It could always be better, but still.
I wrote this for the Connecticut Health Investigative Team.
Join the Conversation
Leave a comment
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Dating Jesus 
Happy belated 50th anniversary to Connecticut, by the way. Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965. Truly a golden anniversary that shouldn’t be overlooked. And not just because of it’s importance to women’s reproductive healthcare rights, but for its ruling against government intrusion into same…which seems to have been lost somewhere.
“…but for its ruling against government intrusion into same…”
Good opinion-piece by Joseph H. Cooper about this on Sunday in The Courant in which Chief Justice Earl Warren asked CT’s state lawyer Joseph B. Clark what the purpose was of CT’s law against contraception. Saith Clark: “to reduce the chances of immorality … to act as a deterrent to sexual intercourse outside the marital relationship.”
Warren: “What is the police power purpose of CT in telling married people, two people who are married to each other, that they cannot use contraceptives?”
Clark: “If Your Honor please, it’s just to preserve morality … to control the result of what we call a dissolute action, that is, fornication and adultery….not all married people are immune from temptations or inclinations to extramarital indulgence … the problem is that if contraceptives, say, are freely sold, dispensed, or otherwise used, even to married people, how can it be known that they will be used within the marital relationship? Not all people are immune from adultery….or extramarital fornication or non-marital fornication.” [He argued that the provider or disseminator of contraceptive devices was “aiding and abetting something that is a criminal offense.”
“When pressed to explain why the statutes did not infringe on a married couple’s right to avoid pregnancy, he declared that ‘married couples do not have freedom to do what they want.’ “
The state’s arguments back then against contraception had much the same tone and logic as so many arguments these days against marriage equality. You know, the holier-than-thou types fulminating about how allowing marriage equality will cause the destruction of society, the jailing of “Christians,” wholesale conversion of straights into gays, the demise of churches, etc. Not to mention that it could lead to people marrying their children, dogs and pet rocks. Sheesh!
How did you know about my pet rock???