Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

demmiblue

(36,853 posts)
Fri Feb 18, 2022, 09:17 PM Feb 2022

All 3 Repubs running for MI AG just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut

All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception.

You read that right.

Terrifying.







Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that "the clear effect of [the Connecticut law ...] is to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion".[1]

Although the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
All 3 Repubs running for MI AG just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut (Original Post) demmiblue Feb 2022 OP
Dana Nessel is going to be re-elected. roamer65 Feb 2022 #1
Thankfully, I think all of our kickass women are going to be reelected. demmiblue Feb 2022 #3
Yup. roamer65 Feb 2022 #4
and the WAR ON WOMEN continues apace. Would you consider cross-posting this in niyad Feb 2022 #2
Done. demmiblue Feb 2022 #5
Did they ask them about their position on the 19th amendment? Jim__ Feb 2022 #6

niyad

(113,315 posts)
2. and the WAR ON WOMEN continues apace. Would you consider cross-posting this in
Fri Feb 18, 2022, 09:24 PM
Feb 2022

Women's Rights And Issues? Thanks in advance.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»All 3 Repubs running for ...