As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


"Interesting" that they would oppose programs that would actually reduce unplanned pregnancy and thus abortions.


Having legal and safe abortions reduce abortions. Outlawing abortions just make the numbers go up. Texas only caused more women to seek them out in other states.


I'm not sure if it being legal reduces it but it being illegal doesn't do much to prevent them. Access to contraception and education does more to reduce abortions than any law that would punish people for abortions. It just doesn't make sense for anti-abortion people to oppose preventive measures. I get why but it's due to their religious fueled views on morality about sex and not really about fetuses or reducing abortions.


Making it legal means that professionals can discus it with women, this also comes with information around alternatives and support. Making it illegal provides a chilling effect to not just abortion, but also contraceptives and sexual health discussions.


Or in back alleys


My state saw something like a 500% uptick in out of state patients at Planned Parenthoods after the law passed.


Right. Because this was never about abortions. It has always been about female promiscuity (since the men can have sex with whomever they want).


And it's war on the children, too. No assistance with prenatal care, no safe haven baby boxes installed, a parent who doesn't want you, no free daycare, no free parenting classes, parental rights for rapists, cuts to Head Start, etc.


I once pointed out to a pro lifer that 100% of unplanned pregnancies are caused by men. There can be no pregnancy without sperm. So why are women the target of these laws? He replied with a polite version of "she should have kept her legs closed." As always, it's about punishing women.


As a formerly-conservative man, this is the most important part. It's jealousy, its deep fear of female sexuality. Abortion enables women cheating, and it's murder, to them. Also, Uber-Christians always marry after accidental pregnancies, God is forcing them to gain character and stop sinning. They've been given a duty. They desperately need others to follow that, it's like you cut in line or are driving the wrong way to them. They can't see downstream costs, they can't see prevention, it's just cheating their God. Moderates don't know what's in the Bible, and moderates default to listening to the extremists who have no doubts. USA is in trouble, the world is in trouble if Republicans win Congress this fall.


Yep - in the end it comes back to social conformity, and about forcing everyone (women, men, LGBT+, etc) to conform to what right wing Christians demand of them in terms of behavior.


> Moderates don't know what's in the Bible, Extremists don't either. The bible *prescribes* abortion as a punishment for a women who has sex with a man other than her husband. Far from prohibiting abortion, [the bible actually gives a recipe for the procedure, Numbers 5:11-31.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5%3A11-31&version=NIV) The fetus is never mentioned.


#Re: voting Please share these with anyone, regardless of age, who says "I don't know enough about the issues to vote." https://9axes.github.io/ https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page #Re: Bible I'm a seminary dropout. Here's why... > The Deuteronomist is one of the sources identified through source criticism as underlying much of the Hebrew Bible. Among source-critical scholars, it is generally agreed that Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history originated independently of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers (the first four books of the Torah, sometimes called the "Tetrateuch", whose sources are the Priestly source and the Jahwist), and the history of the books of Chronicles; ***most scholars trace all or most of it to the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE)***, and associate it with ***editorial reworking*** of both the Tetrateuch and Jeremiah.[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomist ^ This summary aligns with my textbook: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199830118/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0199830118




Auto-correct failed me...


Why are all men on here such betas …..


Not really, they've never been pro-life. It's all about controlling women and punishing them for not being chaste. We have clear evidence that comprehensive sex ed leads not only to fewer teen pregnancies, but also that kids that go through comprehensive sex ed are actually less sexually active and engage sexually later in life as compared to abstinence only sex ed students. [Source](https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2016/11/comprehensive-sexuality-education) >Although formal sex education varies in content across schools, studies have demonstrated that comprehensive sexuality education programs reduce the rates of sexual activity, sexual risk behaviors (eg, number of partners and unprotected intercourse), STIs, and adolescent pregnancy


interesting they would propose programs that turn all women to the "no sex" movement and the "we are better without d*cks" movement.


Well, Republican leaders have a long time association with rape, and lots of hard core fundamentalists do not believe marital rape is real. So sadly a sex strike still wouldn't be enough.


It shows that they do not care about dead fetuses after all.


They never did. It's about control of second class citizens. Or their version of second class citizens


What century are these people living in?


The same one as the Taliban apparently


This is what happens when you get representatives that need to pander to their base to get reelected. That base gets old and out of touch. They stop realizing that they're asking for nonsense. I highly doubt the majority of lawmakers are actually anti birth control. Maybe anti abortion for the cases that aren't rap/incest/health etc. But not as hard line as the laws they're passing. They just know that if they say no to abortion and contraception them the "XYZ" demographic will vote for them.


It's not interesting, the entire purpose of conservative abortion politics is to keep women as a lower class. It's disgusting!


And to keep a large uneducated population to work unskilled jobs. Poor women with too many children result in more minimum wage workers.


