Griswold v. Connecticut

News and events of the day
Post Reply
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by gounion »

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965:
Facts of the case

In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. Their plan was to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment before the Supreme Court.

Question

Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Conclusion

A right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal.

In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void.

Justice Goldberg, joined by Justices Warren and Brennan, concurred. Rather than finding that the right to privacy was contained in imaginary penumbras, Goldberg located it in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Justice Harlan concurred, arguing that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy.

Justice White concurred, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was the proper basis for the decision.

Justice Black, joined by Justice Stewart, dissented. Unpersuaded by the loose reasoning of the majority, Black felt that there was no way to infer that the Constitution contained a right to privacy. He also dismissed the views of the concurrences that it could be found in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Black, filed a separate dissenting opinion. Stewart argued that despite his personal view that the law was "uncommonly silly," he felt that the Court had no choice but to find it constitutional.



So, Justice Clarence Thomas has called for cases to be brought before the Supreme Court to overturn this case, to allow states to ban contraceptives.

I would love for our conservatives to explain why it's so important that this case be overturned. C'mon, grow a pair, explain your side's views. I dare you.
User avatar
Toonces
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:52 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by Toonces »

The most obvious answer is religion, specifically Catholicism.

For many Catholics, the express purpose of sex is procreation, and only in the confines of marriage. Thus sex for any other purpose is a sin.

A better question might be is what legal basis would they have for overturning it. Condoms are not mentioned in the constitution, so they can probably find a way. It is no accident that they chose Catholics to sit on the court

Anyway, I shall let a conservative answer this question.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by Libertas »

Cons have no view other than own the libs.

Does not matter if doing so kills one of their family members, etc.
I sigh in your general direction.
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by bird »

Aw, c’mon, Clarence. Grow a pair. Go after Loving.

Yeah, you gutless turd, I didn’t think so.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by ProfX »

BTW, just a slight note ... as Griswold only mentioned married couples and marital privacy explicitly, Eisenstadt vs. Baird (1972) ruled that these protections extended to unmarried couples as well (as they should).

One other point -- even if Griswold is never touched, the SCOTUS ruling could already affect two forms of contraception. (Depending on what states do.)

Birth control restrictions could follow abortion bans, experts say
States trying to limit abortion from the moment of conception could also try to restrict access to Plan B and IUDs, according to legal experts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... -rcna35289

"The states that are trying to limit abortion from the moment of conception — not even from the moment of pregnancy, as the medical profession would define it — could well try to challenge Plan B, emergency contraception, potentially even IUDs," said Wendy Parmet, director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University.

[snip][end]

The medical definition of abortion means expulsion following implantation and gestation. That happens much later than fertilization.

IUDs and Plan B simply prevent fertilized zygotes from implanting and gestating. This is not what the medical community defines as abortion, but states declaring anything after conception/fertilization is an abortion (however medically wrong :D ), could still ban these.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
Toonces
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:52 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by Toonces »

bird wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:38 pm Aw, c’mon, Clarence. Grow a pair. Go after Loving.

Yeah, you gutless turd, I didn’t think so.
Interracial marriage is acceptable in the Catholic Church, so it's not one they'd touch.

They're not rolling back civil rights willy-nilly. Well, maybe willy but not nilly. It just seems to be things Catholics object to. As we know, the Catholic church is all about moral purity, they've never done things immoral. (Yes, that's sarcasm)
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by gounion »

Toonces wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:13 pm Interracial marriage is acceptable in the Catholic Church, so it's not one they'd touch.

They're not rolling back civil rights willy-nilly. Well, maybe willy but not nilly. It just seems to be things Catholics object to. As we know, the Catholic church is all about moral purity, they've never done things immoral. (Yes, that's sarcasm)
I think they're after far more than that. They'll just wait till Thomas passes to go after Loving v Virginia.
bird
Posts: 796
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:07 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by bird »

Toonces wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:13 pm Interracial marriage is acceptable in the Catholic Church, so it's not one they'd touch.

They're not rolling back civil rights willy-nilly. Well, maybe willy but not nilly. It just seems to be things Catholics object to. As we know, the Catholic church is all about moral purity, they've never done things immoral. (Yes, that's sarcasm)
Cripes, that was a steaming pile of sarcasm.

The Roman Church or any other church as “0” moral authority until they hand over any and all clergy accused of abuse for investigation by the state. Until such time they are “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

As for Loving, well, once ol’ Clarence kicks the bucket you can bet the religionist racists will be screaming for it.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by Libertas »

Why wouldnt Thomas go after interracial marriage as long as the changing of the law is future application only. Maybe that isnt possible, I dont know.
I sigh in your general direction.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by Bludogdem »

Loving v Virginia was secured by the “equal protection” clause not the spurious “substantive due process”.

