[imgabe]

> Note that most contraceptives prevent implantation and IVF creates more embryos than needed. Both are no-no’s under the new regime.

Do you have any examples of specific laws of in any states that would make contraception or IVF illegal?

Most pro-life people are very supportive of IVF as they are all about people having more babies. Many states with anti-abortion laws also have laws explicitly making surrogacy legal (which requires IVF).

[mch82]

> Do you have any examples

These rights and others are directly questioned in the text of the SCOTUS concurrence today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Neal Katyal: “That's right to privacy, contraception, marriage equality,etc”

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216

[imgabe]

I mean examples of laws. Like is there any state that has passed or even proposed a law saying "contraception is illegal". To my knowledge, there's not.

[mch82]

Here you go: https://www.findlaw.com/family/reproductive-rights/griswold-...

> At the time, a Connecticut law prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception" and punished anyone who "assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" to do so (in other words, it wasn't a crime to sell birth control devices, but it was a crime to use birth control or any drug or medical instrument for the purposes of preventing conception).

> Griswold and Buxton sued the State of Connecticut claiming the law violated their constitutional rights. The issue at stake was whether a married couple had a constitutional "right of privacy" to be counseled in the use of contraceptives.

Three other major cases are cited in that FindLaw article, the most recent in 2014 which took away rights to healthcare coverage.

[imgabe]

The "at the time" was 1965. Contraception was new and controversial 50 years ago. It's not anymore and is widely supported. Is there any current law or proposal to outlaw contraception? Such a law would be wildly unpopular, even among most pro-life people.

[vkou]

> It's not anymore and is widely supported.

So is abortion, and yet, it's 2022, and the leopards are eating our faces.

[bcrosby95]

I dunno, the comstock act?

The way SCOTUS works is they render it impossible to enforce a law. It doesn't actually remove the law from the books.

It's a legal hack - the government can't enforce it when its made unconstitutional, but it still exists unless they explicitly remove it. Hence Texas' legal hack of allowing citizens to enforce a law.

[BarryMilo]

Which is completely fucking bonkers and should be squashed ASAP, lest these states go completely rogue.

[hotpotamus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

[jleyank]

Every state that defines life begins at conception rather than heartbeat or viability. The supremes already mentioned contraception and ivf willingly discards embryos that are not needed.

[imgabe]

The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. Laws are very specifically written and often include enumerated exceptions and specific scenarios. They don't just say "Life begins at conception and that's that".

[jleyank]

Oklahoma has proposed. Supremes removed all limits on laws. “Not mentioned in constitution” applies to all sorts of things.

[imgabe]

> Though the bill considers a pregnancy to begin at fertilization, and not implantation, the bill does not restrict the use of forms of contraception that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. According to the bill, abortion "does not include the use, prescription, administration, procuring, or selling of Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception."

It doesn't mention anything about IVF, but as that doesn't involve an abortion procedure it would probably not be affected either. The bill does not propose what you're saying it does.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortio...

[spacemanmatt]

> The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them.

That is a technical fiction. The Supreme Court rewrites laws all the time. They are the line-item veto a President is not allowed to have.

[spacemanmatt]

You don't have to like it. This is literally the system we suffer.

[diob]

It's not about making it illegal, it's that IVF typically results in more fertilized embryos than are kept.

So like you said, the pro-life folks would force every single one to be kept.

[imgabe]

Do you have an example of any pro-life lawmaker, pundit, anyone demanding that all embryos from IVF be kept?

[belltaco]

Yes.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-politics-of-the...

[diob]

This person is in no way interested in facts, they'll move the goalposts again after it becomes widespread practice.

[imgabe]

I seem to be the only one interested in facts rather than hysterical speculation. The facts are nobody can produce a law or proposed law banning contraception or IVF or requiring every embryo to be used.

What's been produced so far is an article from 2005 (above) about a handful of extreme conservative groups, which has clearly gone nowhere in the past 17 years and a video of Ben Shapiro, whose only job is to say provocative bullshit.

[diob]

Okay, I will make a note to reply to you again when these things come to pass.

At some point, you have to admit that the "hysterical speculation" is really just foresight given current events.

Will you admit it then? I honestly am happy waiting to reply till then.

[gadflyinyoureye]

Yes, Ben Shapiro. IVF is slippy slope. Don't make any more embryos than you will implant and carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETGY6U9wfQ

[kibwen]

This is a natural result of placing the cutoff at conception.

[imgabe]

No, it's not the natural result of anything. Like I said above, laws are very specifically worded in what they allow and prohibit. They are written by and for human beings. They are not computer programs which mindlessly execute every possible logical consequence.

[Auracle]

Technically you can donate the unused embryos, though I don’t know how that would work legally.

I suspect most states will end up having pretty level headed laws once this all shakes out in 5 years or so with a few outliers on both sides.

[ModernMech]

Question is: how many women die preventable deaths in the meantime? Will she be your mom? Your girlfriend? Your sister? You?

[stjohnswarts]

Of course not, but that is the natural progression of forcing evangelical/Catholic morals on all Americans as current Republican leadership is pushing for. I hope it blows up in their face and Americans wake up to the coming Republican attempt to install Trump as dictator for life.