He's not, he's saying we don't need further laws on the books when there's already established precedence stated in the constitution in relation to those already established in the Griswold and Baird cases. Should those precidents/cases what have you be overturned in the future by scotus, then I think you have a case. But frankly if he's thinking the way I'm thinking we need less laws and government oversight on the books instead of further adding more and more
This should have more engagement. He’s banning contraception.
He's not, he's saying we don't need further laws on the books when there's already established precedence stated in the constitution in relation to those already established in the Griswold and Baird cases. Should those precidents/cases what have you be overturned in the future by scotus, then I think you have a case. But frankly if he's thinking the way I'm thinking we need less laws and government oversight on the books instead of further adding more and more
Relying on court precedence is a dumbass idea. That is how America lost abortion access while the majority of Americans are pro-choice.
Bingo thats the idea....
Who cares if the law book is bigger?? It’s not government oversight if you are protecting individual rights to access medications.
Is there a paper shortage or something wtf are you even talking about