After overturning abortion protections, is contraception next for the Supreme Court? A couple of years ago Gallup polled Americans about the moral acceptability of various issues and this is what they came up with:
A Pew poll taken a couple of years before this one came up with an even lower number: nationally, only 4% of the population opposed contraception on moral grounds.
I wish we had state-by-state polling for contraception, but given these national results I'll bet there's not a single state where more than 10% of the population opposes contraception in general. The number is certainly higher for emergency contraception, but oddly, I can't find any survey data about that.
There's no question that emergency contraception is controversial in the same states that oppose abortion, and this is something the Supreme Court will probably rule on eventually. But ordinary contraception? I doubt it's in any trouble. The Supreme Court might pretend that it doesn't care about public opinion, but they're not going to endanger access to something that's approved by 92% of the country. Even Sam Alito isn't that stupid.
"Even Sam Alito isn't that stupid."
Fact not in evidence.
Beat me to it.
Bigtime here. Kevin isn't reading the room -- there's been a huge shift in the zeitgeist, the conservatives are coming for your pills, IUDs etc.
I think Kevin keeps missign the larger point. SCOTUS will be restricted by Dobbs, no matter what Alito claims in the opinion. The ban will some at a state level. People will sue to overturn the ban, and the state will say "Well, Dobbs says there is no right to privacy." And the supreme court will say, "Oh, right." and will decline to overturn the ban.
Unlike abortion, I doubt it would be banned nation wide, but some of the redder states will absolutely ban them.
What do the darker green bars represent, people who approve alot vs people who approve just sort of?
My question as well.
Dark green is for the percent who say the thing is morally wrong. Red is used instead of dark green for some of the bars, but those are just the ones Kevin Drum wanted to highlight.
What's the percentage of people who don't think it's morally wrong for an inebriated unmarried couple having sex after smoking marijuana while staying at a casino and watching the adult-themed cable channel?
I can only guess that it is greater than zero. Maybe 10 percent. But if the couple offers shelter to an undocumented immigrant, it's closer to 2 percent who are okay with that.
Now I see it on the chart. Was that there before? I am going blind.
Interesting survey-thanks.
Morally wrong vs. illegal not addressed.
Affairs are morally wrong, but I don't think people would want there to be criminal prosecutions.
And how it plays out politically does not always match up with poll numbers.
Most people oppose the death penalty, but few if any could win a race promoting that policy. They'd just be branded "soft on crime".
"Most people oppose the death penalty"
Didn't read the whole chart, it seems.
my bad...
Death penalty ok, pornography is not.
But they did.
This opinion undermines Griswold as well as Roe
I think you missed the point of Alito's leaked decision. Contraception isn't a right that is explicitly allowed in the Constitution, nor is there a historical record of support for contraception. Furthermore, he delegates the power of regulation of such matters not explicitly called out in the Constitution back to the states.
In order for your understanding to be correct, SCOTUS would have to step in to block a state from enforcing a law against contraception. On what grounds would conservative SCOTUS seize that regulatory right away from states?
To be honest, the Constitution doesn't explicitly say ANYTHING about women, until the 19th Amendment. Actually NOT EVEN THERE. It just says the right to vote will not be abridged on the basis of sex. Nothing explicitly about "women" at all!
Am reading Teri Kanefield's biography of RBG -- https://bityl.co/C8cI -- and some of this is covered historically, specifically the struggle of women to attend law school then to become licensed lawyers.
Your Constitution is a parchment consisting of four pages drafted back in the 18th century based upon the values of that time. It was drafted by a small group of slave owning upper class Britts who detested democracy and wanted to protect their privileges.
It can be interpreted in just about any way one chooses
A small reminder from a Swedish troll
Absolutely right -- basically if it's not a right expressly mentioned in the Constitution, and wouldn't have been allowed in the 18th century, a bunch of fanatics in state government can take it away from you.
The Supreme Court might pretend that it doesn't care about public opinion, but they're not going to endanger access to something that's approved by 92% of the country. Even Sam Alito isn't that stupid.
You sure about that?
It's not even a question for the courts right now as several states look at contraceptive bans.
"Republicans vote to ban rubbers!" That's basically what's coming down to. Popular or not.
For you see, if the party doesn't suffer any kind of electoral backlash for its policy actions, then why should it care what the polls say or don't say? The only poll which matters to them is on Election Day itself and if the prevailing attitude on that November morning is voter's being upset with inflation, even though GOP has no plan to bring it down whatsoever, then people are going to lose access to those contraceptives and they should be reminded that it happened because they let it. Because on their list of priorities when voting cheap gas was the most important. And while banning rubbers may well have not been on the to do list, the affect is still the same! And until that attitude changes, the voters get what they deserve.
