Comments on: Griswold Anniversary Par-tay!

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:56:48 +0000

#30: The ‘Pill’. came about 1960. Griswold 1965. But many types of BC have always been around. My Grandmothers used “Brest Feeding”, but seem to still have one child a year. Catholics, with the ‘Rhythm Method”, also had a failure or two.

By: sister blah 2

sister blah 2 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:26:44 +0000

#25-- John, Griswold was very limited in scope, only asserting a contraception right for married couples. It wasn't until a subsequent decision that the right was broadened to apply to single people. So passing out condoms at Jr. High would not exactly be in the spirit of Griswold. It is precisely Griswold's narrow tailoring to contraception (not abortion) and married couples (not singles) that I think makes it an interesting object for study in terms of how LDS view it--we're not talking about a legalizing some things we like but other things we abhor. (However, as Steve and Kaimi and others have pointed out in this thread, although the conclusion was narrow, the means of reaching the decision was broad and opened the door for many other decisions that we don't like.) re: 2nd Amendment is an amendment, not a SCOTUS decision. You're right, my wording there lacked clarity, but as Bob noted I was thinking in terms of decisions and amendments being sources of liberties on equal footing as far as celebrateability (that's probably not a word, but should be!).

By: bbell

bbell — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:47:47 +0000

I have a question or 2. Just how difficult was it for people to obtain BC prior to Griswold? Did other states actually enforce BC laws?

By: john f.

john f. — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:44:40 +0000

Bob: I don’t think that being liberal or conservative necessarily has anything to do with whether there is a difference between one of the Amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights and a SCOTUS decision.

If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you are saying that for you a SCOTUS decision is equivalent to an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights and you take this view because you define yourself as liberal.

It is an interesting issue. In real terms, there isn’t much substantive difference between the effect of a Constitutional Right that is literally enumerated in the Bill of Rights and one that is not in the Bill of Rigths but rather is identified by the SCOTUS as emanating from a penumbra of such rights.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:28:07 +0000

#25: Call me a Liberal (you’re correct), but I do not see as bold a line between an “Amendment” and a ‘SCOTUS decision”. But maybe , I am making your point(?).
ME?….I am celebrating the “Social Security Act”.

By: BruceC

BruceC — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:18:54 +0000

Sister Blah 2 – #12

…the Dave Barry quote is exactly what I always think of when I see the Duggars. Bless them, I don’t know how they do it.

I don’t know how anyone does it either but my mother, who had five, always said “once they out number you it doesn’t matter how many you have.”

By: john f.

john f. — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:47:49 +0000

uh, condoms, oops.

By: john f.

john f. — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:47:02 +0000

The Second Amendment isn’t a SCOTUS decision. (I haven’t read the comments so that might have been pointed out already but I couldn’t resist. Sorry, now go ahead and celebrate Griswold — but what are you going to do to celebrate it? Hand out condomns to junior high kids?)

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:15:43 +0000

#23:I don’t disagree with your legal points. I do disagree that the ‘Wars’, were/are over the legal points. I think they are more social convolutions. Each side only using the law as their weapon.
There a lots of things just in the Bill of Rights for some good legal ‘debates’. But only two or three draw a big enough crowds to start ‘Wars’.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:06:32 +0000

Except, Bob, that (1) the “wars” about the pill were not about whether it could be sold legally (even the Connecticut law invalidated in Griswold wouldn’t have had any effect, since the pill isn’t sold without a prescription, and the Connecticut statute only prohibited sales of contraceptives without a prescription), but about whether using the pill was a good thing or not–and that’s a legitimate issue for discussion, so long as you’re not trying to pass a law barring its use and (2) I don’t know if there were any other states with laws, in 1965, like the one invalidated in Griswold. Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, was decided in the face of a majority of state laws that severely limited legal abortions and it not only invalidated all those laws, but stretched the boundaries that legislatures had established in states (like NY, CA and CO) that had liberalized abortion laws before 1973.