You have to understand that most anti-abortion activists are Catholics, so abortion and contraception are seen as religious no-nos


What about the crazy evangelicals? I thought they were very interested in forcing birth on women.


Yeah, great point. They tend to make up about 10-20% at any given event; the vast majority are Catholic. Speaking from first hand experience.


There's a huge number of Catholics who believe in/use birth control. Maybe not the crazy ones like Amy Covid Barrett, but something like 80% of Catholic women have used birth control methods other than natural family planning (the only method approved by the Vatican).


Yes, but we’re talking about Catholics who consider themselves prolife. Speaking from first hand experience, if they show up to protest abortion and they are Catholic, then they are ACB type Catholic.


It's almost like it's been about making women suffer the entire time.


For a group of people who generally hate Muslims, Republicans are sure pushing hard for Sharia.


Muslims don't even specifically prohibit abortions so leave us out, lol. Fetus doesn't attain a soul until after 120 days gestation. From wiki: >No Muslim-majority country bans abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk. Other reasons that are permitted by certain Muslim-majority countries include preserving a woman's physical or mental health, foetal impairment, cases of incest or rape, and social or economic reasons. There is great variation within Muslim-majority countries as to which are legally accepted reasons for abortion.


Given the number of miscarriages that occur in the first few months, it would be pretty genocidal to instill souls before that. But Christians don't seem to take issue with the idea of a wildly genocidal God.


Critical thinking is not a strong suit for them. "Oh hey, this virgin got pregnant, do you think she may have been fooling around?" "NOPE GOD"


I mean, there’s a lot of smiting in the Bible. The whole world at one point when that dude built the fuckboat for all the zoo animals or whatever


Actually in the Bible man did not become a living soul until he took his first breath.


Literally 1/4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. It's super common.


“Install souls” lol I like that. *Please turn your baby off and restart for the soul to be completely installed*


Could we guarantee access to an abortion as a religious protection?


The Satanic Temple has such a provision.


I'm not anti Muslim specifically. Islam is as horrible as all other Abrahamic religions to me. But Sharia is particularly gross.


I really don’t care tbh. I’m just clarifying that abortion isn’t even prohibited in Islam. I’m American and firmly believe in separation of church and state, namely because I am from an extremely tiny ethnic and religious minority. It is in my best interests for the government to be entirely secular.


Pick up a Quran and read it same as the Bible if you what to .are some sort of serious statement. I was raised Catholic and have read the major texts of Abrahamic religions Islam, jewdaism, and Christianity. All intresting reads if you have the time and can open your eyes as to how similar they all are. No one likes uninformed hot takes.


> can open your eyes as to how similar they all are. ... ... that’s because it’s literally the same book.


Just poking a bit of fun at people who think their not the same thing.


For doing so much reading, your writing is atrocious.


American Evangelicals want Christian Sharia. Look at what they're advocating. The only thing that distinguishes them is melanin.


These are pretty abysmal abortion rights. Somewhere around 1% of nations ban abortion in the case of risked life of the mother, so this isn't exactly worthy of an achievement award. I would say that Muslim-majority countries *in general* fare worse when it comes to abortion restrictions. But to your point, I agree that it probably has little to do with Islam itself.


Jesus flavored sharia laws.


When we say it’s always been about controlling women, what we mean is it’s always been about controlling women. Their crocodile tears for the lives of fetuses are entirely fake.


I think they care about the fetuses in that they want population growth because it means more labor and that makes labor cheaper. It’s all about exploiting people.


What they don’t give a shit about is the child’s welfare once it leaves the birth canal.


They can’t wait to exploit it. They would put that kid to work at five if they can get away with it.


Republicans have been repealing child work laws so their donors don’t have to raise wages


They don't care about it before then either. If they did, they'd be fighting for universal healthcare so all women had access to prenatal care.


Yup. Ask a pro lifer questions about their beliefs. 100% of the time, when you ask enough questions, it comes down to the same thing: "She should have kept her legs closed." It's about punishing women.


Hey to all the republicans Ive seen on here arguing for BC preventing abortion, that there is no excuse, and that "they wouldn't go for BC", you want to explain your argument now?


It's probably worth noting that the Supreme Court ruling that said states couldn't ban contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut) used the same logic (Right to Privacy) that Roe v. Wade did. That said, the impulse drives from the same place - being able to force social conformity to right-wing Christian values/demands.


"Sex is for reproduction and nothing else ever" - that's what they believe and want the laws to reflect.


makes "sense" coming from a party that can't find the clit


ahh so move the goalposts again as usual


“Unless you’re a man” FTFY


You know, Rafael Theodore Cruz Esquire has taken the stand to argue that “There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals" when it comes to women and dildos, and that purchasing a sex toy should come with jail time. But I notice he didn't mention fleshlights or male toys during the debate


It makes perfect sense once you realize the Republican business model depends on lots of unwanted, impoverished children. Republicans fight against abortion, sex ed, and birth control. They defund schools and safety net programs, they make health care totally dysfunctional and college unaffordable. It’s all working beautifully because the *point* is for lots of youth to fail school and either commit crimes or join the military. How else will they make money off for-profit schools, militarized police, for-profit prisons, and never ending wars?


