No One Knows What Women Need Like Conservative White Men
Who says "barefoot and pregnant" is a bad thing??
What do all three Republicans vying to be Michigan's Attorney General have in common? Well, they are all men, for one thing. For another, it would be just fine by them if states wanted to prosecute married couples for using birth control.
During the Friday night Republican primary debate, Tom Leonard, Matthew Deperno and Ryan Berman were asked “How do each of you stand on Griswold v. Connecticut?”
Griswold v. Connecticut, as we should all know, was the Supreme Court decision that found that the United States Constitution protects the right of married couples to buy and use contraception, and that there was a right to "marital privacy." At the time, the state of Connecticut was one of two states that still had a Comstock Law on the books — the other was Massachusetts — prohibiting anyone from buying or using any form of contraception, including married couples in the privacy of their own bedroom. Violating this law could mean a fine or serving up to a year in prison.
That decision was what led to the rulings in Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, and a host of other abortion and birth control rulings over the years. It's also what led to Lawrence v. Texas, the case that invalidated sodomy laws. Basically any ruling about how the government can't get up in your sexual business stems from Griswold.
Suppose there’s still anyone naive enough to believe that Republicans aren’t out to legislate their way into your bedroom. In that case, the Republican Attorney General primary debate in Michigan should scare you straight.
If we learned nothing else, we learned that the rights of married couples to use birth control (“marital privacy”) is a “state’s rights issue” and that Griswold v. Connecticut was decided “incorrectly” by the Supreme Court. This means that if these three Republicans (and others) have their way, states could pass legislation allowing women to be jailed for possessing an IUD.
Lest you think I’m being hyperbolic, this is what each candidate had to say when questioned about where they stand on Griswold v. Connecticut:
Tom Leonard said: “This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because it was an issue that trampled states’ rights and it was an issue that should have been left up to the states.”
Ryan Berman said: “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. And it says the court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. Again, I would have to look more into it and the reasoning behind it, but I’m all about states’ rights and limiting federal judicial activism.
Matthew Deperno, who has Trump's endorsement, said: “Listen, all these cases that deal—Griswold, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs— these are all state right issues. I think that’s what we’re gonna see with the US Supreme Court. They’re gonna come down on the side that these liberty issues—number one, the wide expanse that was given on Roe v. Wade and this litany—are unworkable. The Supreme Court has to deal with that, has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a state right issue on all of these things—as it should be!”
The privacy issue is unworkable? Truthfully, the privacy “issue” works just fine, as it has for many years. The only “problem” lies with anti-sex Republicans who want to legislate their way into America’s bedrooms so that they may control how, how often, and for what purposes Americans have sex.
Some uptight Right-wingers might want to get all up in people’s business and occupy their bedrooms, but that doesn’t make the privacy issue “unworkable.”
Say, isn’t the GOP supposed to be the party of “small government?” Or do they mean just small enough to fit into a woman’s vagina?
The anti-abortion crowd has always framed their arguments in terms of doing “God’s work” for the “love of children.” However, the reality is far more dangerous- they want to take women back to the days of back-alley abortions and nearly impossible to obtain abortions. They want to use unwanted pregnancies to penalize women for having sex and to keep them out of the workplace.
“Barefoot and pregnant” isn’t a problem for the anti-abortion crowd; in fact, it’s aspirational. Conservatives want women at home, where they “belong.”
“Marital privacy” isn’t merely a “state’s rights” issue. It’s a human rights issue. If the Far-Right succeeds in overturning Roe v. Wade, it’s a virtual certainty that their next target will be Griswold v. Connecticut. Toppling both Roe and Griswold will allow them to legally define women as second-class citizens and the virtual property of men.
America will become Afghanistan minus the burqas.
Without easy or affordable access to birth control, women will once again have to gamble with the possibility of unwanted pregnancy and the impact it could have on their life. As has always been the case, men will skate away and avoid any possible consequences. Women will have to make difficult decisions that could change the course of their lives and alter their plans.
Republicans, of course, would be just fine with this state of affairs because they believe a woman’s uterus is and should be a matter of state concern. The “small government” party has no problem with the idea of getting all up in a woman’s business.
Because NO ONE knows their way around a woman’s “lady parts” like Conservative White males.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you enjoyed it, I hope you’ll take a few seconds and join the party via a paid subscription. While you’re at it, why not forward this to a few like-minded friends who might also enjoy it!! You can also donate via Venmo (@Jack-Cluth).