Anonymous asked you:I don’t keep up with this blog as much as I probably should, so this might have already been asked or noted, but I was just curious…. With the fight for contraceptives going on every day, shouldn’t Griswold v. Connecticut be cited? (Connecticut law outlawed contraceptives, Supreme Court invalidated it on the grounds that it violated your right to marital privacy) It just seems silly that anyone would try to say that it’s wrong, seeing as the Supreme Court already ruled it constitutional.I went to the expert on this one. Jessica Pieklo, my friend and a brilliant lawyer/teacher/writer, said this:
In short, yes Griswold answered the question of whether or not the states can criminalize contraception by holding that a married woman has the right to discuss family planning, and be prescribed contraception accordingly, as part of an overall right to privacy — this is how Griswold builds for Roe.
So, the short answer is yes, everyone who is reasonable including some anti-choicers thinks this is settled. Except the 10thers and the Operation Rescue crew who view Griswold as wrongly decided the same way you and I view Dred Scott as wrongly decided. So there’s that issue.
But the rub here is that the personhood push, for example, doesn’t talk about contraception and Griswold doesn’t talk about personhood and the language in the bills are really tricky here—see Missouri for a good example and why Oklahoma’s failed. So anti-choicers see an opening where one doesn’t exist but where Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy are most certainly willing to go, and where John Roberts would likely follow.
- blog comments powered by Disqus