Is the culture of death something new?

[mlchance]

JimG:

With Griswold, it seems to me the question should not be whether or not State regulation of contraceptives is good or bad law.

The question should have been whether there is anything in the Constitution which forbids such regulation. If there is not, then it ought to have been left up to legislatures. Finding a right to contraception in the penumbras is not really good enough for constitutional law.

Exactly. Griswold wasn’t a constitutional issue. If the good folks of Connecticut wanted the law changed, they should’ve worked through the legislature.

Griswold was a good decision because the Connecticut law was stupid. The state has no business restricting access to contraceptives among married couples (or, really, any adult, as opposed to minors for whom I believe a case could be made that the state has a compelling interest in such restrictions). It was a bad decision, OTOH, because of the majority rationale (the penumbra doctrine) and because it was simply a case the SCOTUS should never have touched.

This is why I favor constitutional scholars such as Justice Scalia, who repudiate the penumbra doctrine.

– Mark L. Chance.