And American voters are remarkably unaware in any meaningful way of why they vote the way they do, in particular the so-called independents. A supposedly first world country in which the most of the electorate votes with the level of self awareness of a twelve year old.
They'll cook up some kind of branding that makes contraception a Black thing, then drive up its negatives. Maybe fold it in with CRT somehow.
Uh uh. "Genocide." "Eugenics." They've actually been alleging this for years.
I questions the catastrophizers ere do not ask:
A) Are there any states where there would be sufficient support for a generic overall contraception ban, and where it would not be promptly overturned by public referendum?
B) Are there enough legislators anywhere to enact such a ban? After all, even fairly conservative Christians-- heck even Mormons (not to mention lots of Catholics) use birth control.
A) It doesn't have to be a total ban. It could be a partial ban on emergency contraception and similar types of contraception that offers abortion by pill.
B) Not all states have referendum path available, and even then, many restrict to referendums to state reps putting it on the ballot, not citizens.
In general, anyone who values their membership in the "pro-life" tribe will, if told to do so, adopt the view that any specified form of contraception is in fact an abortion-inducing device/pill.
That's where the contraceptive bans will come from: They'll get repackaged as abortion.
You're speaking of public support, as in what people would support, if asked? There are plenty of legislatures (Republican ones come to mind) where laws that are STRONGLY opposed by the population at large get passed. Gerrymandering has a lot to do with it, low voter turnout, and of course it can all be blamed on the Democrats, who keep failing to control the Republican Party. Which remains blameless.
(Sorry about the cynicism. Just leafed through the NY Times...)
This is your periodic reminder that there are a lot of low-info voters who don’t vote based on issues, who have little or no knowledge of policies, and who is responsible for those.
…which party is responsible for which policies …
Why wouldn’t they? Remember when Mitch McConnell said, “If [inciting insurrection] isn’t impeachable, nothing is.” Well, we got the answer to that one.
Jeepers/ Around 70 percent of folks are ok with abortion. Yet, here we are.
Idaho, TX, LA and others have already indicated they plan to go after contraception. The red states will be allowed to do so by SCOTUS.
How many times, Kev, do repubs have to do things we are told they would NEVER do before you admit- they are what they appear to be?
As Republican state and federal candidates are already demanding the repeal of Griswold and Republican governors are refusing to rule out contraceptive bans, Dr. Pangloss sticks his head in the sand and delivers this spectacularly naive post.
"Repeal" is incorrect, it should read reversal of course. My bad. I don't seen any way to edit my post. This commenting software is about as bad as some of the ipinions expressed here.
You should never underestimate the tenacity of the GOP and their ultra right wing religious zealot enablers who now make up the majority vote on the Supreme Court, in their efforts to role back the social progress in the US to at least the 1950's. This weekend the neanderthal who currently occupies the Governor's office in Mississippi would not rule out attempting to ban certain forms of contraception. Perhaps enforcing the sodomy laws will be next since we no longer have any right to privacy.
Yeah, it's called open rebellion.
Tomi Lahren is stupid in a way that should be considered a mental disease,
https://old.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/ulprl2/tomi_is_concerned_about_the_contagious_nature_of/
Even adjusted for land, contraception has 82-3% support. It's why it's on nobodies to do list.
"But ordinary contraception? I doubt it's in any trouble."
Just a few days ago you assured us that nothing else beyond abortion was at risk because Alito said so in his opinion, and yet here you are saying that some forms of contraception are probably at risk, but you are absolutely sure the rest are perfectly fine.
FFS Kevin, is there a single issue where you don't reflexively feel the need to downplay Republicans actions, or immediately assume the bulk of them are actually honest people arguing in good faith, or interested in politics to better people's lives? Just come out of the political closet already.
I used to think you were a smart man, now I think you are graph reliant David Brooks. (Or a massive troll who cares not one bit about any issue one way or another).
The only two people I can think of who've bragged about their high IQ are Donald Trump and Kevin Drum. That's saying something.
How to explain it? Here are two possibilities:
a) Drum and Trump are equally smart
b) The horseshoe theory of intelligence, in which extremely high and extremely low intelligence are indistinguishable
Don't recall Kevin bragging about anything.
Exactly.
Dude flunked out of Cal Tech & ended up at Cal State-Long Beach.
He's kind of dumb.
Is it my limited breadth of current reading, or is everyone politely avoiding the topic of how wildly non-representative the religious orientation is of the current Supreme Court? 67 percent are Catholic.
There are two different subjects in the end.
One is what pay actually be on the agenda and realisable to turn back, such as banning contraception.
As many comments and broader analysis have noted, the Draft opinion would blow up the legal foundations or the right to contraception, and render it vulnerable from a logical legal analysis point of view
One is the political leverage one can use to fight. That contraception would be vastly more difficult to ban, even in the more socioculturally backwards areas is granted, however this is also the exact sort of Lever that the Republicans have used against the Democrats for ages.
