Supreme Court change sparks birth control discussions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
From CNN:
The news of Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement prompted some women to turn to Twitter to encourage others to get an IUD. An intrauterine device can prevent pregnancy for up to 12 years.
While considered conservative, Kennedy was the swing vote on several cases, including Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a 2016 case that ruled that Texas couldn't put certain restrictions on abortion services that were an "undue burden" to patients. He was the swing vote in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a 1992 ruling in which the court said government cannot impose an "undue burden" on women seeking to end a pregnancy before a fetus is viable. President Donald Trump promised supporters he would only nominate US Supreme Court candidates who are against Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that gave women legal access a safe abortion. Many reproductive health experts worry that Roe v. Wade could some day be overturned.
Conversations around IUDs spiked on Twitter after Kennedy's retirement announcement on Wednesday. Some women posted to encourage others to get long-term birth control immediately or to offer up information about their experiences with the devices. This is not the first time for the discussion; after Trump's election in 2016, many women posted about their IUD plans on social media. Between Trump's election and early January 2017, the number of women trying to get into Planned Parenthood to get an IUD went up 900%, Cecile Richards, then-president of the organization, told CNN.
Planned Parenthood said Thursday it was too soon to tell whether more requests were coming in for IUDs since Kennedy's retirement announcement.
On Twitter this week, some women urged others not to put off getting an IUD. Others also encouraged men to get their "tubes snipped." Kennedy "was the vote that was keeping Roe v. Wade the law of the land," said Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's chief legal analyst. "That is done. Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned." Toobin expects states to begin passing laws that would challenge Roe v. Wade.
There have been cases over the years that have eroded complete access to abortion, such as the 1990 decision Hodgson v. Minnesota, in which the court ruled on a law requiring two-parent notification for a minor's abortion, and the 2006 decision Gonzales v. Carhart, which allowed a law to stand that restricted certain abortion procedures. Chief Justice John Roberts has supported greater restrictions on abortion, although he has consistently referred to court precedent.
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
While I understand the concern regarding legal threats to the Roe ruling, it is unlikely Roe itself will be overturned. It's more likely individual states will become emboldened and try to restrict abortion access or rights. After all, certain states have already and continue to try to do just that. Overturning Roe outright would set a very dangerous precedent, not to mention likely spark widespread protest. In other words, it would be a very bad idea.