I don't know.
I do know that contraceptives and gay people is an oxymoron. Two gay men aren't going to impregnate each other. Nor are two lesbians.
They are even more rabid than sports fans. Sports fans will criticize when their team does stupid shyt. OTOH, when political loyalist are confronted with the crap their party pulled, they'll deny it happened, twist and distort logic and reality to justify their actions, blame the other guys, construct elaborate conspiracies, etc, etc, etc.Honestly the parties aren't really a representation of the average voter...they're private organizations that people cling to like a rabid sports fan...imo anyways...
That's definitely part of the problem too. They've spent so much time portraying one another as "the devil," that any compromise has become by definition a deal with the devil. Sadly, there are some simple solutions, like reinstating the Fairness Act, restricting/regulating/eliminating PACs, making political donations public, etc.I don't think it's a matter accommodating extremes anymore both parties actively pander to them in the name of their base...I think the center still exists but people willing to compromise here and there to reach better solutions rarely are the loudest ones in the room...hardliners or extremists make enough noise to present the facade that they're representing the popular view...unfortunately anymore there's more energy voting against something than finding something worth voting for...look at how campaigns are run...it always comes down to the other person is essentially evil in whatever manner will get the most votes...you can't compromise and create better solutions when the other "team" is evil though...
Is he against the pills that abort pregnancies? Maybe that's it?Going after contraception is separate from the gay rights issues. I have no idea what Clarence Thomas's deal is with contraceptives, but he specifically mentioned going after contraception. Maybe it's just a general disregard for the sanctimony of a women's right to privacy in healthcare matters. Or perhaps he foresees a future legal argument classifying abortion as contraception and wants make sure that abortion remains illegal. Or maybe it's that IUDs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus and killing a fertilized eggs is murder in his/their eyes.
He just said contraception. The abortion pills should have been covered by Dobbs v Jackson and overturning Roe v Wade. Maybe he wants to make sure there are no loopholes for the abortion pill in the future.Is he against the pills that abort pregnancies? Maybe that's it?
What I mean is could he be grouping it all together by saying contraception when he means the contraception companies?He just said contraception. The abortion pills should have been covered by Dobbs v Jackson and overturning Roe v Wade. Maybe he wants to make sure there are no loopholes for the abortion pill in the future.