[gonehome]

> “The basis of that argument works for throwing out civil rights, contraception and voting rights.”

I don’t think this is true? I’m in favor of women having the right to abortion, but my understanding of the anti-abortion steelman position is that it stems from defending individual rights of the unborn (basically fetal personhood). That doesn’t really apply to restricting any of these other rights - it’s a special case (if anything it should be an argument for increasing availability of contraception).

The real discussion should be about that bit imo, but both camps are often talking past each other without engaging on the core disagreement. For example, the bodily autonomy argument falls flat if you believe the unborn have individual rights that are being violated.

[dataangel]

The leak contains logic that deletes the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy completely. It can absolutely be generalized to saying contraception bans are constitutional.

[tiahura]

What about the bodily autonomy of the baby flushed down the toilet?

You’re avoiding the point of the parent. There is nothing crazy about saying something that has its own elbows, asshole, DNA, brainwaves, and beating heart is a person and deserves protection.

It’s quite a leap to get from that to banning condoms.

[hedora]

The leaked opinion specifically states that, despite nullifying the legal arguments that prevent bans on consensual sex acts, gay marriage, civil rights and privacy, this ruling is not rolling those rights back yet.