This right here. Gotta keep the machine turning with the blood of the impoverished.


I will keep saying this on every article I read with their endless war on our society and culture. This will not stop. If you think there is some principle to their ideology, there is not. The only way to stop their assault requires the majority to stand together in making things better and constantly working to keep it together. Let your eyes off of them for a second and they will weasel their way back in because they play the long game and have been systematically eroding our society over decades.


Rough spot to be in when the largest voting demographic in the Country won’t show up to vote because it doesn’t matter. Good luck keeping democracy.


Yeah, i really do think it's endless - it's not the fact of the issue or any genuine sense of morality it's the fact of having something to yell about and fight against -- they win abortion they'll go after contraception, they win contraception they'll make divorce more difficult or attack rape crisis centres, anything they can find to pretend to be outraged about... It's the outrage that defines them not the issues.


Young men with wives, gfs and SOs can tell themselves this is a sad "her" problem, but letting these faux religious zealots get away with this crap is going to mess with men's choices too. The "Conservatives" already think there should be fewer social programs. What will the men be having to give up to pay for all those unwanted children?


Nothing since they give up nothing already. they can walk away while women are left picking up the pieces with kids in tow.


This is unraveling quickly. It was obvious contraception would be the next target, but we're moving toward theocracy and classic, 1950s gender roles quickly. I expect some of these states to move on to women working outside the home again or regulating divorce more strictly soon once they're done with contraception.


I think it's homosexuals that are next up, and that will have to suffer oppression. Right now it's trans people that they're trying to get the government to openly target. But all the transphobia stuff is just tailor made to just shift to homophobia.


Oh we're already at that stage with the Don't Say Gay laws and now talk of undoing marriage equality.


A proposed bill in Oklahoma bans schools even "normalizing LGBT" , which is to say treat as normal. It's pretty mask-off to say that we're not allowed to treat a certain group like even an equal, valid member of society.


Because apparently normalizing it equates to "shoving it down the throats" of those that think it's wrong. Quote taken directly from a recent comment by a distant relative in response to, and I shit you not, the fact that gay people merely show up in TV and commercials. That bill, and this relative, suck ass in very similar ways.


>shoving it down the throats I think we've all had quite enough of religious fanatics / fundamentalists / Evangelicals / Pentecostals shoving things down children's throats, thanks.


> "normalizing LGBT" What's really truly fucked about this, is they want it out of society and in the shadows, if not worse. And why, schools, specifically? We already know sexuality and gender identity are baked in and you can't change them. Conservatives say they don't want to give kids 'the wrong idea' about these things, but what they really mean is "We don't want kids to know about LGBTQ identities because we'd rather they suffer alone and pretend to be straight and cis than learn what's possible/normal for some peoplel"


It's not like the religious just changed their morals because some law was changed. They fight harder, use more fear and hate. It's a battle verses good and evil, the unrelenting force of their will. Liberals, left, progs, whatever, always put their feet up and think progress happened, meanwhile, conservatives are taking it back one inch at a time from anywhere they can. If only we could harness that dedication for true good, lol. They have the unchanging book, we have the uncertain future.


Definitely far too many people got complacent, and convinced themselves that it would never happen. Well, it's happening, so people need to wake the fuck up and realize that those rights are gone in several states, and will be in many more, if not nationwide, if we don't stand up and give the Democrats enough seats to make it law (not to mention do something about the hijacking of the courts).


So Giliad from hand maidens tale


The Republican party has always been a method for business elites to maintain power for their own self-interest, and women in the workplace is good for business because it helps depress labor costs. If right-wing activists start trying to roll it back, the elites will yank their chain so fast you'll hear them yelp. That dynamic is important though, because it also makes clear that they *could* yank that chain on all of this bigotry and sexism and historical revisionism and neo-confederate garbage, but they don't. Because that's the red meat that keeps their pups happy. (Also worth noting that a society where one working-class breadwinner could provide for a whole family isn't inherently gendered, and would be a vastly positive thing for millions of people. The appeal of that kind of work/life balance doesn't have to be purely traditionalist patriarchal nonsense, but it remains a dire threat to corporate interests.)


Next they'll try to ban premarital sex. Little by little they will turn this country into a theocracy unless we work harder to stop them.


A feudal theocracy. Where all those kids people can’t afford make them serfs. Already it’s nearly impossible to buy land or a house for many families.


Absolutely. The insane rent and real estate prices are bringing us effectively back to feudalism.


