|
|
|
This topic is archived. |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
|
| Lex
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:26 PM Original message |
| It wasn't *that* long ago that birth control products were ILLEGAL. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| |
| napi21
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:30 PM Response to Original message |
| 1. I think they really want to go back to the colonial days. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| renaissanceguy
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:31 PM Response to Reply #1 |
| 3. They'll go as far as |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| NMDemDist2
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:53 PM Response to Reply #3 |
| 13. in the dark with your nightclothes on for modesty |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| kath
|
Wed Jul-20-05 01:13 AM Response to Reply #13 |
| 19. yeah, close your eyes and think of England! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| RPM
|
Wed Jul-20-05 10:39 PM Response to Reply #19 |
| 22. that's from a song somewhere no? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| suigeneris
|
Wed Jul-20-05 12:05 AM Response to Reply #3 |
| 15. Right, that's called sex with a |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| getmeouttahere
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:31 PM Response to Original message |
| 2. There's no limit to have far backward they will take us.... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| DBoon
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:32 PM Response to Original message |
| 4. Griswold v. Connecticut |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Starbucks Anarchist
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:38 PM Response to Reply #4 |
| 7. Sticky Ricky Santorum railed against this very decision. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Robert Oak
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:34 PM Response to Original message |
| 5. 1896 I believe |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| TheFarseer
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:34 PM Response to Original message |
| 6. I want to say people will draw the line at that |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| kestrel91316
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:48 PM Response to Original message |
| 8. Scarier yet, it was in the 70's! Not the 60's. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Lex
|
Wed Jul-20-05 11:37 AM Response to Reply #8 |
| 20. Griswold v Connecticut was a 1960's case I think. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| kestrel91316
|
Wed Jul-20-05 10:21 PM Response to Reply #20 |
| 21. I don't think we unpersons (singles) got the right to BC |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Lex
|
Thu Jul-21-05 09:18 AM Response to Reply #21 |
| 23. Ah, okay, I see. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| firefox
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:48 PM Response to Original message |
| 9. In Ireland |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| kestrel91316
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:49 PM Response to Original message |
| 10. I think there are those of them who truly wish to return to............... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| catzies
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:51 PM Response to Original message |
| 11. Kicked and nominated to make people think about this. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Warren DeMontague
|
Tue Jul-19-05 11:52 PM Response to Original message |
| 12. They're positively priapic at the thought of overturning Griswold. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| getmeouttahere
|
Wed Jul-20-05 12:02 AM Response to Original message |
| 14. Who has the wherewithal to get an underground railroad started? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| DELUSIONAL
|
Wed Jul-20-05 12:32 AM Response to Original message |
| 16. Even in the 70s in New England |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| getmeouttahere
|
Wed Jul-20-05 12:36 AM Response to Reply #16 |
| 17. But of course, if its a male form of birth control |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| NMMNG
|
Wed Jul-20-05 12:38 AM Response to Original message |
| 18. Well, women wouldn't need that stuff if they'd keep their legs crossed |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 21st 2013, 02:36 AM Response to Original message |
| Advertisements [?] |
| Top |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC