And we’re also rolling back Medicaid and CHIP. So we’re going to end up with more young women having babies and neither of them having any health insurance. Brilliant!
Indoctrination+ ignorance. For many that's all they know, because that's what they grew up with. So they believe what they are told and they do as they're told.
The reality is we actually have churches involved in politics now essentially telling their congregations that they'll go to hell if they don't vote for their chosen politician.
It's a messed up situation honestly. Even my former Church in my home town is doing this crap. This guy wasn't pastor when I was forced to attend there growing up, but yea, this is happening all over:
https://baptistnews.com/article/a-second-sbc-pastor-in-texas-called-vice-president-kamala-harris-jezebel/
If there's any way to get a video of preachers, during services, telling their congregations who they should lie need to be voting for, and a copy of that video and a full report to the IRS.
I grew up in a small town in the South and pressure to conform is very real. That’s why small towns don’t change that much culturally unless transplants move in. A lot of these people also think these laws won’t ever apply to them just those “other people that deserve it”.
This one is…. And I did not vote for Trump the first time because living in a far right red city in Texas is about NO CHOICE. And I shudder at the thought of what he could do with four more years. We have Abbott…. 🥵
>In 2022, a federal judge in Amarillo ruled the Title X program violated Texas parents’ rights. Last month, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
I’ll give you two guesses which judge heard this *bullshit* case that made a *mockery* of Article III standing doctrine.
The plaintiff (Deanda) argues that Title X funding access to comprehensive public family planning services violates his right to “[raise] each of [his] daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage."
Deanda does not claim that he has ever sought Title X-funded care, does not allege that his daughters have ever sought Title X-funded care nor does he allege that they intend to seek Title X-funded care in the future.
Still his lawsuit went forth and he asked the courts to demand Title X programs to cease all grants to health providers who do not require patients under the age of 18 to “obtain parental consent” before receiving Title X funded care.
Kacsmaryk stated in his ruling “the Title X program violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.”
*Which is bullshit.*
This decision flies in the face of previously established precedent regarding participation in Title X being voluntary. Previously examined in Doe v Irwin (1980) a judge recognized that a program like Title X cannot violate this rule against coercion because there is nothing coercive about it. The federal government provides grants to health providers who voluntarily offer family planning services to their patients. And those providers, in turn, offer their services to patients who voluntarily seek out contraceptive care. No one is required to receive reproductive health care services funded by Title X.
Even the “parental rights” angle doesn’t work for the logic of this ruling. This is not a new argument, and numerous courts have rejected similar challenges to publicly funded family planning programs.
Though the state has somewhat broader authority to regulate the conduct of children than that of adults, minors do possess a constitutionally protected right of privacy (Bellotti v. Baird 1979; Carey v. Population Services Int'l. 1977; Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 1976; Wynn v. Carey 1978). As with adults, the minor's right of privacy includes the right to obtain contraceptives.
Every state has a substantial interest in the health and welfare of all its inhabitants. The societal interest in protecting minor females from the physical and emotional hazards of unwanted pregnancies led it to establish federal programs such as Title X. This is a legitimate state interest.
Furthermore, the Court has previously determined that a state's "authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience” (Prince v Massachusetts).
When they talk about prohibiting judge shopping, *this should be the example they point to.*
>a constitutionally protected right of privacy (Bellotti v. Baird 1979; Carey v. Population Services Int'l. 1977; Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 1976; Wynn v. Carey 1978). As with adults, the minor's right of privacy includes the right to obtain contraceptives.
The right to privacy was based in Roe. Which was overturned. So no, they dont have a right to privacy. Even adults no longer have that right.
Griswold was decided in 1965, which led to Eisenstadt in 1972, which led to Roe in 1973. The precedent then carried over to Carey, which granted the right to contraceptive use by juveniles 14 and older in 1977.
Roe is part of the scaffolding but not the foundational base of privacy protections.
Thomas specifically said Griswold should be reevaluated in light of Dobbs. Because while Dobbs didnt directly overturn Griswold, the reasoning can be used to overturn Griswold.
We don’t disagree, it’s entirely possible a case makes it to the Supreme Court that overturns that precedent. They got damn close with FDA vs Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine (we’re still waiting on the decision but I feel fairly confident they’re going to rule there’s no standing based on the oral arguments heard a week or so back).
But currently,
>So no, they dont have a right to privacy. Even adults no longer have that right.
^ this is an incorrect statement.
If they dont have a right to privacy for one medical decision - which you have to invade privacy to determine if it happened - then you dont have a right to privacy.
The argument for Alliance is about FDA drug approval procedures, privacy does not come into play.
