Blake Masters, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, says he will only confirm judges who would overturn a landmark 1965 case that barred states from outlawing contraception. Photo by Gage Skidmore | Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturns women’s constitutional right to abortion this summer, one Arizona Republican candidate for U.S. Senate thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception.
Blake Masters, a Tucson-based venture capitalist, boasts on his website that he will only vote to confirm federal judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.” Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1973 and 1992, respectively, both upheld a constitutional right to abortion access.
But the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 protected a married couple’s right to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions. The case centered on a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives, which the court determined violated a married couple’s constitutional right to privacy, establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices.
Masters’ stance puts him on the opposite side of the issue from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of GOP senators, which has advised candidates on talking points following the leak of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.
In a section instructing candidates on how to “forcefully refute Democrat lies” about Republicans’ positions on abortion and health care, the NRSC declares that “Republicans DO NOT want to take away contraception.”
Elsewhere in the talking points memo to GOP Senate candidates, the NRSC advises them to say, “I’m not in favor of putting women or doctors in jail. I would never take away anyone’s contraception or health care. That’s just the typical BS you get from politicians.”
Masters’ campaign could not immediately be reached for comment.
The Supreme Court in June will issue its ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case centered on a Mississippi abortion law that is a vehicle for the court to overturn Roe, as conservative justices appear poised to do in a draft opinion that was leaked.
In an election year that is supposed to favor Republicans across the country, Democrats and reproductive rights activists are concerned about what a Republican-controlled Senate chamber could mean, not just for abortion rights but a host of other issues.
In Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion, he mentioned other landmark cases that could potentially be overturned in the future, Including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.
President Donald Trump hasn’t yet endorsed an Arizona Senate candidate, but Masters is viewed as the favorite to receive his endorsement. His campaign is also being supported by his former boss and mentor, technology investor Peter Thiel, who is spending at least $10 million to bankroll a campaign to support Masters. Masters has already won the support of some extremist Republicans, most recently Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who spoke to a white nationalist conference earlier this year. Other media reports have noted his past praise for the Unabomber and Hermann Goering, one Hitler’s top military leaders and one of the most prominent members of the Nazi Party.
It’s unclear where the NRSC stands on all Republican candidates in Arizona, but Florida Sen. Rick Scott – who leads the group – was trying hard to convince term-limited Gov. Doug Ducey to jump into the race on several occasions, signaling possible disinterest in the field.
If the NRSC is serious that “Republicans will not take away contraception,” it might cause a slight hiccup in Masters’ candidacy should he win in the Aug. 2 primary.
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturns women’s constitutional right to abortion this summer, one Arizona Republican candidate for U.S. Senate thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception.
Blake Masters, a Tucson-based venture capitalist, boasts on his website that he will only vote to confirm federal judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.”
Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1973 and 1992, respectively, both upheld a constitutional right to abortion access. But the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 protected a married couple’s right to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions.
Better, I like an idea I read on JMG over 10 years ago now. Every straight male is snipped before puberty with a procedure that can be reversed. Only after the guy can show a medical review of his physical and mental abilities and only after he shows proof he can financially raise the child does he get to have the women sign off on a document that she agrees.
Put that is n an amendment for these bills and watch the screaming on the right.
BREAKING: In a brief re abortion, Supreme court Justices Amy Coney Barrett/Alito's Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt — that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term — giving children up for adoption.
Older kids are so much harder to lie to about their origins.
Feels like this has been largely overlooked, but Alito's draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion uses the phrase "domestic supply of infants." It's real, on page 34. DOMESTIC SUPPLY OF INFANTS. pic.twitter.com/VuQWTJ4NHd
Next up– they’ll use the increase in un-wanted children as a pragmatic argument that IVF is unnecessary and can be eliminated as a form of abortion, as well.
I like this video blogger. A vlogger is someone who uses an avatar instead of their face while they do their videos. The avatar is female, but the blogger is male, happily male. Cis Male. Also is happily polysexual, but that is beside the point. He uses a female avatar to make the point that it doesn’t matter to him, he doesn’t get upset over it. I preferred it when he used his own face and body to do his videos, but I understand his point.
His content covers a lot of subjects and I recommend you check out his other videos. He is a staunch supporter of LGBTQ+ rights despite having been raised a highly evangelical conservative Christian forced to attend church schools. He admits he believed the crap forced on him and treated the LGBTQ+ very badly as a teen and young adult. He even drove away a friend he had for years because the friend was gay. Even though Chris tried to apologize that friend never forgave his treatment by Chris and that is something Chris understands and regrets to this day. Suris / Chris claims it took getting away from his highly religious parents and that community living on his own in the real world that he had his eyes opened. When he tried to push the religious views he had been taught to be normal and the way things should be he found himself at odds with all the people he wanted to be friends with. Talking to them and listening to who they really were, he found he couldn’t reconcile that with what he had been taught. So he started to open his eyes and change his views. Unfortunately, as he says he can never make it up to those he hurt and bullied for his god because he was taught that was what his god wanted. At least he is honest and will admit the damage his highly religious upbringing did to him and the people he encountered.
At the very beginning there is some blog stuff he does with his followers, I usually ignore it as I am also doing other things. It is not very long but if it bothers you please fast forward to the real subject of the video, a Florida teacher got fired for answering a question by her students over her family / sexual partner relationships. Spoiler she was not graphic nor explicit, but she simply was not cis heterosexual one woman one man. How dare she let kids know that all people don’t follow that religious dictate! Watch the video to what life in the US under Republican rabid right religious wing is going to be like. Remember these are not little kids these are middle schoolers what was called JR high in my schooling years. This was not about teens drawing sexual pictures of their orientations but about the flags they drew representing their orientations. Colored flags are now so offensive that you can be fired in Florida if they do not represent the republican religious heterosexual normative one man / one woman only nature of sexual expression. I hate this so much! The right wing media really misrepresented this story.