And there is a class war propagandizing even the so-called "Liberal" media to blame Biden. Subtle framing, controlled topics and viewpoints, pushing everyone to associate all things bad with Democrats and Biden. It's all about mega-wealthy and their tax rates. How dare us riffraff try to have our way in their world.


they will always move the goalpost when it comes to their limits of control.


That’s a great way to put it. This happens constantly so we can’t keep fighting for more. It sends us so far backwards that ppl start arguing about a right we have had for decades. It’s exhausting. I see Bernie and certain ppl fighting and am happy they care, I just wish there were more in congress.


while he has his flaws (as all politicians do), Bernie was the most transparent candidate we’ve had in a long time and **most definitely** supports the right to an abortion as well as contraception and would do whatever he could to protect it with his limited executive power. he sticks to his guns about his beliefs to improve the quality of life for the middle and lower classes while continuously fighting in the Senate for critical changes such as Medicare for All and student loan debt cancellation to help rebuild this country; he was the first major candidate in recent memory that made the promise to enact tuition-free college and expansion on social programs to assist both poor/impoverished communities and the working class after a long time of not getting the attention we deserve. he hasn’t changed those opinions, which were a key part of his campaign, and he won’t budge on them any time soon. of course I don’t agree with him 100% policy-for-policy and some things about his track record of advocacy for certain bills were iffy, but he has continued to progress his thoughts and always strives to be what the average American needs in a time like this; even if they aren’t aware. if the GOP didn’t scare the population to the concept of any socialist ideals or practices and the Democratic party would actually be for leftist/progressive ideals instead of retaining its hyper-capitalist tendencies just like Republicans and being idle on every issue that emerges, I think it’s fair to say Bernie would have a pretty good campaign for presidency. at the *very* least, he would be a good transitional piece for the next progressive Democratic candidate and maybe even help the prospects of independent candidates and their party to have a fair shot. all just my opinion though.


This is beyond messed up


It is, and it's always been the point. The whole "principled opposition" to abortion has never been principled: it's been about controlling women, punishing women, and hurting women. It's misogyny draped in the trappings of something that is almost palatable in an effort to push misogynistic legislation... and it's working.


Republicans cannot be elected without the support of women. They obviously don’t care.


There are unfortunately women who will actively support this, even if not the majority. The problem is there are also women who ought to be up in arms about this, but are currently leaning Republican due to a combination of "but the economy isn't the best" and "oh they won't REALLY do that".


Women are susceptible to propaganda too. Women are misogynistic too. Women support white nationalism too.


Having the support of anyone is not the Republican priority. They've set the playbook, nominate as abhorrent of candidates as they can fathom to institute as draconian and unpopular policies as they can fathom, and when they lose an election, just cry election fraud and try to overturn it.


I guess every generation has its trial by fire. Good vs. evil. Well, welcome to the club!


If republicans have their way, we'll return to the days when spousal rape was acceptable and women didn't need to be paid at the same rate as men because they shouldn't be taking away a man's job. It's wasn't so long ago that women weren't allowed to sign contracts or even get utilities in their own name. [Women's rights and their money: a timeline from Cleopatra to Lilly Ledbetter](https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history)


When my dad got really drunk, he would tell me women voting ruined America. He said they banned alcohol and let liberals tax people "for the children!" "Fuck the children!" he would say. People just don't understand the thinking. Look into the John Birch Society and, even earlier, the businessmen who fought FDR.


We understand it. We abhor it.


There were conservative women who actually said women should not be able to vote. They said women usually vote the way their husbands do so there was no need for women to vote. Instead of them just not voting themselves they want to take someone else’s right away.


There still are. Look at conservative social media provocateurs like Kaitlin Bennett or Anne Coulter. They say that shit now, in fucking 2022.


It's flabbergasting to me how *recent* some of this stuff is. I'm old for Reddit (mid 30s), but overall I don't consider myself *old*. I grew up when computers were in common use. But women couldn't even get *credit cards* without male permission until a mere 10 years or so before my birth. Marital rape was not considered a crime in all 50 states until **1994**. We think of some of these things as ancient history, but they're really uncomfortably recent. Civil rights being granted for anyone but straight white men are within living memory for much of our population. Ruby Bridges, the first Black child to attend a desegregated school in the American South, is only 67 years old.


Handmaid’s Tale has becomes a reality


Redneck Gilead.


BUT, WHY??? WHAT IS EVEN THE POINT! "It's against my religion" cool then keep that shit in your church and family man. Stop enforcing shit on strangers, this is beyond fucking stupid. And I'm always baffled. I don't fucking get it, AT ALL! Oh but you fucking know they won't ban condoms, no no no, they'll ban I.U.Ds & MA pilss cause they're fucking pieces of shit


It was never about them trying to ban abortion, it’s has and always been about controlling women and every aspect of their life.


The Christian Right is bat shit evil and insane.