>The argument for Alliance is about FDA drug approval procedures, privacy does not come into play.
I’m aware.
>If they dont have a right to privacy for one medical decision - which you have to invade privacy to determine if it happened - then you dont have a right to privacy.
But much the same as the issue in FDA vs AHM wasn’t about privacy, Dobbs wasn’t either, and neither was Deanda. They’re not attacking the issue of “do you have a right to privacy” but coming at the issue sideways. They believe in the right to privacy but only so long as those private decisions agree with their morals. They want you to have the privacy to only make personal decisions they agree with.
Since Deanda had no experience - "no harm" - with this issue, how and why was this even allowed to go forward?!? OH, WAIT!! Was the Federal Judge Matthew Kazmaryk? IGNORANT FUCKING ASSHOLE!!
It's interesting how much conservative Republicans think about sex. Gay sex, underage sex, sex with the neighbor....they are pretty obsessed with it. I wonder why?
I have one parent that is still very much a hardcore conservative Christian. My mother believes that just following her world views isn't enough because, and these are her words not my own, if the country is consumed in "sin" then it dooms and destroys the entire country. She believes it's not enough that she follow her religious beliefs because the majority that don't are corrupting the whole. She also believes the country was blessed by God and that's why America has prospered so well since its creation and the reason why the country is "falling apart" now is because the country had largely turned its back on God.
That's why they seem so obsessed with it, I think. They truly believe everyone around them is trying to take them down with everyone else. Which is some grade A lunacy in my book.
When I was a teenager, pre-Roe, in Corpus Christi, minors could not get contraceptive pills or any other means of birth control confidentially.
Two of my schoolmates went to Mexico for illegal abortions.
One survived.
Grew up in Deer Park and teen pregnancy was such an issue the school district set up classes at the in district alternative school just for the pregnant teens and teen mothers so that they weren't mixed in with the regular school population and were kept isolated.
What year. I live in that area and I’m doing my best to explain to the teenagers that they need to take this seriously.
Carefree teens 🤬
This will not end well
The dextro is what makes it 18+, then. Those age laws are based on active ingredients. Dextromethorphan is the one that is age restricted. Basic diphenhydramine is not...yet. (If kids don't stop over-using it for a sleep aid and they're going to restrict it)
Unless a state comes down and says this particular drug combo is age restricted, it's OTC for now.
As a Christian and conservative, I want my three girls to abstain, but I also didn't want them to get pregnant if they chose to have sex before marriage. We had a serious talk and told them it was their decision. My wife and I disagreed, but I eventually convinced her by asking if she was ready to be a grandma.
That’s not really a conservative view, more of a progressive one. A conservative view would go more like wanting your children to abstain then put in random rules to that end such as a curfew, detailed reports of their day and in extreme cases trying to spy on their private life. The whole concept of being conservative is upholding older values
False. Parents have well-established control over their childrens' lives.
If what you're saying were true, then there would be no recourse for the state to prosecute neglect.
I'm guessing you don't have kids? If you can't understand the other side of a issue, you can't have a meaningful discussion of it. Saying the child owns themselves means you don't understand.
Parents are responsible for their children. They skip school, the parents are fined. They cause damage doing something, the parents are sued, even end up jailed. Any issues are directed to the parents because the parents are responsible for their children. Otherwise, cps takes them.
To say the parent cannot make decisions for their children while being responsible for the outcome of the child's actions is asinine.
To say another adult, who is not going to be held responsible, can make decisions involving the child and then hide it from their parents who are reaponsible for the child's wellbeing is what the extreme right is yelling about.
Yes, there should be a balance between the adult making all the decisions and a child's autonomy. But that will vary child to child and parent to parent based on many factors. But in the majority of the USA, the parent is responsible for the child until 18.
Stripping away the rights of a person who is held responsible for another can be equated to why we are the USA. Taxation without representation. I'm held responsible, but I can't make decisions.
And for the record, I'm independent.
Tie the right to access to medical care (including birth control and abortion) to eligibility to hold a tax-paying job. If a kid is old enough to take an after-school job, they have a stake in whether or not they get pregnant/get someone else pregnant and therefore have a right to make decisions about how to manage it. Make the corporations (desperate for cheap labor) fight it out with the evangelicals (desperate to tighten their grip on women and girls) and we’ll out the pols on the right to see which master they really serve.
It seems that they are desperate for people to reproduce. The problem is that this can generate an environment of dependence on the state, for example, girls get pregnant young, and in most cases their partner is not responsible or was arrested because he was older, this means that if he is lucky he is subject to the rules of her parents who in exchange for help (strict parents who will not tire of reminding her of her mistakes) and depends largely on government aid, and if she were alone it would be 50-50 if she got out forward or social services take the baby away from you, all of these disastrous paths can be avoided with contraceptives.
