You are quite wrong on this, they supported the Comstock Act.
They also attacked Margaret Sanger when she tried to legalize it.
But that group has never cared about these issues. They’ve cared about expanding executive power over individuals, decreasing government power of all kinds over corporations, capturing regulatory industries of all kinds, and standing first in line for government contracts—crony capitalism at its finest. Now we see they’re also keen on lemon socialism. Not surprising. These other things like small government, freedom, and God have never meant anything. This is even tacitly acknowledged by calling them “wedge issues”. They’re not bedrock, they’re bullshit. They’re meant to split bedrock.
It’s just wherever the weather vane is pointing.
I think 2010 was one of those “perfect storm” election years I was describing–a terrible economy, a President (who wasn’t running) who was making some rookie mistakes vs. a generic and nameless opponent. My thesis rests on this year turning into a decisive victory for the Dems–which may happen, or may not. If this election is close, or a GOP win, then it casts a shadow over my thesis.
Ok, maybe I should have said not in the modern era. The issue was completely different 100 years ago. What is the most recent cite you have of the RCC calling for contraception to be illegal in the US?
You may want to go read the pope’s “Humanae Vitae Encyclical” from 1968
What to you consider the modern era?
It was not until 1965 via Griswold v. Connecticut that married couples were given the right to birth control on the federal level.
1972 Baird v. Eisenstadt gave non-married couples the right to birth control the church was quite vocal about that too.
I think this is just an area where you may want to do some more research, not as an insult but I think you are assuming all this happened a long time ago.
I say this in every thread about it, but it never sticks: The GOP is not fighting against birth control. The GOP simply does not support a part of Obama’s health care mandate which requires religious organizations to provide insurance which provides birth control free of copays to their insureds. And since they oppose ALL OTHER elements of Obama’s health care plan, this is not a surprise.
Nobody wants to ban contraception. All of the statements about overturning Griswold are statements about a privacy right not being found in the Constitution and Griswold lead to Roe. Have the Supreme Court overturn Griswold tomorrow. Not one state will lift a finger to outlaw contraception. Not one. The “issue” is a total red herring and does not belong in any responsible debate about politics or elections.
The Catholic Church does.
They want to restrict the distribution of information on how to use it and also limit any governmental funding that does so.
As a past swing voter I will say their fight against women’s health and their actions with planned parenthood means I will not vote vs vote for a Republican as I have done in the past.
I don’t think the Catholic Church in America has come out in favor of banning contraception. They are against it being provided, they are against it being funded in any way by them, they are against it being distributed in Africa, they are against it in every way shape or form but I don’t know that they have said “we want it made illegal to have contraception in the United States.” I’d be interested in a cite for that claim.
I don’t believe that this is true. Please either retract it or provide a cite.
They must walk a fine line lest the IRS get itchy. I don’t think they can explicitly start calling out for any particular political position—but I don’t know the details on this kind of thing.
Why would the need to issue a statement when their stance has never changed?
I think the OP is assuming that people * think * before they vote. You present convincing evidence to the contrary.
Bricker is justly proud of the Republican Party’s glowing achievements in statesmanship, foreign policy, and steering the ship of the economy to safe harbor.
Santorum’s former position on allowing the states to ban contraception predates the current kerfluffle. The extreme anti-abortion forces have been working strategies involving claims that birth control is dangerous to womens health. What is abstinence only education except an attempt to keep information about contraception out of schools? They know they have no hope of banning it now, but they would happily make it harder to get. It is not like other extreme positions haven’t become mainstream GOP positions in the past few years.
I think you are agreeing with me. It the not too distant past social conservatives were strongly opposed to contraception. There were a variety of laws designed to enforce this. SCOTUS eventually overturned the final ones and drove a nail in that front in the culture wars. Now the GOP no longer opposes contraception availability.
Hence, they lost that battle - years ago. Time will tell if they also lose the battle re: mandated coverage - I suspect they will.
This is exactly the pattern you will see repeated with respect to gay marriage, IMO. Some jurisdictions will approve it. Public sentiment will continue to sway. Eventually SCOTUS will decide that it must be allowed at the federal level (or, at a minimum, that states must recognize other states gay marriages). Finally, the GOP will abandon their opposition.
They are still fighting it every chance they get.
Oh, sure. They’ll continue to fight it on the margins. But on the larger issue, the fight is won. The fact that Santorum feels the need to backpedal furiously in a GOP primary is enough evidence of that.
When you’ve gone from arguing about condom use between consenting adults to providing Plan B at a secondary school without parental notification… well you can see how far the “center” has shifted in 40 years or so.
The attack on Planned Parenthood was also recent, and the vast majority of their services are reproductive health and family planning.
Just because they have to temper their words with the electorate is not an indication that their stance has changed.
If the flood of proposed legislation stops or even slows to a trickle I’ll concede they have changed, but at this point in time they will do so in any fashion and matter possible.
They could have just forced parental notification if that was their primary concern, it is the birth control that was their target.
No, they can advocate political positions. They cannot endorse candidates directly. At least they are not supposed to - sometimes they come awfully close, on both sides of the aisle.
Regards,
Shodan