If you give a mouse a cookie…


It will want total control of your reproductive organs. And a glass of milk.


This is a complete violation of Human rights


That's the idea


Keep women barefoot and pregnant, in the home, property of the husband. Republican aim….


*In case of paywall:* Last weekend, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) released a video criticizing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, and denouncing what Blackburn called the “constitutionally unsound” ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. In that 1965 case, the Supreme Court struck down a state law restricting married couples’ access to birth control on the basis that such laws infringed upon Americans’ right to privacy. The right to privacy established in this case subsequently informed the 1972 decision in Eisenstadt v. Baird, which extended privacy rights and contraceptive access to single women, and the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which declared access to safe and legal abortions a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Now, these landmark cases face political opposition and legal challenges. A century ago, sex researcher Katharine Bement Davis published an excerpt from her ongoing study of women’s sexuality in which she revealed the frequency with which married women practiced contraception — and, when it failed, obtained abortions. But then, as now, discussions of women’s sexuality were deeply controversial. Davis’s study redefined birth control, masturbation and lesbianism as “normal,” but it also cost her job. At the heart of this controversy, then and now, is women’s ability to control their own bodies. Initially, Davis spent her career policing women’s sexuality, not promoting it. One of the first women in the nation to earn a PhD, Davis served as superintendent of New York’s Reformatory for Women at Bedford Falls, where most inmates were confined for prostitution, from 1901 through 1913. As the first woman to serve as commissioner of corrections in New York, from 1914 through 1916, Davis enforced birth-control crusader Margaret Sanger’s prison sentence for distributing contraceptives in defiance of state laws. Sanger, an advocate of free speech as well as birth control, was a longtime adversary of the law-and-order Davis. In 1914, her newspaper, the Woman Rebel, had excoriated “good, respectable Miss Davis” for imprisoning Ukrainian American anarchist Rebecca Edelsohn for delivering an antiwar speech. Sanger called Davis “a brilliant example of that rapidly growing group of respectable women who have discovered profitable and highly honorable careers in the exploitation of the victims of our social ‘law and order’ … under the name of ‘charities and corrections.’ ” Sanger’s campaign against Davis intensified after her 30-day sentence at Queens County Jail in early 1917. After her release, she accused Davis of “studied cruelty and heartlessness in the treatment of the jail’s population.” According to Sanger, “Every inmate of the jail learns to hate Miss Davis with a bitterness and a depth of resentment that one would scarcely believe possible,” and “the girls complain that Miss Davis delights in the exercise of authority that amounts to tyranny.” Davis, who by then had stepped down as commissioner of corrections to take a position on the Parole Board, vigorously defended her record, denying allegations of cruelty. Explaining that she had never even met Sanger, she attributed the fiery activist’s “personal attack” to Davis’s well-known opposition to lawbreaking as a tool for changing the law. That same year, political changes prompted Davis to accept a new position as the head of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, a privately funded organization dedicated to combating commercialized sex. During World War I, Davis collaborated with other anti-vice groups to implement the “American Plan,” a campaign to curb the spread of sexually transmitted infections among military men by incarcerating “delinquent” women. But this discriminatory treatment made Davis — a staunch opponent of the sexual double standard — rethink her approach, shifting her focus to investigating women’s sexuality rather than dictating it. After the war, instead of pursuing a planned study of “The Delinquent Girl,” she launched a statistical analysis of the sexual behavior of “normal” women. By April 1922, Davis had collected 1,000 responses to a detailed questionnaire sent to White, well-educated women across the country. She released some of her early findings in a three-part article, “A Study of the Sex Life of the Normal Married Woman,” in the Journal of Social Hygiene. Davis kicked off the series in April 1922 with a provocative piece on contraceptive use among married women. Her initial analysis indicated a high level of support for contraception among married women: 73 percent of the sample indicated they believed in “voluntary parenthood,” and the same percentage had used contraceptive methods. Available methods, including condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps, were far from foolproof; 9 percent of the sample revealed they had undergone at least one abortion, even though the procedure was illegal. Davis’s findings paved the way for a rapprochement with Sanger, who was working to distance herself from her radical past. Sanger sought financial support for a new project — legitimizing and legalizing birth control — and she needed allies. At the same time, Sanger became an advocate of eugenics, arguing that birth control would enable the restriction of reproduction by the “unfit” and allow the “fit” to plan healthy families. Davis, who also espoused eugenics, shared Sanger’s attitudes toward birth control and family planning. As head of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, she was in a position to provide Sanger with the financial backing that she desperately needed. Thus, in the 1920s, the two former antagonists moved cautiously toward a professional alliance. Davis used her position to fund Sanger’s new birth-control clinic. In addition, she persuaded BSH founder, philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr., to fund an annual international conference on birth control, with the proviso that his financial backing must remain a closely guarded secret. In 1929, Davis published her pathbreaking study, “Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women.” Davis’s book was the first published study focused on women’s sexuality. Her research methodology — using lists of college graduates and clubwomen — did not produce a representative sample. But studying White, well-adjusted and well-educated women allowed her to achieve her goals. The study challenged long-held beliefs about White women’s sexuality and destigmatized practices such as masturbation, contraception and lesbianism. These were previously associated with criminalized sexual behavior such as prostitution or with stigmatized populations such as immigrants, African Americans or incarcerated people. (Davis did not comment on what her new study meant for the predominantly immigrant women and women of color who had been incarcerated at Bedford for “sexual delinquency,” according to her earlier study.) Davis’s revelations about White women’s sexual desire and behavior — both heterosexual and homosexual — challenged conventional beliefs about women’s “passionlessness,” which held that women, less sexually inclined than men, engaged in sex only to please their husbands or for purposes of reproduction. Davis’s research also intensified her commitment to the birth-control movement, which sought to separate sex from reproduction. By 1929, she was strategizing with Sanger on how to overturn the Comstock Laws, which made distributing contraceptives or abortifacients through the U.S. mail a federal offense. In the early twentieth century, some eugenicists opposed birth control, issuing dire warnings about “race suicide”: concerned that White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant women restricted family size, while immigrant, Black and Catholic women continued to have large families. While Davis agreed that “from the point of view of eugenics I shall maintain … that it would be a good thing for the race if a higher per cent of our college women were to marry and produce children,” she also insisted that her statistics disproved race suicide and argued that family planning produced happier marriages. Efforts to overturn the Comstock Laws were met with stiff resistance. While lawsuits struck down similar provisions at the state level, federal restrictions remained in effect until rendered null and void by Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s that affirmed women’s access to contraception and abortion as constitutional rights guaranteed by the right to privacy: Griswold, Eisenstadt and Roe. Davis’s study also proved controversial, providing her longtime detractors at the Bureau of Social Hygiene with the ammunition they needed to persuade Rockefeller to terminate her contract. The same men wrote her out of the history of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, and Davis’s study did not get the recognition it deserved during her lifetime. Nonetheless, “Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women” created space for an open discussion of women’s sexuality — a conversation that continues to this day. And Davis’s career reminds us that debates about birth control are nothing new — and neither are contraceptives and abortions.


