As a Supreme Court Justice, would you reverse Roe v Wade?
Poll - Total Votes: 38
Yeah
Nah
I have no opinion on the matter
You can only vote on one answer.
26-30, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Antoniuspoe · 51-55, M
To all the people who believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I'd like to know your stance on birth control. It has been revealed that Judge Kavanaugh believes that birth control pills are "abortion inducing" drugs and has previously ruled in favor of companies that did not want the company's insurance to cover birth control. So my question is two-fold: do you believe that birth control pills are "abortion inducing" and do you agree with his ruling on favor of the companies?
LeopoldBloom · M
@Antoniuspoe Please, we all know that Kavanaugh is a conservative hack who was only nominated because the Federalist Society vetted him and submitted his name to Trump for consideration. The only reason Trump chose him over Amy Coney Barrett and that other guy whose name I forget is because Kavanaugh has opined that a sitting president cannot be deposed or subjected to a lawsuit, which means more to Trump than whether abortion is outlawed or not. The only reason Trump is "against abortion" is because that position plays well to Evangelicals and he needs their support.
This whole confirmation process is Kabuki theater, and the only value it has is raising the profile of potential Democratic candidates in 2020 like Booker and Harris.
This whole confirmation process is Kabuki theater, and the only value it has is raising the profile of potential Democratic candidates in 2020 like Booker and Harris.
TeresaRudolph71 · 51-55, F
Okay, @Antoniuspoe , I'll answer your questions.
Do I believe that birth control pills are "abortion inducing"? Some, but not all. Some pills prevent pregnancy by preventing fertilization from happening. Those pills are not abortifacients, because they prevent an embryo (a baby at the earliest stage of life) from being formed. But RU486 IS an abortifacient, because it does allow fertilization, but prevents implantation from taking place. So an embryo (a baby at the earliest stage of life) does form, but is not allowed to implant in the mother, and is then rejected, flushed out. I think the question is, does the birth control pill in question allow fertilization to take place, or not?
Now for the next question, should companies be allowed to choose not to cover birth control? While I understand that there would be a lot more abortions if birth control were not allowed, or not available (and I could talk about the reasons why that is the case), I don't think that companies should be required to cover it. I believe that this would fall under the umbrella of a health insurance package, which is meant to help employees stay healthy, or treat diseases or illnesses, or make sure that hospital stays are covered if employees are injured.
The trouble with including abortion or birth control in a health insurance package is that it treats pregnancy like a disease, and it also seems to treat birth control as an absolute necessity. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, and just as abortion is an elective surgery, birth control is something that is optional, not a necessity for maintaining good health. Some people seem to forget that abstinence is an option too. You can choose to have sex and use birth control if you so choose, but you can also choose to abstain from having sex outside of marriage, or at times when pregnancy could result, or just choose not to have sex until you're ready to have a baby.
Do I believe that birth control pills are "abortion inducing"? Some, but not all. Some pills prevent pregnancy by preventing fertilization from happening. Those pills are not abortifacients, because they prevent an embryo (a baby at the earliest stage of life) from being formed. But RU486 IS an abortifacient, because it does allow fertilization, but prevents implantation from taking place. So an embryo (a baby at the earliest stage of life) does form, but is not allowed to implant in the mother, and is then rejected, flushed out. I think the question is, does the birth control pill in question allow fertilization to take place, or not?
Now for the next question, should companies be allowed to choose not to cover birth control? While I understand that there would be a lot more abortions if birth control were not allowed, or not available (and I could talk about the reasons why that is the case), I don't think that companies should be required to cover it. I believe that this would fall under the umbrella of a health insurance package, which is meant to help employees stay healthy, or treat diseases or illnesses, or make sure that hospital stays are covered if employees are injured.
The trouble with including abortion or birth control in a health insurance package is that it treats pregnancy like a disease, and it also seems to treat birth control as an absolute necessity. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, and just as abortion is an elective surgery, birth control is something that is optional, not a necessity for maintaining good health. Some people seem to forget that abstinence is an option too. You can choose to have sex and use birth control if you so choose, but you can also choose to abstain from having sex outside of marriage, or at times when pregnancy could result, or just choose not to have sex until you're ready to have a baby.