Mike Huckabee addressed the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee and in attempt to shift sentiment in the war on women issue accused Democrats of believing that women cannot control their libido without the help of the government. His remarks are getting quite a bit of play on the internet.
This issue has deep roots for Republicans, going back to the 1965 decision of the Supreme Court that struck down Connecticutt's law against contraception. That law applied even to married couples and forbade the use of any kind of contraception. The Supreme Court voted it down 7-2. The principal reason was privacy—the law was viewed as an unconstitutional invasion of marital privacy.
The court's reasoning was subsequently used as the major justification for making abortion legal in Roe v. Wade, a decision which followed a few years later. Since then contraception has been linked in many conservative minds with abortion.
I believe that just looking at Huckabee should help women control their libido, but listenting to him could stoke their anger. It is hard to see how this will help the GOP win new votes.
Huckabee needs to be concerned a bit less with women's libidos and perhaps a bit more with his mouth.
I don't know that Democrats are "painting women" as anything. I do agree that the far right and most Republicans have confused contraception and abortion. This seems to be a platform of the Republican party right now. Ex-preacher Huckabee falls right in there with them because of inherant circular reasoning.
Pat, I've read the Griswold ruling. It mentioned the Ninth Amendment but did not rely on it.
The majority opinion (Wm. O. Douglas) referred to other provisions of the Bill of Rights from which he inferred the existence of a privacy right. He wrote of penumbras and emanations of other rights. Critics attacked his creating a privacy right.
Before the 1973 Roe case, in Eisenstadt v. Baird the Court extended the Griswold holding to unmarried people.
About ten years ago, at an ACLU Convention, I asked Stephen Shapiro, who argues ACLU cases, when the Court would give meaning to the Ninth Amendment. He replied "Not in our lifetimes."
BTW, I've downloaded and read most SCOTUS First Amendment rulings.
Mike Huckabee is a republican, ordained southern baptist minister from Arkansas. Does anything else need to be said about this man?
Mr. Huckabee's views are of another generation. Women today tend to make up their own minds, regardless of formal religious allegiances. I doubt that he offers his party a winning formula.
A small, but important addendum to this story is that Huckabee himself, while Governor of Arkansas, signed into law a mandate for contraception coverage that is more restrictive than the current federal mandate. The fact is that 28 states have such mandates in their insurance requirements. That opens him up to a charge of hypocrisy. The Arkansas law reads as follows:
every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed,or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in thisstate by the Insurance Commissioner on or after the effective dateof this subchapter that provides coverage for prescription drugson an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for prescribed drugsor devices approved by the United States Food and DrugAdministration for use as a contraceptive.
Allan, I hate to reveal my ignorance. However, how would the wording be to insure that women have the right to family planning, contraception, abortion, abortifacient, or any US Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency contraception and no one could deny them that right.
I grew up frequently visiting my superior court judge uncle and his family. I listened to his lectures over the dining room table and just soaked in all the fine and glorious words of being a "free" people with "rights" of citizenship. "We are a nation of laws, not men" he would intone. He took me with his family to Washington, DC and to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We met with our senator and representatives in Congress. I was so proud of being a U.S. citizen! and of having an uncle who protected the rights of men.
It wasn't until I was an adult facing a difficult decision; I was contemplating leaving my husband. I went to him for advice on what I should do.
He became very angry with me, he spoke with a loud voice, sounding as God speaking to his disobedient people, with his fist pounding the desk, his face turning red, he said the thing that was wrong with our country was that niggers and lesbians have the vote!
In his many lectures in his dining room when I was a child he did not include, nor did he intend to include "niggers and lesbians". Standing there before him, stunned, I realized he meant white, property owning men. I knew what he meant by niggers, but I didn't know what he meant by lesbians. Asking him for a definition, he stated a lesbian was any women who wanted control over her own body.
My heroes always have feet of clay!
Back to the issue at hand, I read this part of the act as saying nothing shall be construed to require ... any insurance company to provide coverage for abortion ....
"29 (b) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to require
30 any insurance company to provide coverage for an abortion, an abortifacient,
31 or any United States Food and Drug Administration-approved emergency
Can you help with the wording for protection of women's right to control their own bodies?
I'm not quite sure what you are looking for, but it seems to me that simply removing that language you've quoted would be a first step in the direction you want. A good place to find information on these topics is the Guttmacher Institute. They have a chart summarizing the current restrictions imposed by states on insurance coverage for abortion:
Insurance regulations are set by the states and most states have an insurance commissioner who oversees the process of enforcement. Most are appointed by the governor, but a substantial number, including California's, are elected.
The Supreme Court has issued an injunction relieving the Little Sisters of the Poor from the mandate while their case is being decided.
Remember that six members of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholics. Consequently the final decision is likely to go against the mandate.
If the Republican Party wants to survive its crazies, it needs a fast-track to citizenship (and voting rights) for a few more million of the world's old white men.