Democrats Claim Republicans Want to Take Away “Your Girlfriend’s IUD” to Draw Votes


    Democrats seem to have decided to focus on abortion and contraception in their final efforts to gain voter support before the midterms.

    Following the decision to overturn the notorious abortion court case Roe v. Wade, Democrats like President Joe Biden began campaigning to legalize abortion across the country and talking about the “chaos and heartache” of not having the right to kill children who are not born.

    Their campaign has now shifted to birth control, and an activist group, Americans for Contraception, advertising in college towns and swing districts, warning the public that Republicans are also planning to make condoms, birth control pills, and “your girlfriend's IUD” illegal.

    The group targets nine states, which include Arizona, California, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas. The ads are being run on Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube.

    One ad shows a conversation that takes place in a bar between two men.

    “Did you hear they’re voting against our right to condoms in Washington?” One man asks.

    “No, they're not,” his friend said in shock.

    “Yeah, there’s a bill on contraception and 90 percent of Republicans in Congress voted against it,” the first man says, before naming “the pill, condoms, your girlfriend's IUD” as the targets.

    “That makes no sense, why would anyone vote against the right to condoms, the pill, or IUDs?” the man next to him was concerned. “We need that!”

    The House of Representatives already voted to establish the “right” to contraceptives, with eight Republicans voting in favor of it alongside the Democrats.

    These Republicans included: Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), John Katko (R-NY), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Maria Salazar (R-FL) and Fred Upton (R-MI).

    Democrats have been alerting people about this issue, with the U.S. Supreme Court targeting other cases of substantive due process like Griswold v. Connecticut (access to contraception), Lawrence v. Texas (striking the anti-sodomy law) and Obergefell v. Hodges (right to same-sex marriage) following the repeal of Roe.

    Although it's not clear whether the Supreme Court will be able to handle an expansive due process review, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the three cases as cases the Court should reconsider as part of his concurring opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

    “[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote, calling “any substantive due process decision … ‘demonstrably erroneous'” saying the Court is obligated to “‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

    While Thomas would like an inquiry, the majority decision in Dobbs doesn't explicitly mean the other precedents or substantive due process need to be reviewed as well. Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

    As reported by USA Today, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Michael McAdams said in response to the ads that “Democrats are panicked because their strategy of ignoring voters’ serious economic concerns is backfiring and now they have to resort to fearmongering false attacks.”

    Although the desire of the conservatives remains uncertain, it is not clear if there exists a political will in sufficient Republican lawmakers in Congress to ban contraception.


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here