed relationship.

I don't usually disuss abortion because it's not a topic that either side will ever persaude the other of their position but calling it murder is simply ignorant and apparently willful ignorant in many cases. I have seen far too many individuals who seem to be of the opinion that women who have sex that they don't approve of, should be punished. And any of them refusing to bear a child that they may not be psychologically, emotionally, financially or for any other reason prepared for allegedly deserves the ultimate punishment as I've seen threads on U.S. Message Board asking how much jail time should a woman get for having an abortion. That is extremely ignorant and unlawful.

Forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want to bear is essentially reducing her to nothing more than an incubator for the satisfaction of some other human being. But circling back to my original comment, harassing women for exercising any of their legally protected rights puts the harasser on the wrong side of the issue and the law.

 

[saveliberty]

Nice false argument there. First of all, birth control has been around for longer than 50 fifty years. Next you take a timeline out of context to bolster your weak point. Of course it takes weak logic like that to sanction murdering life.

Still disengenously and erroneously calling it murder huh? This is exactly what I was talking about. Do you not understand the definition of murder, merely disagree with it or have you come up with your own defintiion?

The most effective method of pregency prevention besides sterilization is the birth control pill or any administration of the hormone which tricks a woman's body into believing she's pregnant and supresses ovulation yet physicians could not legally prescribe the pills until the Griswold case in 1965. That is factual.

There are online resources that give the percentage of effectiveness and pros and cons of each of the other methods but the fact remains that not everyone had access to the best and most effective forms of birth control available at the time but that hardly makes them "irresponsible" for having "unprotected" sex. There are some people who believe you shouldn't have to use protection with your spouse or your partner in a committed relationship.

I don't usually disuss abortion because it's not a topic that either side will ever persaude the other of their position but calling it murder is simply ignorant and apparently willful ignorant in many cases. I have seen far too many individuals who seem to be of the opinion that women who have sex that they don't approve of, should be punished. And any of them refusing to bear a child that they may not be psychologically, emotionally, financially or for any other reason prepared for allegedly deserves the ultimate punishment as I've seen threads on U.S. Message Board asking how much jail time should a woman get for having an abortion. That is extremely ignorant and unlawful.

Forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want to bear is essentially reducing her to nothing more than an incubator for the satisfaction of some other human being. But circling back to my original comment, harassing women for exercising any of their legally protected rights puts the harasser on the wrong side of the issue and the law.

What a crock of crap. 24 states allowed all adult women to use birth control pills prior to 1965. The case was specific to a state that disallowed it. Killing a life is murder.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What a crock of crap. 24 states allowed all adult women to use birth control pills prior to 1965. The case was specific to a state that disallowed it. Killing a life is murder.

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Abortion is a lawful medical procedure.

Would you mind providing a link to the 24 states you're referencing, I am not aware of them
Question 58

• 1936: The United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the “United State v One Package” made it possible for Doctors to distribute condoms across State lines. Up until that time the “Comstock Act” in 1873 had made all forms of contraception illegal and it was a Federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across State Lines. Soon after, 24 States enacted their own version of Comstock Laws to restrict contraceptive trade on the State level.
• 1957: The Pill becomes approved by the FDA for the control of menstrual disorders and many women obtained prescriptions for it on that basis. Research to develop the pill had been started by Gregory Pincus in the early 50’s supported by donations from Katharine Dexter McCormick and Margaret Sanger.
• 1960: The Pill is approved for Contraceptive use by the FDA. But, thirty six states still had the Comstock statutes on the books prohibiting or restricting the sale and advertisement of contraception. A new wave of Feminism was growing that seemed to be further sparked in 1963 by Betty Freidan’s book The Feminine Mystique.
• 1965: Based on the Right to Privacy found in the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the States Comstock Laws in the Griswold v Connecticut decision and the Pill as well as all contraception became easily accessible to married couples. Some states retained ineffective laws against distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. By 1965, 53% of Catholic wives aged 18 to 39 had used contraception of some form whereas that number had been 30% in 1955. - Catholics and contraception: An American History
• 1968: Groups of theologians publicly refused to accept Pope Paul VI’s teaching of the immorality of contraception in Humanae Vitae. These theologians laid claim to a person’s “Conscience” as being the supreme subjective norm of morality and thus justified use of the Pill; even though the Church teaches that “Conscience” as a moral compass has to be educated to the level of understanding Divine Law and Natural Law and could otherwise be erroneous (Bishop Bruskewitz). Also, in the interim period between 1960 and 1968, many Catholics had assumed the Church’s position on the Pill eventually would be favorable based on the opinions of prominent outspoken Catholics.
• 1972: In the Eisenstadt vs. Baird the U.S. Supreme Court extended its holding in the Griswold decision to unmarried couples, whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold only applied to marital relationships. The argument for Eisenstadt was built on the claim that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right.
• 1973: In the Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, using the framework of the personal right to privacy of the 1965 Griswold decision, the Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout all nine months of Pregnancy.
• 1992: In the Casey decision the Supreme Court reaffirms its support for abortion citing Stare Decisis (precedent of the Roe v Wade decision) and also citing the need to maintain the right to abortion, justified by the reliance of society on abortion as a backup to failed contraception.