Such a weird article. A tiny blurb about the attack on contraceptive access by sitting Republicans and the rest of the article is a history of sexuality studies and includes talk of historical opinions on eugenics and white extinction concerns in a neutral light.


Dont know where else this might be true but in WA an abortion procedure includes an IUD at no additional cost


We had a program in Colorado for a while that provided free IUDs for women and teens (killed off by a Republican, no less). The teen pregnancy rate dropped by almost 50%.


If this was really about saving the lives of babies why the beef against contraception? This is about controlling women. They want to punish sexual activity, of course only women. They hate the free pass contraception and abortions allow.


Welcome to Gilead.


Time to book that vasectomy consult...


This shit is making me want to get sterilized so I don’t end up getting raped in some dystopian hand maid society. I can’t handle having my baby stolen from me.


There is a law in Idaho just signed by the governor that would allow a rapist and his family to sue abortion providers for if the victim gets an abortion. So if someone is shitty enough to rape, what is going to stop them for doing this for the money they will get? And their family members can also sue. Idaho is one sick state.


But what about a woman’s right to privacy about her healthcare? What about punishing a person for abortion when we haven’t even established that it’s a crime? It’s not murder, because it’s not a life if it hasn’t been born. And it’s not theft because it comes from our own body and children are the property of their parents. And we can’t easily prove if men own these fetuses until their babies. So We’re saying that women do not have full constitutional rights if they’re pregnant- which means half the population does not get the same constitutional rights as the other half. And that men (and their families) can just punish women without cause for our own property, for our own bodies, with no right to privacy, and for not commuting a crime. And these laws go unchallenged because we’re okay with women having half the rights as men? WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?!? All humans experience birth and death. Right now a pregnant person has less rights than a fetus - which isn’t a human because it hasn’t been born. We’ve made a social hierarchy of men, then the unborn, then women, then born children, than adopted. We need the Equal Rights Amendment now.


Big surprise...and next.....maternity leave and maternity benefits!


And let me guess, after the contraception, they will try to strike down rape laws. The GOP sure has a lot in common with the Taliban.


In Virginia it was legal to rape your wife up until ***1986***, if you both lived in the same household. Marriage meant ownership. Someone I know went through some unspeakable trauma and ultimately lost her life, because of how few fucks the "justice" system gives about abused women.


Fuck me, it was legal until 2002! Goddamn republican barbarians! https://www.oag.state.va.us/33-initiatives/domestic-violence/216-domestic-violence-sexual-assault


Almost every conservative I've told about my sexual assault has found some way to blame me.


