The State's Interest in Banning Contraceptives/Patrick Shake

[Well, this seems to be the week for this. Maggie]

"I thought you (and possibly your readers) may be interested in an article that I wrote that was recently published in the UST Law Journal. The article is: "Griswold at 40: The State's Compelling Interest in Banning Contraceptives."

Here is a link to the article:
posted by maggie at 3:56 PM VOTE

3 Comments:

At 4/24/2006 5:00 PM,  Anonymous said...

I find this paper to be truly horrifying. Who was it that said "the government that governs least is that which governs best?" I vote Republican because I believe in freedom. The nanny state decides you can't smoke cigarettes today, tomorrow they'll take away your beer. The next day they'll take away that Twinkie. The day after that, bye bye birth control. Nevermind that you are an adult and can decide for yourself what legal behaviors you want to engage in. So when the government takes away the birth control, will they raise taxes to help pay for all the babies whose parents can't afford to take care of them? Of course. That's what government is for: to take care of you because you can't do it yourself.

 

At 4/24/2006 11:57 PM,  M. Simon said...

It has more to do with
http://www.issues.org/13.2/courtw.htm
demographics than morality. i.e. women will want to have fathers for their children if there are enough eligible men around. If not they are going to have children anyway.

Nature always wins in the agreggate. Kind of like quantum mechanics in that respect. Individual behavior cannot be absolutely determined. Aggregate behavior can be determined very accurately.

What to do? Well read the above link. They have a few ideas.

 

At 4/25/2006 2:50 PM,  Anonymous said...

See the following article on National Review Online today:PUBLIC HEALTH
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan: Sugar, the government is watching. 04/25 6:55 a.m.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home