Where in the Constitution is a women's right to birth control?
In The United States of America our Rights are enumerated within the Bill of Rights and to my understanding such a Right does not exist.
It's not in the constitution.
However I suppose one could say that The Declaration of Independence does state:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness)."
Does anyone today assume that this does not apply to women? If something is "not illegal" then you should have a right to acquire it.
Most laws that congress passes or laws passed by states and towns are not ratified as amendments and added to the constitution.
The role of the court system is to look at these laws to see if they are "unconstitutional".
Yes, It is not my obligation to pay for a women's sexual pleasure and then be forced to pay to for an abortion because she is promiscuous and irresponsible. Women's sexual delights are best left to self control, not taken from the wallets of others.
Birth control in of itself is not about sexual pleasure. It's about peace of mind for women to be able engage in sex (like men) without getting pregnant. A woman doesn't have to be promiscuous to become pregnant. She could be monogamous.
Peace of mind is not a Right. Using The Dec of Independence as a basis for Rights is absurd. Space limitation does not allow for a proper response.
Certain birth control pills are used to regulate medical conditions (such as PCOS) and are prescribed for the patient's health, not anything to do with her desire for sex.
cjhunsinger, It's almost as absurd as using (the constitution) to determine what medical insurance should cover! LOL!
Dashing-MT-The Constitution does not acknowledge a Right to medication of any kind for any reason, nor does it prescribe such medication.
And yet you're singling out contraception. Perhaps your question should have been "where in the constitution is a right to healthcare" rather than targeting women.
MT-Your Right to healthcare, education, housing, food, work, holiday pay does not exist in the Const, but such rights exist in the UN Dec on Human rights-when did we switch governments? The Const is the Right to achieve, not a right to panhandle.
We don't have to switch governments to acknowledge human decency. And we shouldn't use the constitution as an excuse for a lack of compassion.
MT- Use all the compassion you want you are free to do that. When your defined compassion is mandated on others it is no longer called compassion is it?
In a perfect world, compassion wouldn't have to be mandated. I would move mountains to help family and friends, but probably not for that guy I never met across the country. Does that make him less deserving of help?
"Not taken from the wallets of others". Would you rather pay for welfare or contraception?
moneymindit--In way to many cases I am paying for both, plus an abortion or two.
How can a driver of a vehicle who hits and kills a woman who is pregnant be convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide, yet a woman who chose to kill something that she was participatory in creating is not charged with murder?
I do not answer based upon religious beliefs, but moral ones.
JA- Your comment is a reasoned response. Government no longer operates at that level. best answer I gave give.
A woman owns her own body and as you noted she would be making that choice. No one else has the right to make a choice for her. Abortion as of today is still legal while running over someone with a car is illegal.
Dashing-A women has no right to demand my money to accommodate her decisions and that is what she is doing.
So you don't use health insurance? If you do, aren't you demanding money from people just the same?
junk--No, not in a free market, but then that no longer exists, absent free market and choice.
So why are you objecting to BC and not all of it is what I am wondering. Why don't you object just the same to anyone demanding money for any healthcare? I don't get your BC obsession.
junk-I object to pretty much all of it. The BC was the topic of focus. Welfare can serve purpose, but now its purpose is to serve the politician.
I'm going to say something that many people might find shocking: the constitution isn't perfect. It was written at a time when owning slaves was okay and women couldn't vote. It was amended to include prohibition, then amended again to repeal prohibition. It is an imperfect document, written with good intentions. So it falls to the current generation to decide what is right and what is wrong, using the constitution as a guide. That doesn't mean we can throw it out when it suits us, but it does mean that the founders couldn't possibly have foreseen every possible circumstance in the future.
Healthcare is a common sense issue in our time. If the citizens of the U.S. are healthy, then the U.S. is strong. So why wouldn't we provide healthcare for everyone? And if birth control pills make women healthier, why shouldn't they get it? It has already been established that it treats conditions unrelated to sex, so why do we still assume it's only for sex? Viagra is only for sex, yet insurance companies are happy to pay for that.
MT-Your Right to food was not included in the Const. You have the Right to achieve it, as too, healthcare. Socialism is not in the Const.
And yet, we can agree that letting the weak starve to death is morally wrong. The constitution is one document, incapable of covering every possible topic.
MT-It is the details that matter--why are they weak and do we not have charities specifically for that reason. A self imposed victimhood to pander and exploit the taxpayer is in itself immoral and politically profitable, more immorality.
"why are they weak and do we not have charities specifically for that reason." Do you believe those charities help or are able to help all that need them? off topic from OP but now that it's brought up...
If exploiting the taxpayer is the immoral issue at hand, then you're aiming at the wrong target. Contraceptives are a candle to the inferno that is corporate welfare.
peeples-One liners do not really allow for an intelligent exchange here and I detest merry-go-rounds. Perhaps you can tell me what people you are talking about.