“If you’re gonna get an abortion, you do have to get banged. So all of the blue-haired pro-choice protesters don’t need to worry much about abortions. I’m sorry, I just had to say that.
“It’s easy to give something up when you don’t have it. It’s easy to give up shopping when you’re broke, like we all are under Joe Biden.
“So for everyone saying they’re going on a sex strike, were you getting any to begin with, ma’am? Cuz it doesn’t look like it.
“It looks like you’ve been in the drive-thru. Not in the drive up to his house category, more in the ‘I’ll take a ten-piece fried chicken.’
“That’s where it looks like you’ve been.” – Christian Walker, son of Georgia US Senate candidate Hershel Walker.
Christian Walker has over 250,000 followers on Twitter and nearly 500,000 on Instagram.
GA Senate candidate Herschel Walker’s son says pro-choice women don’t have to worry about whether abortion is legal or not because they probably aren’t having sex. pic.twitter.com/aRlghmzO6X
— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) May 6, 2022
All of the pro-choice women saying they’re going on a “sex-strike” look like they need to go on a strike from Burger King.
In order to get an abortion, you have to get banged. Most of the people throwing a tantrum tonight over SCOTUS have blue hair and don’t need to worry much about abortions.
There’s something about a man who has plucked his eyebrows along a French curve and who wears eyeliner and foundation and blush and bronzer and lip gloss and who has shaved his hairline who then mocks women not consumed by their appearance.
US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito listens as US President George W. Bush speaks at the the Federalist Society’s 25th Anniversary Gala Dinner at Union Station in Washington, DC 15 November 2007. AFP PHOTO/SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)SAUL LOEB
By now, you’ve likely heard the news that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the national right to an abortion, an expected but nevertheless jolting, devastating blow to reproductive rights. We know TheHandmaid’s Tale is about to go from scripted narrative to retroactive documentary thanks to the leak of a draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which arch conservative justice Samuel Alito writes, in a hateful 98-page screed, that “Roe [v. Wade] was egregiously wrong from the start” and that it “is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” Which Alito obviously knows would lead to abortion care being severely restricted or fully outlawed in roughly half of the country and make it not only a felony to perform an abortion in some states, but a felony to obtain one.
As Slate’s Mark Joseph Sternnotes, the draft—which could change before a the final ruling, as could the various justices’ votes—doesn’t just lay out the case for why Roe should be overturned, it goes full scorched earth. Alito, Stern writes, “does not seek out any middle path. He disparages Roe and its successors as dishonest, illegitimate, and destructive to the court, the country, and the Constitution. He quotes a wide range of anti-abortion activists, scholars, and judges who view abortion as immoral and barbaric; there’s even a footnote that approvingly cites Justice Clarence Thomas’s debunked theory that abortion is a tool of eugenics against Black Americans.” The opinion is an appalling, heinous attack on people who have relied on Roe for nearly half a century, and the most sickening part is that the conservative justice clearly doesn’t give a shit that obliterating the landmark ruling will ruin countless lives. In fact, one might argue, that’s all part of the plan. And if you needed further proof that Alito is pure evil and wants to take the U.S. back to a time when women’s bodies were property for men to control, know that one of the people he cited in his opinion was an English jurist who defended marital rape and had women executed for “witchcraft.”
Yes, Alito literally quoted this guy, who was born in 1609, as a defense for ending Roe v. Wade in 2022. “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale,” Alito enthusiastically writes, “described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision.’ See M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown.” As Jezebel notes, The History of the Pleas of the Crown “is a text that defended and laid the foundation for the marital rape exemption across the world” and reads: “For the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.” Again, Alito used the arguments of this man to bolster his case.
Taking away the rights of pregnant people is quite clearly just the first step for Alito, though. Per Stern:
[Alito] disavows the entire line of jurisprudence upon which Roe rests: the existence of “unenumerated rights” that safeguard individual autonomy from state invasion. Alito asserts that any such right must be “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history and tradition, and access to abortion has no such roots.
The obvious problem with this analysis is that the Supreme Court has identified plenty of “unenumerated rights” that lack deep roots in American history. Most recently, the court [recognized] the right of same-sex couples to be intimate (2003’s Lawrence v. Texas) and get married (2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges). Alito dismissed both decisions in harsh terms, mocking their “appeals to a broader right to autonomy” as a slippery slope. The “high level of generality” in their reasoning, he wrote, could “license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.”
And that’s another reason why the Roe preview is so disturbing. On Monday, former Justice Department official Elliot Williams tweeted: “You don’t need to read too far between the lines of Alito’s draft to see a rationale for overturning or weakening Griswold (the right to contraception) Obergefell (same-sex marriage) Loving (interracial marriage) Lawrence (consensual sex acts).” Incidentally, it was less than a month ago that GOP senator Mike Braun said that states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage (before claiming he misunderstood the question that led to him saying such a thing multiple times).
Requiring civil rights to be “deeply rooted in history” is a great way to say “if you didn’t always have civil rights, then you should never have them.”
Please take 2 minutes out of your day and watch @PeteButtigieg perfectly articulate why Republicans behave the way that they do, and how it harms people more than it could ever help.
Scottie's Playtime 