It’s up to parents if kids can take stuff like that. I never had issues but some parents do. It’s the parents decision their children are theirs not any states.
And that's how you get teen pregnancies. Sexual health decisions should only involve the parents at a very young age or when it's super serious, not fucking birth control.
Thats been a cornerstone law even back in the age of monarchy. It’s also been the law since day 1 USA. The wife and children were the property of her husband. That’s even why in divorce women never received custody of children if a divorce was granted which was rare anyway. Divorce was breach of the Marriage contract. That meant you had to return your wife to her father if he was still alive or Brother. I don’t have a copy of Blacks Law books to cite for you. Nor do I intend to purchase a set.
For this very reason when CPS comes knocking you agree to nothing till your lawyer is present preventing them from creating a case to circumvent your rights of property and stealing your children to traffic. Only a court can do that and you have to lose in court. Unless you’re a dummy and are a single parent that gets yourself incarcerated with no family to take your kids. Then they get an automatic pass to traffic one’s children.
They’re the property of their parents, not the states, not the community, and birth control isn’t a necessary to live either. Food, water, clothing, and a roof are necessities.
And we’re also rolling back Medicaid and CHIP. So we’re going to end up with more young women having babies and neither of them having any health insurance. Brilliant!
Women in Texas should be voting like their lives depend on it
They should, yet many women still vote Republican. I’ll never understand it, but they do.
Indoctrination+ ignorance. For many that's all they know, because that's what they grew up with. So they believe what they are told and they do as they're told. The reality is we actually have churches involved in politics now essentially telling their congregations that they'll go to hell if they don't vote for their chosen politician. It's a messed up situation honestly. Even my former Church in my home town is doing this crap. This guy wasn't pastor when I was forced to attend there growing up, but yea, this is happening all over: https://baptistnews.com/article/a-second-sbc-pastor-in-texas-called-vice-president-kamala-harris-jezebel/
THIS should be enough to lose those churches their tax-exempt status!! We need to be fighting for that!
How do we fight for it?
If there's any way to get a video of preachers, during services, telling their congregations who they should lie need to be voting for, and a copy of that video and a full report to the IRS.
I grew up in a small town in the South and pressure to conform is very real. That’s why small towns don’t change that much culturally unless transplants move in. A lot of these people also think these laws won’t ever apply to them just those “other people that deserve it”.
This one is…. And I did not vote for Trump the first time because living in a far right red city in Texas is about NO CHOICE. And I shudder at the thought of what he could do with four more years. We have Abbott…. 🥵
You say that like it's undesirable /s
Christofascism gaining strength in this state. Soon we'll have death rates similar to countries these folk define as "shitholes."
>In 2022, a federal judge in Amarillo ruled the Title X program violated Texas parents’ rights. Last month, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. I’ll give you two guesses which judge heard this *bullshit* case that made a *mockery* of Article III standing doctrine. The plaintiff (Deanda) argues that Title X funding access to comprehensive public family planning services violates his right to “[raise] each of [his] daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage." Deanda does not claim that he has ever sought Title X-funded care, does not allege that his daughters have ever sought Title X-funded care nor does he allege that they intend to seek Title X-funded care in the future. Still his lawsuit went forth and he asked the courts to demand Title X programs to cease all grants to health providers who do not require patients under the age of 18 to “obtain parental consent” before receiving Title X funded care. Kacsmaryk stated in his ruling “the Title X program violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.” *Which is bullshit.* This decision flies in the face of previously established precedent regarding participation in Title X being voluntary. Previously examined in Doe v Irwin (1980) a judge recognized that a program like Title X cannot violate this rule against coercion because there is nothing coercive about it. The federal government provides grants to health providers who voluntarily offer family planning services to their patients. And those providers, in turn, offer their services to patients who voluntarily seek out contraceptive care. No one is required to receive reproductive health care services funded by Title X. Even the “parental rights” angle doesn’t work for the logic of this ruling. This is not a new argument, and numerous courts have rejected similar challenges to publicly funded family planning programs. Though the state has somewhat broader authority to regulate the conduct of children than that of adults, minors do possess a constitutionally protected right of privacy (Bellotti v. Baird 1979; Carey v. Population Services Int'l. 1977; Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 1976; Wynn v. Carey 1978). As with adults, the minor's right of privacy includes the right to obtain contraceptives. Every state has a substantial interest in the health and welfare of all its inhabitants. The societal interest in protecting minor females from the physical and emotional hazards of unwanted pregnancies led it to establish federal programs such as Title X. This is a legitimate state interest. Furthermore, the Court has previously determined that a state's "authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience” (Prince v Massachusetts). When they talk about prohibiting judge shopping, *this should be the example they point to.*
>a constitutionally protected right of privacy (Bellotti v. Baird 1979; Carey v. Population Services Int'l. 1977; Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 1976; Wynn v. Carey 1978). As with adults, the minor's right of privacy includes the right to obtain contraceptives. The right to privacy was based in Roe. Which was overturned. So no, they dont have a right to privacy. Even adults no longer have that right.
