Contents:
- CLARENCE THOMAS: COURT SHOULD RENSIR GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH CONTROL DECISNS NEXT AFTER OVERTURNG ROE
- CLARENCE THOMAS: COURT ‘SHOULD RENSIR’ GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH NTROL
- END OF ROE THREATENS GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH CONTROL ACCS: THE 14TH AMENDMENT, EXPLAED
CLARENCE THOMAS: COURT SHOULD RENSIR GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH CONTROL DECISNS NEXT AFTER OVERTURNG ROE
Supreme Court Jtice Clarence Thomas lled for his lleagu to re-exame and potentially overturn lgs that protect gay marriage and accs to birth ntrol an opn ncurrg wh Friday’s landmark cisn endg feral abortn rights. Texas, that forbids stat om outlawg nsensual gay sex, and Obergefell v. Hodg cisn legalized gay marriage Photo/Cliff Owen).
Supreme Court's cisn allowg stat to ban abortn immediately stirred alarm Friday among LGBTQ advot, who feared that the lg uld someday allow a rollback of legal protectns for gay relatnships, cludg the right for same-sex upl to marry, other matters based on the right to privacy. How is abortn nnected to gay rights and birth ntrol, legally speakg?
In a separate ncurrg opn, Jtice Clarence Thomas said the urt should review other precents, cludg s 2015 cisn legalizg same-sex marriage, a 2003 cisn strikg down laws crimalizg gay sex and a 1965 cisn clarg that married upl have a right to e ntraceptn.
CLARENCE THOMAS: COURT ‘SHOULD RENSIR’ GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH NTROL
Hodg, which legalized gay marriage. Will the Supreme Court overturn gay marriage, birth ntrol accs and other rights? He warned that the lg uld unrme rights to ntraceptn and gay marriage: “This is an extreme and dangero path.
Specifilly, many aspects of the velopment of homosexualy (both the male and female varieti) are not as well unrstood as they should be to make some of the claims that many people felt nfint exprsg. There's a lot to discs regardg the rults of the paper (Skorska et al, 2016): The rearchers were examg the possibily that a maternal immune rponse might play a key role the velopment of a homosexual orientatn mal. Effectively, then, the mother's immune system would (sometim) treat certa male protes produced by the fet as a foreign pathogen and attempt to attack , rultg out that uld clu a homosexual orientatn, but also fetal loss if the reactn was strong enough (i.
END OF ROE THREATENS GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH CONTROL ACCS: THE 14TH AMENDMENT, EXPLAED
Already there is a lot to like about this hypothis on a theoretil level, as don't pos any hidn adaptive benefs for a homosexual orientatn (as such proposed benefs have not received sound empiril support historilly). The rearchers reced approximately 130 mothers and classified them on the basis of what kd of children they had: those who had at least 1 gay son (n = 54), and those who only had heterosexual sons (n = 72).
The mothers were then classified further to one of five groups: those wh gay male only-children (n = 8), those wh gay male offsprg that had no olr brothers (n = 23), those wh gay male offsprg wh olr brothers (n = 23), those wh heterosexual male only-children (n = 11), and those wh heterosexual male offsprg wh siblgs (n = 61). As predicted, the average number of fetal loss were higher the first group (mothers of gay male only-children; M = 1. When nsired terms of the rat of misrriag to live to births, a siar picture emerged: mothers of gay male only-children reported more misrriag to live births (M = 1.
As birth weight tends to crease over succsive pregnanci, the parisons were limed to first live-born sons only (n = 63); this left 4 gay male only-children, 7 gay mal wh no olr brothers, 14 heterosexual mal wh gay younger brothers, 10 heterosexual male only-children, and 28 heterosexual mal wh siblgs. The rults mirrored those of the fetal-loss data: mothers of gay male only-children tend to give birth to fants that weighed signifintly ls (M = 2970 grams), than all other groups (d = 1.