Through Roe v. Wade on the chopping block, Republicans are increasingly talking about other Supreme Court cases they don’t like. After all, with conservatives holding a 6-3 majority, why not make a wish list?
One of the upcoming cases is Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 decision that said couples have the right to contraception. It struck down a Connecticut law banning the use of birth control devices.
Griswold was a landmark case, which ruled against Connecticut based on a couple’s right to privacy. It set the stage for future decisions ensuring access to contraception for unmarried couples, same-sex marriage rights and, of course, access to abortion in Roe v. Wade.
Many Republicans hate Griswold because it was the foundation for so many other decisions.
Sen recently said. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) that it is “unconstitutional.” Arizona GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters’ campaign website said he would only support judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey are wrong decisionand that there is no constitutional right to abortion.”
In February, Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Jeff Bartos called Griswold “terrible decision.” That same month, Matt DePerno, the Republican nominee for Michigan attorney general, said, “Listen, all these cases dealing with — Griswold, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs — these are all states’ rights issues. … It will be a state rights issue in all these things — as it should be!”
Masters made it clear that he does not favor banning contraceptives.
But if Republicans get what they want ― a reversal of Griswold ― it will return the issue to the states and open the door to restrictions or bans on birth control methods, since there is no federal guarantee of access.
Griswold was not about to be overturned. Even Amy Coney Barrett admitted as much during her 2020 confirmation hearings, saying, “I think Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere.”
But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. After all, very few people believe that Roe will be overturned either.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Sandra Fluke knows as well as anyone how dangerous access to contraception can be. In 2012, she gained national attention as a law student at Georgetown University for speaking out about the importance of having health insurance plans that cover birth control costs. Republicans barred her from testifying before a House committee, and right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute” for her stance on the issue.
“If the Supreme Court takes away Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy, that has implications for gay marriage, interracial marriage, consensual adult sexual activity, and, yes, access to birth control,” said Fluke, who now is a public interest lawyer. “We do not need to rely on public popularity to prevent attacks on constitutionally protected activities. Most public support does not protect abortion. Near-universal public support did not protect birth control when the Supreme Court sided with opponents in cases like Hobby Lobby, and we’re already seeing judges and politicians take positions on Griswold.”
There is Louisiana law for now it will test the Supreme Court’s commitment to Griswold. The bill would make abortion a homicide and charge women who undergo the procedure with murder. It could also criminalize some forms of contraception ― like IUDs and Plan B ― because it would change legal definition of a person’s state to a fertilized egg.
Some Republicans have long pushed for federal personhood legislation, which would classify fertilized eggs as persons under the US Constitution, making abortion illegal. And it’s an issue coming up on the campaign trail.
In Senate races, Masters said he supports it. Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Dave McCormick says he believes so life begins at conception. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who is up for re-election, said that “can’t be beat” whose life begins with conception in 2012. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is also running this cycle, has backed personhood bill.
In congressional races, Christopher Rodriguez, a Republican running in California’s 49th District, said he plans to “author a bill that define human life as beginning in the womb and therefore protected by the constitution of the United States.” Tim Reichert, running in Colorado’s 7th District, has ― in his work as an economist ― given presentations and written opinion articles arguing that contraception harms women economically and psychologically because it makes it is more difficult for them to get married. His campaign said he doesn’t want to ban birth control.
And at the state level, there is even more support. Candidates include those who endorse the idea of the law of being or the belief that life begins at conception DePerno in Michigan, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Arizona attorney general candidate Tiffany SheddGOP gubernatorial candidate of Wisconsin Kevin Nicholsoncandidate for governor of Pennsylvania Lou Bartlett etc.
“The crux of this debate centers on when pregnancy begins,” said Osub Ahmed, associate director for women’s health and rights at the Center for American Progress. “Major medical experts and even the federal government define pregnancy as beginning when a fertilized egg implants in a person’s uterus. However, conservative policymakers and advocates have tried to shift the focus of the post , arguing that pregnancy begins at the moment of fertilization – before implantation.
“If this new definition were to be seriously considered or incorporated in any way into state law, it would jeopardize access to some contraceptive methods that prevent implantation, including emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices, which it’s troubling to be redefined as abortifacients,” Ahmed added.
On Sunday, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) didn’t say “no” when asked if his state could target birth control like Plan B or IUDs.
“My view is that the next phase of the pro-life movement is focused on helping mothers who may have unexpected and unwanted pregnancies,” Reeves said. “And while I’m sure there will be a conversation around America about [contraceptives]it’s not something we spend a lot of time on.”