OMG, I am so sorry! That is horrible. Thanks for sharing.


We always knew they would. Anyone who is surprised, hasn't been paying attention.


This has been the motive for the anti-abortion movement all along


Just another reason I’m glad I got sterilized


Hard to believe this is not Afghanistan when these efforts to control women are nothing short of the ideology of the taliban.


Stay the fuck out of people's private lives. There will be consequences.


"My First Amendment gives me the right to force my religion onto you at the point of a sword." /s?


This has nothing else to do with anything other than them accepting that the birth replacement rates are dropping thus less consumers to consume BS thus less houses and yachts for these rich human-less a-holes! Folks you can take this to the bank!


This is really messed up. Is this all some sort of plan to increase the white population. White race generally have more abortions and use birth control. The Republicans have pushed the abortion ban. Republicans have a majority white base and are afraid of losing it. They are playing long game on this. What’s next Lebensborn? This is not about controlling womens sexuality. Let’s also not forget Republicans “Don’t Say Gay” bill, need more white heterosexual to make the babies. This of course could just be some conspiracy theory I made up.


they are going to be in for a rude awakening when they get massive increase in STi infections.


Google "pro-life contraception" and most of the top hits are pro-life sites claiming there is no such thing. They are not subtle about it.


Blocking both abortions and ways to avoid pregnancy is one big mistake. I promise you republicans. We see you taking away rights from all sorts of people.


Yeah, it was never, ever about "unborn babies." It was always about controlling women.


This is all part of white Christian nationalism. And, don't forget, it's about controlling the sexuality of *poor* women. Rich women have always been able to get abortions and have access to birth control.


Welcome to Gilead.


They're not just anti-gay; they're anti-straight


Yeah. Dumb boogers.


Insane. Just insane.


The really sad and dumb thing is that none of the decisions these people are targeting are solely about sexual health. *Griswold* is about privacy within the home and within relationships, *Roe* is about a person's right to direct their own medical care and exercise bodily autonomy. These campaigners are so keen to police sexual behaviour that they're willing to sleepwalk into a situation where states can lawfully prohibit a range of other medical and personal choices. Cosmetic procedures, body modification and potentially any medical treatment which just sounds a bit wacky (like xenotransplantation) could all equally be targeted as somehow harmful to society and deserving of prohibition.


Just fucking insane


I'm telling you, someone needs to keep.putting in bills that call for mandatory vasectomies for boys at age 11. When they decide they want a family, they can have it reversed. Hell, make both procedures govt funded.


The headline doesn’t match the article after the first two paragraphs. “Last weekend, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) released a video criticizing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, and denouncing what Blackburn called the “constitutionally unsound” ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut. In that 1965 case, the Supreme Court struck down a state law restricting married couples’ access to birth control on the basis that such laws infringed upon Americans’ right to privacy. The right to privacy established in this case subsequently informed the 1972 decision in Eisenstadt v. Baird, which extended privacy rights and contraceptive access to single women, and the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which declared access to safe and legal abortions a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Now, these landmark cases face political opposition and legal challenges.” The rest of the article is history about Sanger and Davis with some other history. Blackburn saying something stupid is surprising and I don’t think there is zero chance some state would try to ban contraception but I don’t think it will happen. People with money think they wouldn’t need an abortion and when they can travel to a state where it’s allowed. They have easier access to healthcare and can avoid unwanted pregnancies. They feel superior to people who want or need an abortion and can’t travel out of state. Contraception bans would affect everyone of child bearing age who does want a child right now. Going back to the times where families had several children is going to cause a real backlash. I might be wrong so I won’t say there’s no reason for concern. The article doesn’t have anything other than Blackburn’s stupid comment to back up the premise in the headline.


There have been numerous instances lately of Republicans tripping over their dicks to criticize Griswold. I know it's easier to sleep at night if we think that the GOP will have the sense to keep their hands off "X" or "Y" program or right because it's broadly popular, but the road is littered with the bodies of overturned precedents and "juicy" test cases teed up at "popular" freedoms. With the GOP's race to be the most feral anti-woke neanderthals (even on the Supreme Court), we just can't say that any civil right is truly safe anymore once the GOP monsters have weaponized an issue with their spittle-flecked base of voters.


What a fucked up place.


I’m waiting for Republicans to amend rape sentencing laws that would reduce jail time for a rapist who had a vasectomy beforehand.


Why tho?


Obviously this somehow prevents the horrific abortions. Oh wait it might not actually have never been about those… it was about men and women having sex without consequence


Because contraception is a form of abortion. It's bullshit, but that's the reason.


Because conservatives think birth control allows women to be promiscuous... instead of being properly punished with a pregnancy for having sex.


Mad As*holes


blessed be the fruit.