I’ve already mentioned that Roe might have stuck under the “equal protection” clause. By the way, RBG also believed that Roe should have been equal protection.
JoeMemphis

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by JoeMemphis »

Bludogdem wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:23 pm Loving v Virginia was secured by the “equal protection” clause not the spurious “substantive due process”.

I’ve already mentioned that Roe might have stuck under the “equal protection” clause. By the way, RBG also believed that Roe should have been equal protection.
It may have made a bit more sense under the equal protection clause but I think due to the nature of the issue there would have always been some degree of controversy because of the question of where life begins and when does that “life” have rights under the constitution. Whose rights then prevail at that point, the unborn or the mothers. It’s an emotional issue. Always was and always will be.

I think the Professor got it right when he pointed out that Casey was an attempt at compromise or middle ground. However that also meant in a way that the issue was never completely settled for some folks on either side.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by ProfX »

https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-gin ... al-1719429

Choosing her words slowly and carefully, Ginsburg says into the microphone: "You asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy and my answer to you is: It's both.

"This is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.

"I said—on the equality side of it—that it is essential to women's equality with men ... that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. And that if you impose restraints that disadvantage her, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex."

According to a New York Times article published at that time, she then went on to add (although this was not featured in the video clip circulating online) that: "The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality."

Ginsburg was about to become the second woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. The article described her comments as "a strong and unambiguous defense of a woman's right to abortion," which Ginsburg said was based on the Constitution's explicit guarantee of equal protection and a less explicit right of privacy.

The contemporaneous piece said she was "the first Supreme Court nominee to offer such an unflinching statement about the constitutional right to abortion."

[snip][end]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Bans on interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:44 pm https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-gin ... al-1719429

Choosing her words slowly and carefully, Ginsburg says into the microphone: "You asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy and my answer to you is: It's both.

"This is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.

"I said—on the equality side of it—that it is essential to women's equality with men ... that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. And that if you impose restraints that disadvantage her, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex."

According to a New York Times article published at that time, she then went on to add (although this was not featured in the video clip circulating online) that: "The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality."

Ginsburg was about to become the second woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. The article described her comments as "a strong and unambiguous defense of a woman's right to abortion," which Ginsburg said was based on the Constitution's explicit guarantee of equal protection and a less explicit right of privacy.

The contemporaneous piece said she was "the first Supreme Court nominee to offer such an unflinching statement about the constitutional right to abortion."

[snip][end]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Bans on interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“ There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '(d)istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being 'odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.' Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1385, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the 'most rigid scrutiny,' Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216, 65 S.Ct. 193, 194, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they 'cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose * * * which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.' McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, 379 U.S. at 198, 85 S.Ct. at 292, (Stewart, J., joined by Douglas, J., concurring).

18
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.11 We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.

19
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

The core of the decision rests on “equal protection”. It was also discussed in the Oberkfell opinion.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by carmenjonze »

Bludogdem wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:26 pm “ There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '(d)istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being 'odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.' Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1385, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the 'most rigid scrutiny,' Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216, 65 S.Ct. 193, 194, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they 'cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose * * * which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.' McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, 379 U.S. at 198, 85 S.Ct. at 292, (Stewart, J., joined by Douglas, J., concurring).

18
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.11 We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.

19
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

The core of the decision rests on “equal protection”. It was also discussed in the Oberkfell opinion.
:? your own quote references both equal protection and due process.

Both equal protection and due process, along with birthright citizenship, make you guys want to get out the hemp rope of white supremacy referenced in your own quote.

It’s why you guys had your hair on fire about “clarifying” the 14th Amendment last decade.

It’s always something with you Know-Nothings and the 14th Amendment, for the past 150 years. :problem:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:31 pm
Do you wish to own the libbz because you’re no longer allowed to actually own real people, anymore?
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Griswold v. Connecticut

Post by ProfX »

scotus notes wrote: These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
The core of the decision rests on “equal protection”. It was also discussed in the Oberkfell opinion.
You are free to believe so. (That it was "the core".) Whatever floats your boat.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556

Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[snip][end]

Look, I get you share Justice Thomas' disdain for arguing on its basis, but. He is one guy, as they say. Even sometimes you say. I find it significant even Scalia thought he was a nut. This may be one rare thing Justice Antonin and I agreed on.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Post Reply