GOPers Who Voted Against Contraception Bill *Appalled* Anyone Would Think They Are Against Contraceptives!
APPALLED!
Senate Republicans who torpedoed a bill federally protecting the right to access birth control on Wednesday are very hurt and upset that anyone would dare think that they would oppose access to birth control. In fact, that is specifically why they had to vote against the bill, just in case anyone was wondering. Because voting against a bill federally protecting the right to birth control is the best way to show just how not in danger you think it is!
Or something like that.
A majority of the Senate voted in favor of the bill (51-49), but because it requires 60 votes to break a filibuster, which every bill automatically faces when Republicans are in the minority, it did not go through.
Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), chair of the Senate Pro-Life Caucus, issued a statement announcing that she was officially “bashing” the bill, on account of the fact that it was just a “show vote” meant to allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of opposing access to birth control.
Although she also made it clear that she opposes federally guaranteeing the right to birth control, because that would somehow violate people’s religious beliefs. You know, in case those religious beliefs included wanting to ban birth control.
This all makes a lot of sense if you look at it sideways and squint real hard.
“It’s ‘show-vote’ season in the Senate. This is another example of Democrats bringing forward deeply deceptive legislation to make political points and try to offer cover to vulnerable Democrats. The devil is in the details. This bill isn’t about access to contraception. It’s about pouring more taxpayer dollars to abortion purveyors like Planned Parenthood, while further trampling religious freedoms and parental rights. It would codify the Biden administration’s punitive polices to shut out faith-based providers and organizations that don’t adhere to a pro-abortion agenda,” said Hyde-Smith.
This is partly true, in that Planned Parenthood provides birth control and these “faith-based providers” do not. To be fair, if that is the bar, then it also discriminates against literally every other entity or organization that does not provide birth control.
Hyde-Smith, you may recall, also blocked a bill protecting access to in-vitro fertilization earlier this year, another thing many Republicans keep swearing they’re not against.
She and several others also signed onto another statement from Florida Senator Rick Scott, saying more or less the same thing!
“There is no threat to access to contraception, which is legal in every state and required by law to be offered at no cost by health insurers, and it's disgusting that Democrats are fearmongering on this important issue to score cheap political points. This bill infringes on the parental rights and religious liberties of some Americans and lets the federal government force religious institutions and schools, even public elementary schools, to offer contraception like condoms to little kids. It's just another way for Democrats to use activist attorneys and our courts to advance their radical agenda and that is why we oppose this.”
Let us take a moment to recall exactly who it is that wants to force 9-year-olds to give birth and who it is that keeps voting against bills banning child marriage, because it sure as hell ain’t us.
The fact is, there absolutely are a whole lot of conservatives out there talking about how much they want to ban birth control, so it’s hardly out of the realm of possibility. In fact, earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas ruled in favor of Alexander Deanda, a creepy father who wanted the right to deny his daughter’s ability to access birth control.
Additionally, in his Dobbs opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Clarence Thomas was quite clear that Griswold v. Connecticut — the Supreme Court decision that held that married couples have the right to access birth control without state interference — was on the chopping block.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
Now, I may just be a simple country lawyer (nota bene: I am not a simple country lawyer), but if they think this is just a show vote, why not “show” us all how not opposed to restricting birth control access they are and just vote for it?
PREVIOUSLY:
It's really quite simple: the GOP can't protect birth control rights, which aren't threatened, so protecting them would just scare women, who are confused.
And you can't see Major Major because he's in his office right now. Would you like an appointment for when he's out?
𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴.
Not allowing them to impose THEIR religious beliefs on others is repressing and persecuting them.