The headline speaks for itself.
The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that would prevent states from banning birth control, though nearly the entire Republican delegation from Texas voted against it.
The bill, which faces far more hurdles passing through the Senate, largely responds to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent opinion casting doubt on past rulings guaranteeing legal protections for contraceptives. It is part of a Democratic rush to codify policy on social issues that have since been put under question after the high court overturned Roe v. Wade.
All Texas Republicans voted against the measure, except for Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, who did not vote. Only eight Republicans in the entire chamber joined all Democrats in voting in favor of the contraceptives legislation.
Democrats, meanwhile, said the measure is necessary to protect women’s personal freedom.
“The decision of when and how to begin a family is a personal decision, and I will continue to fight back against any attempts to further strip away reproductive rights from Texas women,” said U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas.
The right to contraception was established in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which the court found that a constitutional right to privacy protected women’s ability to take birth control. The right to privacy was also the basis for Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Thomas and some other conservatives dispute whether such a right is actually established in the Constitution, causing some to fear that other court precedents could be at risk. But while Roe has been overturned, Griswold remains. Contraception is legal in Texas, and the state’s top leaders have not given any public indication that they want to change that.
[…]
Senate Democrats introduced companion legislation earlier this week, which U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, dismissed as “pure hysteria,” doubting the Supreme Court would actually repeal legal protections for contraceptives.
“It’s not in jeopardy,” Cornyn told The Associated Press.
Lots of people thought that those who were warning that Roe v Wade was in jeopardy were accused of being hysterical too, and we know how that turned out. We know what happens when the likes of Jonathan Mitchell brings a wingnut lawsuit to judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk, and if you aren’t familiar with the Comstock Act and its possible applications in this context, you should be. This is a simple way to prevent that from happening. Senators Cornyn and Cruz are free to offer amendments to this bill, which did have the votes to pass, just not to beat the filibuster, if they think it’s too much. They don’t want it to come to a vote. That tells you what you need to know.
“How much for the little girl? The women? How much for the women?”, quoting Jake Blues, is what Cornyn meant.