Democrats will be complete bloody idiots not to turn the game.
Controlling women’s sexuality is still important in backwards areas of this planet. It’s advocated by insecure men with medieval values and it’s supported by suppressed women . In some areas of this planet are they practicing forced marriages and “honor” killings to achieve this.
A modern version is banning abortion and depriving women of contraceptives. This is mandated by scary old men with medieval values in the Catholic Church
Interesting to note is that banning abortion and possibly also contraceptives are two important issues for your Republicans
What does that tell us about USA ,or at least about some areas of USA.
Child marriage is for that reason also commonly practiced in USA , mostly in backward conservative areas but it is still legal in 44 states
Girls as young as 13 are handed over to pedophiles to be raped and raped again with the approval of your courts
“Barefoot and pregnant confined to the kitchen “ are apparently still part of the American dream according to the minority that are able to control your politics due to your nonfunctional outdated Constitution
Just some facts from an old and grumpy Swedish man
As long as Fox is able to keep distracting ~40% of the country with ridiculous tales like CRT, Benghazi!!, the “steal”, woke corporations, etc. while the 1% keep getting their tax breaks and anti-worker rulings, we’re in for more and more minority rule by the Republican Taliban. The majority’s opinions be damned.
And as Republican operatives now scurry to rig voting outcomes as a backstop against public opinion even further, where will the snapping point be you think? But Kevin assures us democracy is humming along just fine.
I have been thinking for a while that the effects of the "evil dex" are making Kevin overly positive, if not a bit euphoric. Overturning Roe will not be that bad, contraception is too popular to ban, affordable housing is not a problem, etc, etc.
"Birth Control," not "Contraception." Those are VERY different things, especially to fundamentalists. "Birth control" includes things like the rhythm method. I'm shocked that ANYONE is against that, with the rare exception of quiverful evangelicals and others who believe this should just be left to God.
But there's a decent number of people, especially conservative Catholics, who are OK with that sort of birth control, but against any form of contraception. And there's a larger number of people who are not totally against contraception, but think there should be lots of restrictions on it (such as banning IUDs and the pill, allowing it only for married couples and adults, and so on.)
Contraception bans are on the menu for the right. The only question is how much and when.
Kevin, for frak's sake. Come on. OF COURSE Republicans will go after Griswold (although I'm sure they'll try to strike down Obergefell first) because it's based in the same "right to privacy" that Alito just said was a bunch of hogwash. The ultimate goal is to control women and drive them from the workforce back home where they belong, and if a woman can access neither abortion nor birth control and is constantly pregnant, that goal will be accomplished. Remember what Maya Angelou said? "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." You need to get over your Republican blind spot.
Sigh. The point is only marginally who is in favor of something or not.
The main point is who is willing to vote their belief? To the exclusion of other concerns?
If the number of people willing to vote to do anything, such as criminalizing abortion or contraception, are enough to get such a ban enacted, then they will.
As for these points, they forgot the critical other question - for example maybe you think abortion is morally ok, but not strongly, and if its legal its legal, but if its banned you also don't care, and what you really care about is gunning down immigrants at the southern border.
Or the reverse, if it were up to you its no big deal what happens on the southern border, but that national ban on abortion can't come soon enough. Machine gun nests? Well ok, but when is the actual ruling coming down on Dobbs?
Its the Republican base. There only need to be like 20% who want to make anything illegal, and another 20% to go along with it.
This week's entry in Kevin Drum's "That thing you're worried about? Not a big deal".
Clearly it's time for states to start enforcing those anti-adultery laws! It would be wildly popular.
It's foolish to make bold predictions about what public opinion might accept in the future. A small but vocal section of the far right has already made 'replacement theory' a major theme in its analysis of what ails the west. White people are simply not having enough babies! It's not a huge stretch to imagine how this could move from an extreme to a mainstream position on the right, just as the QAnon stuff about pedophile rings has become Trump Republican dogma about 'grooming'. And if low birth rates are an existential threat to the west, isn't it a government's partiotic duty to make them go up? They might not be able to compel more frequent copulation, but they can sure as hell make contraception hard.
All these politicians getting cute about contraception are probably just avoiding telling key constituents "no". You seldom see them saying, "You can't have that". That loses votes, after all.
And, I hope they do try it. I think they will get crushed at the voting booth if they do.
It takes a lot to get people to stay home, vote 3rd party, or switch sides. It's a tall order, but it does happen.
Maybe not, but the governor of Mississippi is.
What a bonkers country: the country approves (contraception) but moves to ban it, the country disapproves (suicide) yet commit it epidemically.
They'll never ban condoms.
But the IUD is toast in a lot of states, and birth control pills and hormonal implants could easily be banned in a few.