Originally Posted by Superb
Originally Posted by AK Nako
Because the federal government offered individual states incentives to make their local laws uniform and 21. And in almost every state you can still drink under the age of 21 if you have parental consent.
And alcohol consumption is nowhere close to sexual reproduction and marriage.
The government can not mandate abortions or birth control. Pick a different argument. Or go research every supreme court ruling on marriage, sex, and abortions and then come back and pick a different argument.
gov. can do whatever hey want and have. they made a girl get birth control as part of his probation,,another judge mad a women change her baby name
Yes, in People v. Johnson. A judge made a lady choose between 2 or 3 years probation and birth control or 7 years in prison. It was coerced sterilization and she challenged the ruling. She got caught using cocaine and went to jail anyway so the court never ruled on it, but it would have been found unconstitutional.
There's a reason why, as far as I know, there's never been a similar occurrence in the country.
In fact, if you look up that case you'll find legal and medical journal article after article specifically detailing why what that judge did was unconstitutional and illegal.
As far as forced contraception as a condition for welfare, there's a rule called The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine for Individual Rights.
It says: "... in conditioning the receipt of a government benefit, the government must not be allowed to do indirectly what it may not do directly."
The government can't force you to not have kids. Therefore it can't make forced sterilization a condition for receiving aid.
It doesn't matter if it's mandated or through coercion. It's still unconstitutional.