“The Dubs The decision argues that the 14th Amendment guarantees that the “freedom” interest does not include all citizens’ right to life, liberty and property, the right to make private reproductive decisions, “says Cynthia Daniels, a political scientist at Rutgers University. An organization that evaluates information on embryo development conducted by different states.
And with the right to make private reproductive decisions no longer firmly protected, she suspects that, like abortion, access to contraception could soon be legally challenged, and in the worst case, face the same fate. At the same time, some anti-abortion politicians are working to classify certain types of contraceptives. Such as Abortionists (despite medical evidence against it), grouped in ways that could equally restrict their legal access.
Legal reasoning calls into question contraceptive access
This domino effect is not a baseless assumption: in the agreed opinion of Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, he explicitly urged the court to reconsider “all … with examples of concrete procedures.” Griswald, Lawrence, And Obergfell. ” Griswold v. Connecticut Protects the right of married couples to access contraception.
Although Thomas did not note it directly, the 1972 decision Eisenstadt v. Bard The same 14th Amendment interpretation was used to protect the right of unmarried persons to access contraception. “Both of these decisions [Griswold and Eisenstadt] It was based on the right to privacy and the freedom to choose one’s own reproduction, which has been called into question. Dubs The decision, ”says Daniel.
Underscoring Dubs Decision is the approach to interpreting a constitution called fundamentalism. “It seeks to find out what the framers were thinking when drafting the amendment to the constitution and the question – so, in this case, it puts us in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, or 1868, when the 14th amendment was approved.” Khiyara M. Bridges, JD, PhD, University of California, Berkeley, professor of law at the School of Law says. “And in both years, I can assure you that the framers weren’t thinking about reproductive rights. And they certainly weren’t thinking about the ability of people to use contraception. Therefore, it’s not just a right that the Constitution explicitly considers.”
Because both contraceptives were legally safe Griswald And Eisenstadt Fundamental is the establishment of due process, a term that refers to the court’s ability to protect rights not explicitly listed in the constitution. And now, from a radical point of view, Thomas is suggesting that we reconsider all decisions made from that perspective. Clearly, this could destroy the entire building of cases, Drs. Bridges says, like all of the above (mainly affecting LGBTQ + rights and contraceptive access) and cases from the 1920s. Mayor v. Nebraska And Pierce vs. Sisters SocietyWhich, of course, made the video an overnight sensation.
How the threat against contraceptive access is likely to pan out
If the court starts reversing other issues decided with the same logic, the crackdown on contraceptive privacy rights could certainly increase. CryThis is unlikely to happen unless state legislators pressurize the court – as it were Cry Judicial questions were raised only after some states proposed an abortion ban. “Right now, there are no uniform trigger laws for contraception, and criminalizing it is still an unpopular idea,” says Dr. Bridges.
“Currently, there are no uniform trigger laws for contraception [as there are for abortion]And criminalizing it is still an unpopular idea. “-Khiyara M. Bridge, JD, PhD
However, public opinion may change soon, and anti-abortion activists and legislators are likely to gain political momentum. CryThe opposite of pushing a contraceptive agenda. In fact, some anti-abortion rights politicians have previously claimed that certain types of emergency contraceptives (such as Plan B one-step pills) and IUDs actually constitute abortion and should be prohibited accordingly.
This argument stems from their belief that life begins with conception, or the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. Using this line of thought, it follows that any type of contraceptive that they suspect can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg – including Plan B, certain IUDs, and progestin-only birth control pills – can effectively end life (as they define). This).
But the belief that a newly fertilized egg is a person is not a medical consensus, says Dr. Bridges. In contrast, the medical community is aligned with the fact that pregnancy begins only when the fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the uterus (and not earlier). And, in particular, it differs from the question of when life begins at some point after a medical consent transplant.
It is also worth noting that the medical evidence does not support the claim that any of the contraceptives mentioned above generally prevent implants. Instead, according to reproductive endocrinologist and advisor to reproductive-health company Natalist Aimee Eyvazzadeh, MD, they can disable the uterus for sperm (copper IUDs) or prevent fertilization of eggs by sperm (progestin mill and Plan B). “Nevertheless, especially in trigger-restricted states and others seeking to criminalize abortion, we must also seek to criminalize these types of contraceptives,” says Dr. Bridges.
In some states, recent political action already points to that possibility. In Missouri, for example, lawmakers last year sought to ban Medicaid funds from covering Plan B and IUDs in legislation aimed at planned guardianship; Idaho representative Brent Crane announced earlier this year that he would hear a law banning emergency contraception. And just last month, the Louisiana House Committee passed a bill defining human personality from the point of fertilization, which could be used to outlaw both emergency contraception and certain IUDs. (Whereas before reversing these actions Ro v. WadeThey serve as compelling evidence of what we can expect.)
In particular, access to other types of contraceptives – such as combined estrogen-progestin contraceptive pills, Depo-Provera shots, patches, vaginal bells, and hormonal IUDs – is now at lower risk, primarily because these functions work by preventing ovulation, Drs. Ibhajadeh. And this makes it difficult to reconcile them with abortion in any way: by preventing the ovaries from laying eggs, these contraceptives eliminate the possibility of fertilizing the eggs in the first place, removing any of their gray areas. Interfering with something already alive.
What does this mean for the contraceptive methods available to you?
Although none of the above anti-contraceptive positions have been codified into law so far, the political movement in that direction not only threatens the access of all people; It also serves to widen the existing contraceptive gap. That is, any restrictions on access to contraceptives affect people of color and lower socioeconomic status – people who are already more likely to live in the contraceptive desert, or in areas without federally funded reproductive-health clinics.
Anti-contraceptive positions stand to widen the already existing contraceptive gap.
In the meantime, experts suggest moving on to your reproductive-health care, if possible, with an IUD (if you have long-term contraceptive needs) or your replacement, if its expiration date is near. And there have been reports of growing interest in the IUD following the leaked draft opinion Dubs In the case of May, it would be wise to consider your options as soon as possible.
This is also the case for buying Plan B now, if you have any doubt that you may need it in the future. (Already, Amazon and many drugstores are running low on stock, and, in some areas, sales are restricted to three units per person.) Alternatively, you may be able to get online birth control or Plan B from telehealth providers. Grace (formerly known as Pill Club), Nurx, and Hims & Hers.
Aside from potential shortcomings, “in general, this is most important for people in states where abortion is prohibited or stockpiling is prohibited. [on these contraceptives]Because those are the states that are likely to extend those restrictions to IUDs, emergency contraceptives, and possibly even hormonal contraceptives in the future, ”says Daniel.
Our editors select these products freely. Buying through our links can earn good + good commissions.