 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
DaveSZ
When The Levee Breaks

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: ATX
|
|
|
Re: Contraception
I don't usually post on TA much anymore, but I thought this thread was too important not to comment on.
You American ladies (and us guys who benefit hehe ) should know that, in regards to the makeup of the next US Supreme Court, you may or may not be using the consistency of your own cervical mucous as your primary source of birth control, as this is the current Administration policy towards women in the third world (and in regards to future judicial nominees domestically).
This is the case law that allows you the right and freedom to go to your doctor and ask for birth control pills, depo, or the patch regardless if you are single or married - regardless of your age:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/.../02-102.ZO.html
| quote: |
There are broad statements of the substantive reach of liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
In Griswold the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of drugs or devices of contraception and counseling or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives. The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. Id., at 485.
After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. The case was decided under the Equal Protection Clause, id., at 454; but with respect to unmarried persons, the Court went on to state the fundamental proposition that the law impaired the exercise of their personal rights, ibid. It quoted from the statement of the Court of Appeals finding the law to be in conflict with fundamental human rights, and it followed with this statement of its own:
“It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship… . If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id., at 453.
In Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), the Court confronted a New York law forbidding sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to persons under 16 years of age. Although there was no single opinion for the Court, the law was invalidated. Both Eisenstadt and Carey, as well as the holding and rationale in Roe, confirmed that the reasoning of Griswold could not be confined to the protection of rights of married adults. This was the state of the law with respect to some of the most relevant cases when the Court considered Bowers v. Hardwick.
|
This case law is only upheld at this time by 5-4 or 6-3 votes on the US Supreme Court with up to 3 vacancies likely in the next 4 years.
This new court will rule for the next 25 or 30 years - the reproductive lifetimes of most women here - and it's conceivable that with enough fundamentalists added to the court, all or most of this case law could be reversed.
All I'm saying is, don't ever for one moment, take your liberty in such private matters as contraception for granted.
|
|
Aug-25-2004 02:57
|
|
|
 |
 |
spec
Suspended User

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Brisvegas
|
|
|
Re: Contraception
| quote: | Originally posted by Misty Kitty
Anyone on here, or anyone got a girlfriend who has got the hormone implant thingy?
I'm debating getting that, trying the injections, or just remaining on the ever 'forgotten to take' pill. |
Yes, the implants are an excellent idea.
It saves you from remembering to take your pill everyday, these can be easy to forget, and you don't have to worry about having periods, which is only a hassle if you need to get out of regular sex with your boyfriend.
All the girls I've known with them report no side effects, no weight gain and no irritation.
One added bonus is that you are still supposed to get PMS with the implant and since you don't know when your period really is you can pull this excuse whenever you want to get a little grumpy for no good reason. Its like "sorry I tried to just kill you with a kitchen knife and tole your mum she is a 2 dollar whore, it must be my period time, but I'm not really sure".
Works a treat.
___________________
TA all round nice guy.
|
|
Aug-25-2004 08:15
|
|
|
 |
 |
kr00t0n
Archduke of Awesome

Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Hibernating
|
|
|
Aug-25-2004 10:45
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:39.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|