Analysis

The legal history of abortion:the aftermath of Griswold v. Connecticut 47 years later

The US Supreme Court. Photo credit: wallyg on Flickr.

Just how did the right to an abortion appear in the Constitution? It’s found in the Fifth Amendment, which reads in relevant part, “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” You see it there, right? The language dealing with the constitutional right to have an abortion?

What I see is that no person shall be deprived of life without due process. We have a constitution that is designed to protect life. But right now it is doing the opposite.

A “right to privacy” has been found to be implied within our Constitution. This sounds great at first glance. Everyone likes his or her own personal bubble. Everyone likes his or her privacy.

The case that laid the groundwork for this right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut. On June 7, 1965, the decision was issued in that case. Now, forty-seven years later we can see where that decision has taken us.

Back in the 1960s, Connecticut had a ban on contraceptives. This ban was challenged, and the case made it to the Supreme Court, where the Court found:

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.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

With the right to privacy on the books, it was only eight years before the concept was expanded in the infamous Roe v. Wade case. Yes, the ability to abort one’s child was recognized in the Constitution under the right to privacy, a right that was established forty-seven years ago today.

   
Live Action on Facebook

  • Pingback: The Legal History of Abortion: The Aftermath of Griswold v. Connecticut 47 Years Later | Live Action News & Opinion « A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Rebecca Downs

    It’s such a shame that the Constitution was interpreted this way. I’m right with you on this! 

  • JC Now

    And you call yourself an attorney? Really? So if, as you assume, a woman should be forced to carry an unborn fetus to term, what should the state compensate her for the use of her body for nine months? Because in reality, the state can’t demand the use of a vacant lot without compensating the owner for its use under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. You, as a conservative (no doubt) would be the first in a picket line demanding “just compensation” for any landowner who was forced to provide the use of his land to the government for any period of time. If indeed a fetus (or as right wing nuts would go so far to say), a fertilized egg, should be considered a “person,” please tell me any other circumstance where a living “person” can demand the use of another person’s body so he can live. A living infant could be dying for want of bone marrow. You could be a perfect match. And yet, the government can’t force you to provide your bone marrow, even if your refusal guarantees the death of that infant. Because, as you see, what you are asking for is not equal rights as a person for a fetus. You are asking for greater rights. You are asking that an unborn (potential but not yet living human being) have the right to enslave a woman and use her body, regardless of the consequences, for nine months so that it can live. Once you and every other anti-choice proponent is ready to provide the use of your body and body parts on demand so others can live, stop back and we can have another discussion about the validity of your argument.