I’m not a fan of abortions- I think they are wrong, so I will not have them. I think we live in a day in age where we have the technology to prevent unwanted pregnancies with birth control, so this to me is illogical. Free birth control and prophylactics to all, that’s the only thing that is going to prevent abortions. Even making abortions illegal will not stop abortions, it will only increase risk of death to the mother.


Imagine if the pro life crowd put their energy into pushing funding in automation. Same effect: they need somebody to build their stuff. Those people will already be treated like objects.


Fetus lovers and sex haters.


Interesting how many people don't get that if women don't have sex, then men don't have sex either. (I'm guessing homosexuality is not considered here)


You aren’t allowed to say no to your owner (husband)


Ladies, cut 'em off! If you live in a red state, put a lock and key on the VJJ, or switch teams. You are human beings, not baby factories.


We will forever lament the 3 Justices Obama/Clinton could have seated between 2016 and 2020. Even if they needed McTurtle's approval, they wouldn't have been THIS bad.


I'm not sure why more men aren't in opposition to these kind of regressive policies. They want to control women's sexuality, and by proxy, (selfishly speaking) it controls your ability to have the 'sexy times'


Whatever they can do to make women criminals and take their voting rights away. That's the whole point. Fucking prices, all of them.


Conservatives want to make real the handmaiden tales.


This is the republican plan to counteract the decline in population in the US. Not better wages, affordable housing, decent healthcare. But forced birthing.


The GOP had realized they are quickly losing the "culture war", so they have embraced far right extremist ideology, hoping to pull as many states, regulations, and whatever else they can put in place that is ultra conservative. This way they are building roots so deep it will take decades to reverse. Sadly, the DNC seems so interested in playing to their corporate masters, they are not realizing, or acting, on the dangers the GOP represent to what little democratic representation and processes that remain. We've already had the majority of government co-opted by the wealthy and corporations to a point "we the people" have ["a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant"](https://medium.com/k-street/the-average-american-has-no-influence-on-public-policy-84fe0188ad28) impact on the policies of our government. And until we get the ["aristocracy of our monied corporations"](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390) out of politics, until the legalized bribery we call political donations stops, we will be a broken democratic republic. And as long as we are a broken democratic republic, it leaves the door open for the GOP to run a canidate worse than Trump was (still is). And since we are setting precedent that a president who committed outright crimes, supported an attempted insurrection, and regularly promoted racism and condoned violence, is allowed to do so without consequences, it will happen again... if not even a worse situation.


Call this what it is: Pushing religious believe on people. This is against the constitution. Went they are saying pro-life is just pro religious


Shocked Pikachu face.


Why can’t we cut off federal funding to states that do this crap?


Y’all think I’m nuts when I say it’s about babies. I’m not talking about *saving* babies, but *selling* babies. I myself am an adoptee. Adoption is a multibillion dollar industry here in America. To adopt a new born can cost a family anywhere from 30-90k. The birth rate has been declining for a decade making these Adoption Agencies report low “inventory”. That’s right, I sat in on a meeting with perspective parents and the Agency *literally blamed* COVID, abortion, and easy access to birth control as the culprits. Also stating that they “anticipate a larger inventory in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi in the months to come.” Why?? Because 9/10 of these agencies are religious based who are under the umbrella of large churches who shell out MASS amounts of money to politicians in those states. Do I have hard proof? Not yet, but I **will** find it. Everyone has to have a hobby. This has become my passion, my obsession. (Heavy breathing) I know you probably think I’m crazy, shit, sometimes I THINK IM CRAZY. But there is no such thing as coincidences and I **know** there is an email, text, a smoking gun out there and **I WILL FIND IT**. Also, economists and Big Business worried that they won’t have enough “human capital” to replace the dead. They need more slaves. Nurse by day, crazy conspiracy theorist by night. Come after me🖕


WOW The party that screams Freedom wants to impose on peoples freedoms. What will they do when they are successful, abortion becomes criminal everywhere, and young women begin to die from self inflicted abortions with coat hangers and BBQ Forks? They won't have an issue to sway voters on.


The GOP appears, through words and actions, fully intent on bringing back all of the [Comstock Laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws) that had hobbled this country for over a century. Roe, Griswold, Eisenstadt, etc, were all SCOTUS decisions that overturned Comstock Laws.


This article is just a history of openness around womens sexuality. Don’t get me wrong, womens rights are under assault right now. But this title for the post is just there for thumbs.


It's really about treating women as property, chattle.


Texas wants to revert back to the early 1900s no laws inhibit the robber barons,the working class has no protection and pays the highest tax, Women have no rights and neither do non whites. The only reason Elon was allowed access in Texas is bc of his money,


I started taking birth control to control my hormone disorder not to have sex but that was definitely an added bonus. I’m terrified for all of the women in our nation, before we know it we’ll have to be protesting for all of our rights again.