Does Marsha Blackburn Want To Put Birth Control Users In Prison Now?

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sure doesn't want to let her.

Marsha Blackburn has a dream. Not just to be a United States senator, but to be a United States senator/gynecologist, and to have the right to make it illegal for people to obtain birth control, should the mood take her. Or to watch as others make it illegal for people to obtain birth control, in a land where abortion is also illegal, thus allowing her to watch as many are forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies.

But if Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson becomes a member of the Supreme Court, it becomes slightly less possible to see that dream play out. Because Blackburn is pretty sure Judge Jackson supports what she claims was the "wrongly decided" Griswold v. Connecticut decision that found that married couples had a right to obtain birth control as a result of a right to marital privacy, and that state governments had no business getting involved in people's business like that.

We are pretty sure Judge Jackson supports that as well, being as she's not an absolute psychopath.

In a video address this weekend, Senator Blackburn shared this and other concerns about Judge Jackson, as if we are meant to believe that there is any possible Biden Supreme Court nominee Blackburn would vote for.

Your browser does not support the video tag.  roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms 

"Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut , Kelo v. City of New London , and NFIB v. Sebelius confuse Tennesseans and leave Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances," Blackburn explained, without specifically saying what it was they were so terribly confused about. Kelo I get because that is about eminent domain, which is kind of confusing to a lot of people. But Griswold and NFIB are not that hard to comprehend. Griswold said the government can't put you in prison for getting an IUD, and NFIB found that the individual mandates required by the Affordable Care Act were constitutional. What's confusing about that?

Maybe they are confused because they think Griswold has something to do with the National Lampoon movies and are disappointed to find it is not?

 Griswold has been the law of the land since 1965, which would suggest that Blackburn believes every Supreme Court since then has been insufficiently "constitutional" for not overturning it. It has served as precedent for a number of other findings, including making birth control legal for unmarried people, legal abortion, the right of LGBTQ people to have sex, and the legalization of same-sex marriage. So one can see why she and other conservatives might be a tad miffed over it.

There was a time when conservatives would claim they had no problem with Griswold , and they just hated abortion in particular due to their great love of fetuses. But now that legal abortion is likely to end in several states in the near future, many have set their sights on getting to make birth control illegal as well.

Read More: Should States Be Allowed To Put Birth Control Users In Prison? Michigan AG Hopefuls Think So! 

Because it was never about the fetuses, it was always about controlling people and reversing the sexual revolution.

Sadly, even if Judge Jackson is confirmed, both Griswold and Roe will both remain in danger -- Roe in just a few months -- because we still won't have a majority on the court.

[ Marsha Blackburn ]

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!