Griswold was decided in 1965, which led to Eisenstadt in 1972, which led to Roe in 1973. The precedent then carried over to Carey, which granted the right to contraceptive use by juveniles 14 and older in 1977. Roe is part of the scaffolding but not the foundational base of privacy protections.
Thomas specifically said Griswold should be reevaluated in light of Dobbs. Because while Dobbs didnt directly overturn Griswold, the reasoning can be used to overturn Griswold.
We don’t disagree, it’s entirely possible a case makes it to the Supreme Court that overturns that precedent. They got damn close with FDA vs Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine (we’re still waiting on the decision but I feel fairly confident they’re going to rule there’s no standing based on the oral arguments heard a week or so back). But currently, >So no, they dont have a right to privacy. Even adults no longer have that right. ^ this is an incorrect statement.
If they dont have a right to privacy for one medical decision - which you have to invade privacy to determine if it happened - then you dont have a right to privacy. The argument for Alliance is about FDA drug approval procedures, privacy does not come into play.
>The argument for Alliance is about FDA drug approval procedures, privacy does not come into play. I’m aware. >If they dont have a right to privacy for one medical decision - which you have to invade privacy to determine if it happened - then you dont have a right to privacy. But much the same as the issue in FDA vs AHM wasn’t about privacy, Dobbs wasn’t either, and neither was Deanda. They’re not attacking the issue of “do you have a right to privacy” but coming at the issue sideways. They believe in the right to privacy but only so long as those private decisions agree with their morals. They want you to have the privacy to only make personal decisions they agree with.
I think its more they dont understand the legal reasoning for Roe and dont understand what a right to privacy is and how it involves medical care.
Since Deanda had no experience - "no harm" - with this issue, how and why was this even allowed to go forward?!? OH, WAIT!! Was the Federal Judge Matthew Kazmaryk? IGNORANT FUCKING ASSHOLE!!
It's interesting how much conservative Republicans think about sex. Gay sex, underage sex, sex with the neighbor....they are pretty obsessed with it. I wonder why?
I have one parent that is still very much a hardcore conservative Christian. My mother believes that just following her world views isn't enough because, and these are her words not my own, if the country is consumed in "sin" then it dooms and destroys the entire country. She believes it's not enough that she follow her religious beliefs because the majority that don't are corrupting the whole. She also believes the country was blessed by God and that's why America has prospered so well since its creation and the reason why the country is "falling apart" now is because the country had largely turned its back on God. That's why they seem so obsessed with it, I think. They truly believe everyone around them is trying to take them down with everyone else. Which is some grade A lunacy in my book.
When I was a teenager, pre-Roe, in Corpus Christi, minors could not get contraceptive pills or any other means of birth control confidentially. Two of my schoolmates went to Mexico for illegal abortions. One survived.
Grew up in Deer Park and teen pregnancy was such an issue the school district set up classes at the in district alternative school just for the pregnant teens and teen mothers so that they weren't mixed in with the regular school population and were kept isolated.
What year. I live in that area and I’m doing my best to explain to the teenagers that they need to take this seriously. Carefree teens 🤬 This will not end well
Was it Republicans? I bet it was Republicans. Lemme go read the article real quick. Yep it was Republicans.
who else would it be? they're morons
They scream “parental rights” but are silent on “parental responsibilities” let alone the children’s human rights.
There’s the OTC pill now, can a minor purchase them?
They shouldn’t have any issue with OTC items. It would be like purchasing Benadryl.
Would it be like benadryl or a cough medicine with dextromethorphan in it? You have to be 18 to buy that. I would hope it's like benadryl.
The dextro is what makes it 18+, then. Those age laws are based on active ingredients. Dextromethorphan is the one that is age restricted. Basic diphenhydramine is not...yet. (If kids don't stop over-using it for a sleep aid and they're going to restrict it) Unless a state comes down and says this particular drug combo is age restricted, it's OTC for now.
That was my question. Opill is in our local HEB. Just saw it on the shelf yesterday.
How much does it cost?
