Michigan GOP AG candidates criticize case that nixed law banning use of birth control

[Somerville]

Should a state have the right to ban -- not just abortions but also contraceptives?

Michigan GOP AG candidates criticize case that nixed law banning use of birth control​

A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ensured people have the right to use condoms or other contraceptives and have a broader right to privacy was wrongly decided or infringed on state's rights, all three Republicans running to be Michigan's next attorney general said.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, seized on the comments, highlighting the key role abortion and personal rights will play in the campaign this year.

Tom Leonard, former state House speaker, state Rep. Ryan Berman and Matthew DePerno, an attorney who has garnered attention after peddling election conspiracies, were asked during a debate Friday in Alpena about the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. All three attacked the ruling, arguing the Supreme Court should not infringe on a state's authority to pass its own laws.

In the 7-2 ruling, the high court overturned an 1879 Connecticut law that made it illegal to use any drug or other item to prevent pregnancy, or to distribute information about contraception. Activists in the state sought to challenge the law by establishing a birth control clinic, and were subsequently arrested for distributing information about contraception.


In addition to protecting the right to use a diaphragm or something similar, the ruling established a broader right to privacy.

Nessel, a Democrat, had a few words to say on the matter:

"The party of 'limited government' wants direct involvement in everything you do in the bedroom. The Handmaids Tale is no longer dystopian fiction,"

Just to add to the 'fun', two of the candidates running for the top legal office in the state didn't have a clue about the landmark case, Griswold v. Connecticut.

State Rep. Ryan Berman checked his phone when the question was posed

”Yeah, you know what, I wasn’t familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut, but I’m an advanced legal researcher so I pulled it up real quick to look what it’s about.”

Tom Leonard, former Speaker of the state House, asked for an explanation of the Griswold decision because he couldn't recall ever hearing of it.

What law school did these clowns attend?

 

[Cardinal]

Gosh, it’s…it’s almost as if denying a woman the right to make decisions for her own body was always the point.

 

[Hamish Howl]

It's a good thing that this isn't all about subjugating women or anything.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Should a state have the right to ban -- not just abortions but also contraceptives?



Nessel, a Democrat, had a few words to say on the matter:


Just to add to the 'fun', two of the candidates running for the top legal office in the state didn't have a clue about the landmark case, Griswold v. Connecticut.

State Rep. Ryan Berman checked his phone when the question was posed


Tom Leonard, former Speaker of the state House, asked for an explanation of the Griswold decision because he couldn't recall ever hearing of it.

What law school did these clowns attend?

I mean Griswold was a bad decision that violated the constitution and has partially destroyed the value of marriage as an institution. It should be overturned and the comstock laws re-applied

 

[Parrish]

I mean Griswold was a bad decision that violated the constitution and has partially destroyed the value of marriage as an institution. It should be overturned and the comstock laws re-applied

SMH

 

[Deuce]

I mean Griswold was a bad decision that violated the constitution and has partially destroyed the value of marriage as an institution. It should be overturned and the comstock laws re-applied

"We have to control womens' bodies and medical decisions to protect marriage!"

Imagine just admitting you believe this.

Conservatives will talk about free speech when they get kicked off Twitter for breaking the rules, but they'll pretend to believe it is constitutional to ban doctors from giving medical information to a patient. The reality, of course, is that conservatives never believed in freedom for all. Freedom just means their freedom to control you.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

"We have to control womens' bodies and medical decisions to protect marriage!"

Imagine just admitting you believe this.

Conservatives will talk about free speech when they get kicked off Twitter for breaking the rules, but they'll pretend to believe it is constitutional to ban doctors from giving medical information to a patient. The reality, of course, is that conservatives never believed in freedom for all. Freedom just means their freedom to control you.

The comstock laws were not about “controlling women’s bodies”

 

[Hamish Howl]

I mean Griswold was a bad decision that violated the constitution and has partially destroyed the value of marriage as an institution. It should be overturned and the comstock laws re-applied

hahahahaha

 

[Parrish]

The comstock laws were not about “controlling women’s bodies”

Have you ever seen, yet alone controlled a woman's body?

 

[Deuce]

The comstock laws were not about “controlling women’s bodies”

In the 7-2 ruling, the high court overturned an 1879 Connecticut law that made it illegal to use any drug or other item to prevent pregnancy, or to distribute information about contraception.

Lie more.

 

[AmNat]

Should a state have the right to ban -- not just abortions but also contraceptives?



Nessel, a Democrat, had a few words to say on the matter:


Just to add to the 'fun', two of the candidates running for the top legal office in the state didn't have a clue about the landmark case, Griswold v. Connecticut.

State Rep. Ryan Berman checked his phone when the question was posed


Tom Leonard, former Speaker of the state House, asked for an explanation of the Griswold decision because he couldn't recall ever hearing of it.

What law school did these clowns attend?

Good for them.

"We have to control womens' bodies and medical decisions to protect marriage!"

The account that posted this supports vaccine mandates.

 

[Deuce]

Good for them.

The account that posted this supports vaccine mandates.

Have you seen me argue that vaccine mandates protect marriage?

 

[notquiteright]

Should a state have the right to ban -- not just abortions but also contraceptives?



Nessel, a Democrat, had a few words to say on the matter:


Just to add to the 'fun', two of the candidates running for the top legal office in the state didn't have a clue about the landmark case, Griswold v. Connecticut.

State Rep. Ryan Berman checked his phone when the question was posed


Tom Leonard, former Speaker of the state House, asked for an explanation of the Griswold decision because he couldn't recall ever hearing of it.

What law school did these clowns attend?

Limited government in regard to men. Women are a whole nother matter... ✌️

 

[HIP56948]

 

[HenryChinaski]

I mean Griswold was a bad decision that violated the constitution and has partially destroyed the value of marriage as an institution. It should be overturned and the comstock laws re-applied

Says the guy that thinks a husband should be able to rape his wife whenever he wants. And it's not really rape.

 

[tres borrachos]

I read things like this and wonder what in the Hell the Republicans are thinking on any given day.

 

[HonestJoe]

Should a state have the right to ban -- not just abortions but also contraceptives?

I suspect you could make a valid legal argument that states should have the right to but you can also make a valid moral argument that they shouldn't. I think it's a pity that there wasn't a follow-up question to the candidates that, if the decision should be a state one, what decision do they believe their state should make on that question.