Privacy Issues and children?

[BioCatholic]

Much of the concern about Roe is the basis on which it was ruled. Another "hot" one is Griswold vs Connecticut, which struck down a ban on contraceptives. Largely, the 9th and 14 Amendments were used, being that the 9th amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The court held that "privacy" from government regulation of the sexual act between consentig adults was included. Loving vs Virginia also established Marriage as a fundamental right of adult persons.

Now, many conservatives argue that no right to "privacy" exists because it is not stated in the Constitution, and they dont accept that it can be covered by the 9th amendment.

However, i fail to see a "right to have children" mentioned there as well. is it possible (under the assumption that Griswold is wrong) that a state could:

1) limit the amount of children a couple has
2) issue a "license" to have children, much like firearms permits are issued (which does not violate the 2nd amendement, only serves to "regulate" the dispersal)
3) prevent convicted felons, or any other person that it deems "necessary" (has a genuine interest to do so) from having children. or removing the children upon birth.
4) force sterilization or birth control on a couple that has reached their "limit" of children (forced sterilization and chemical castration have been held Constitutional before)
5) Prevent unmarried persons from keeping their child, even though they may have the financial stability. "children always do better in 2 parent households..." ect.

Personally i think Griswold is an excellent decision (independant of its later appllications). im not too crazy about the government telling me what i can or cant wear during sex. the choice is better left to the person, and their beliefs. i think every justice except Scalia and Thomas have expressed that Griswold is a good decision, and stands firm. i tend to fully agree.

so why are people screaming about the "privacy" thing, while having children isnt a enumerated right either?

[Benedictus]

Better check your fire extinguisher, because I foresee a flame war coming on.

Btw, I agree with you on Griswold.

[Karin]

What did Griswold state exactly?

[BioCatholic]

Originally Posted by Karin

What did Griswold state exactly?

The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). The former provides:

"Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."

Griswold overturned that law, and held that married couples should be free of state interference in marital relations and contraception.

Eisenstadt v. Baird, also expanded the protection of birth control to unmarried women.

John Robers has stated that he agrees with Griswold.

"I do believe the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways," he said.

Specifically, he said he supports the court's reasoning in the 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut decision that said states cannot ban contraception, because doing so would interfere with the privacy rights of married couples.

Alito also stated that he agrees with both cases.

[Hildebrand]

Here are the two dissents in Griswold v. Connecticut...

Justice Black's dissent:

I agree with my Brother STEWART's dissenting opinion. And, like him, I do not to any extent whatever base my view that this Connecticut law is constitutional on a belief that the law is wise, or that its policy is a good one. In order that there may be no room at all to doubt why I vote as I do, I feel constrained to add that the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Brethren of the majority and my Brothers HARLAN, WHITE and GOLDBERG, who, reciting reasons why it is offensive to them, hold it unconstitutional. There is no single one of the graphic and eloquent strictures and criticisms fired at the policy of this Connecticut law either by the Court's opinion or by those of my concurring Brethren to which I cannot subscribe -- except their conclusion that the evil qualities they see in the law make it unconstitutional...

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD.html

Justice Stewart's dissent:

Since 1879, Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.

At the oral argument in this case, we were told that the Connecticut law does not "conform to current community standards." But it is not the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community standards. We are here to decide cases "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." ...

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD1.html

(Emphasis added)

[Hildebrand]

The Court's first modern "right to privacy" case is Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that married couples have a constitutional right to use contraceptives. Eight years later, of course, Griswold was used as a foundation for the far more controversial Roe v. Wade, which recognized a constitutional right to abortion.

[Justice Hugo Black]: Would your argument concerning these things you've been talking about relating to privacy, invalidate all laws that punish people for bringing about abortions?

MR. EMERSON [the lawyer for the challengers]: No, I think it would not cover the abortion laws Or the sterilization laws, Your Honor. Those--that conduct does not occur in the privacy of the home.

[Justice Black]: There is some privacy, as a rule, and the individual doesn't generally want it made known.

MR. EMERSON: Well, that aspect of it is true, Your Honor. But those are offenses which do not involve the type of enforcement apparatus as to what goes on in the home that this--

[Justice Black]: Part of it goes on in the home, undoubtedly. MR. EMERSON: Part of it does, Your Honor. But the conduct that is being prohibited in the abortion cases rakes place outside of the home, normally. There is no violation of the sanctity of the home.

(The transcript doesn't identify the Justice, but Johnson, Griswold v. Connecticut 149 (2005), does.) Here, though, another Justice, steps in to help Emerson:

[Justice Byron White]: Well, apart from that, Mr. Emerson, I take it abortion involves killing a life in being, doesn't it? Isn't that a rather different problem from contraception?

MR. EMERSON: Oh, yes, of course.

[Justice White]: And isn't it different in the sense of the State's power to deal with it?

MR. EMERSON: Oh, yes. Of course, the substantive offense is quite different here.

Now here's the kicker: Justice Black dissented in Griswold, precisely because he disapproved of the principle that the federal courts should protect unenumerated rights. Justice White concurred in Griswold, reasoning that the Court should instead strike down the state law.

But then, eight years later, in Roe, Justice White dissented from the Court's decision recognizing a right to an abortion — a decision that Justice Black had more or less predicted, over Justice White's seeming disagreement, in 1965. What, I wonder, did Justice White say to the ghost of his late colleague, when he saw that Griswold had the very effect that Justice Black had predicted, but the risk of which Justice White had dismissed?

http://volokh.com/posts/1127155395.shtml

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/hi...iswoldoral.htm

[BlindSheep]

[Justice Byron White]: Well, apart from that, Mr. Emerson, I take it abortion involves killing a life in being, doesn't it? Isn't that a rather different problem from contraception?

MR. EMERSON: Oh, yes, of course.

[Justice White]: And isn't it different in the sense of the State's power to deal with it?

MR. EMERSON: Oh, yes. Of course, the substantive offense is quite different here.

This is absolutely true and a good reason why Roe is on much shakier ground than Griswold.
Roe can be overturned, I think, without overturning Griswold. After all, the "right to privacy" is not seen as covering any other form of violence (child or spousal abuse, murder, rape etc.), so therefore would not apply to abortion either if the unborn were legally considered "persons".