[coward123]

um... why do you think these conservative judges were named to the court? They know exactly what they are doing and have every intention of ending contraception, sending women's rights back to the dark ages, and screwing over anyone not straight, Christian, and white. That's the job they were nominated to do.

[tjs8rj]

You’re laying out the definition of a slippery slope argument.

75% of Americans want restrictions on abortion (beyond just Roe v wade’s shaky constitutional basis).

The vast vast majority of Americans are ok with contraceptives, same sex marriage has firm constitutional basis, etc these aren’t going away

[skissane]

> The vast vast majority of Americans are ok with contraceptives, same sex marriage has firm constitutional basis, etc these aren’t going away

Across-the-board bans on contraception aren't happening, because almost nobody wants such a ban.

But overturning Obergefell? I think it is likely. According to 2021 polling data [0], there is still majority opposition to marriage equality in Mississippi (55% oppose) and Arkansas (52% oppose). It looks like the state government trying to overturn it would be a vote-winner in those two states – especially considering that people who actually vote often skew older and more conservative than the population in general, so opposition to it in those states may be even stronger among voters. There are other states where support is still quite weak, such as Alabama (49% support, 47% opposition) and South Carolina (50% support), so the same might be true for them as well. It only takes one state to act to get a case before the Supreme Court.

[0] https://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2021/States/lgbt_ssm/2,3,9

[poulsbohemian]

>Across-the-board bans on contraception aren't happening, because almost nobody wants such a ban.

Except the Catholic Church, and 6 mostly conservative members of SCOTUS happen to be Catholic.

[skissane]

While the Catholic Church does teach that artificial contraception is inherently sinful, it’s leadership has not - certainly in recent decades - displayed any interest in having that moral view enforced by law. If no state enacts a general ban on contraception, SCOTUS will never get the opportunity to directly rule on its constitutionality.

Also, much of the success of the movement to restrict abortion has been because it has been a cross-faith alliance - Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, among others. The same winning formula won’t work for a general ban on contraception, because Catholics are the only member of that coalition who believe that artificial contraception is inherently sinful-the others view its moral acceptability as more situation-dependent.

[magicalist]

> You’re laying out the definition of a slippery slope argument.

When Clarence Thomas says "here's the slope I think we should slide down next", we're not in fallacy land anymore.

> these aren’t going away

Don't worry! They won't go away. It'll just be up to the state governments currently passing laws forcing women to carry rapists' babies to term to decide if you can have sex outside of marriage or not. States rights!

[nikelous]

You nailed it perfectly. Thomas announced the slope.

[dragonwriter]

> The vast vast majority of Americans are ok with contraceptives

The trigger laws that just went into effect in several cases would appear to ban some contraception, like IUDs (or, rather, criminalize it when they work), since they result in termination of pregnancy as the laws define it. (Because they use fertilization, not implantation, as the definition of the start of pregnancy.)

Of course, there's a proof issue for any actual prosecution for homicide, but that's a practical barrier to enforcement that doesn't affect what the law prohibits.

[guelo]

What you're saying is that the conservative judges are activists doing what's popular in their movement, not applying any principles.