Where in the constitution is insurance? Nowhere, that doesn't make it something to get rid of. The insurance mandate might be a constitutional issue, but as it has passed that test, the individual elements covered really should just be based on sound medicine and economics.
There are all sorts of things individuals could morally object to being covered by insurance: Viagra for men, lung cancer of smokers, heart disease of people who never took care of themselves, infertility treatments, drunks who get in a wreck, etc.
There are also all sorts of things we could object to for being unnecessary delights. How about all of sports, for example. Why should I pay for the arm your kid broke playing soccer? Soccer is stupid.
The only reason the birth control objection has made it through is because the Christian boys club is large enough and powerful enough to cram it through, while there are no groups capable of the same for other issues. That doesn’t make it right, it just makes them bigger.
If you were to start stripping out anything that was morally objectionable or ‘extraneous’ from coverage than what would you be left with? Very little, in which case the purpose of insurance has been completely destroyed.
The historical examples of insurance programs adding contraception coverage didn’t have any rise in costs. The prevention of unwanted pregnancies pays for the cost of the contraceptives, so the economics of it are a no-brainer. This is purely about ‘morality’ and since it is selectively focused on women’s sexuality, it is purely about the ‘morality’ that some men have about women, but that brand of morality doesn't say much for itself when so many of its adherents seem to have the need to make derogatory characterizations about women’s sexuality.
This was a pyrrhic victory. The crass morality put on display and the unequal treatment of women is a bad plan for one's political future, and the sheer weight of the stupidity of allowing religious whims of people to trump secular law and practice just can't last.
junk-Morality is not my concern, the Constitution is. You make your own moral judgments, but do not require me to pay for them.
"make your own moral judgments, but do not require me to pay for them..." (unless you are my Boss or President of an organization I attend).
junk--Your point/points are convoluted and you generalize, as I and many other involved here are either Atheistic or agnostic.
If you can find the part in the Constitution that provides healthcare, education or housing, please provide.
The Constitution creates a framework of governance which includes the ability to craft laws and assess their constitutionality via the judicial system. What part of that are you denying?
junk-You seem to be confusing "Right" The Bill of Rights, with legislated law, They are not the same-it is difficult, but stay in there junk.
I'm not confusing anything. I never said anything about BC being a Constitutional right. It is a legislative mandate flowing from Constitutional power and judicially approved. Get over it.
junk- The question was." Where in the Constitution is a women's right to birth control?" I can understand how that could confuse you-Bill of Rights vs legislation. Stay in there junk.
It is an obviously rhetorical question. Why would I answer it. Your using a charlatan to argue against a thing and you know it (or should). Stop being daft. And you can shove your condescension. Grow up.
Hi junk-No, I asked and wrote the question-not rhetorical, but direct. Failure to understand that appears to be yet another failing, let alone the capacity to intelligently respond. Keep trying you were doing so well.
It is clear to everyone and anyone that BC is not in the Constitution, hence the question is obviously rhetorical. The only failing is your ability to man-up to it and your need to insult people without warrant. Like I said, grow up.
junk-That apparently was not clear to you, as you tried to say otherwise. My words were only complimentary and matched yours. Have a good day.
Thankfully the right to be ignorant and lack common sense IS part of the constitution (freedom to speech covers the right to say you disagree), that some desperately seem to cling to. Originally women didn't have the "right" to do many things. Thankfully as time goes we amend things based on the current reality and lose out dated ignorant beliefs. Just so you know, even if employers don't pay for it, it's "free" at every health department for any woman to receive birth control and any man or woman to receive condoms.
peeples- To breath one one must expend energy--nothing is free unless one believes in fantasies.
Hence the parenthesis. Birth control should be provided no matter the cost, to anyone who wants it, by the government! We are over populated. Unplanned preg. are mostly to poor women. Do you want to support those unplanned children or pay for BC?
Peeples--I have news for you, as I have said before, we are paying for BC, food, housing and abortions. Self control is the best BC and costs nothing but integrity.
"Pursuit of happiness". Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay car insurance?
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Prompted by a CNN "The Sixties" segment,I admit I was unaware...That in the 60s women made 59 cents for the same work a man was paid a dollar.That access to birth control. was generally illegal - a long process and a compassionate doctor were necessary to get it - and then only for...
by Jackie Lynnley 2 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Anjili 2 years ago
How reasonable is it to put your child on birth control pills at 14 years of age?Kim Kardashian’s matriarch put her on birth control pills at the age of 14 years.
by Amanda S 5 years ago
Is giving birth control to our teens saying it's ok to have sex or is avoiding addressing it worse?
by Susan Keeping 6 years ago
Why do women take birth control pills?I would love to see an in depth answer about all the uses of birth control pills, why a doctor would subscribe them and why most women use them.. Reputable sources would be appreciated. People need to be educated.
by sandra rinck 9 years ago
FDA and government approved the Morning After Pill to be made available to 17 year olds. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? My thoughts:Condoms are made available to teenagers and even given to them for their own protection. It is useful since you can't stop them from having sex. ...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|