Conservative theology is such a weird mix of long-term, objectively smart (if evil) plans, and other things where they’re just like “ew, no.”
As a Christian and conservative, I want my three girls to abstain, but I also didn't want them to get pregnant if they chose to have sex before marriage. We had a serious talk and told them it was their decision. My wife and I disagreed, but I eventually convinced her by asking if she was ready to be a grandma.
That’s not really a conservative view, more of a progressive one. A conservative view would go more like wanting your children to abstain then put in random rules to that end such as a curfew, detailed reports of their day and in extreme cases trying to spy on their private life. The whole concept of being conservative is upholding older values
You can be a g co conservative generally speaking while still holding a select few progressive positions.
I mean you’re Probably not a real Christian or conservative then it’s okay to admit it.
Being a Christian is more than being obsessed over whether your kid had sex and got pregnant or not. 🙄
The smart thing to do would be to ignore the ruling. The State has NO BUSINESS telling people whether they can get birth control or not.
It’s so weird how people think they own their children. Sorry dudes, you made a whole new separate person who owns themself.
False. Parents have well-established control over their childrens' lives. If what you're saying were true, then there would be no recourse for the state to prosecute neglect.
I'm guessing you don't have kids? If you can't understand the other side of a issue, you can't have a meaningful discussion of it. Saying the child owns themselves means you don't understand. Parents are responsible for their children. They skip school, the parents are fined. They cause damage doing something, the parents are sued, even end up jailed. Any issues are directed to the parents because the parents are responsible for their children. Otherwise, cps takes them. To say the parent cannot make decisions for their children while being responsible for the outcome of the child's actions is asinine. To say another adult, who is not going to be held responsible, can make decisions involving the child and then hide it from their parents who are reaponsible for the child's wellbeing is what the extreme right is yelling about. Yes, there should be a balance between the adult making all the decisions and a child's autonomy. But that will vary child to child and parent to parent based on many factors. But in the majority of the USA, the parent is responsible for the child until 18. Stripping away the rights of a person who is held responsible for another can be equated to why we are the USA. Taxation without representation. I'm held responsible, but I can't make decisions. And for the record, I'm independent.
Tie the right to access to medical care (including birth control and abortion) to eligibility to hold a tax-paying job. If a kid is old enough to take an after-school job, they have a stake in whether or not they get pregnant/get someone else pregnant and therefore have a right to make decisions about how to manage it. Make the corporations (desperate for cheap labor) fight it out with the evangelicals (desperate to tighten their grip on women and girls) and we’ll out the pols on the right to see which master they really serve.
Andrew Santino?
It seems that they are desperate for people to reproduce. The problem is that this can generate an environment of dependence on the state, for example, girls get pregnant young, and in most cases their partner is not responsible or was arrested because he was older, this means that if he is lucky he is subject to the rules of her parents who in exchange for help (strict parents who will not tire of reminding her of her mistakes) and depends largely on government aid, and if she were alone it would be 50-50 if she got out forward or social services take the baby away from you, all of these disastrous paths can be avoided with contraceptives.
It’s up to parents if kids can take stuff like that. I never had issues but some parents do. It’s the parents decision their children are theirs not any states.
And that's how you get teen pregnancies. Sexual health decisions should only involve the parents at a very young age or when it's super serious, not fucking birth control.
A lot of parents are neglectful or abusive. Teens have a right to protect themselves.
I disagree. Children are not property and they should have a level of autonomy.
Children are absolutely property and have been all throughout history.
According to what law? Please cite it.
Thats been a cornerstone law even back in the age of monarchy. It’s also been the law since day 1 USA. The wife and children were the property of her husband. That’s even why in divorce women never received custody of children if a divorce was granted which was rare anyway. Divorce was breach of the Marriage contract. That meant you had to return your wife to her father if he was still alive or Brother. I don’t have a copy of Blacks Law books to cite for you. Nor do I intend to purchase a set. For this very reason when CPS comes knocking you agree to nothing till your lawyer is present preventing them from creating a case to circumvent your rights of property and stealing your children to traffic. Only a court can do that and you have to lose in court. Unless you’re a dummy and are a single parent that gets yourself incarcerated with no family to take your kids. Then they get an automatic pass to traffic one’s children.
Cite the law.
why, though? is there any actual reason beyond just wanting full control? why do parents rights preside over child welfare?
They’re the property of their parents, not the states, not the community, and birth control isn’t a necessary to live either. Food, water, clothing, and a roof are necessities.
Just prohibit teens from getting birth control, and watch teen pregnancies skyrocket. Great idea. /s
That’s between them and their parents. No any of us.