On June 7, 1965 The US Supreme Court issued a ruling overturned an 1879 Connecticut law that provided:
any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days.
snip
any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/suprem…
48 years ago ~ in my lifetime (I was about three weeks old when the ruling came down) it was a criminal offense for married couples in Connecticut to practice birth control. It was a criminal offense to provide married couples with birth control.
I so glad we’ve come a long way.
Or have we?
With the passage of Obamacare we have seen any number of businesses (Hobby Lobby chiefly) religious organizations fight having to provide contraption as part of their insurance coverage.
In Wisconsin Rep. Andre Jacque, who supported Rick Santorum during the last GOP presidential primary, is the author or a bill that
would relieve certain religious organizations and employers from having to cover contraceptives. http://fox6now.com/2013/06/02/…
Arizona has considered a similar measure. We’ve seen Planned Parenthood come under attack and have funds cut off because OMG! some tiny portion of their services include abortions.
It smacks of hypocrisy to me that a business will hire someone who uses contraception but will not allow that employee to have insurance that will cover it. Which the employee pays for out of her monthly premiums ~ a point that gets lost in the debate.
Of course, we all know that birth control has just taken the love out of sex and led to indiscriminate sex at levels never seen before in the history of mankind. Forget that birth control allows men and women the opportunity to control their lives in ways not otherwise available including fiscally which should be a winning argument but “be fruitful and multiply” seems to be a prevailing argument for many (apparently whether you can afford said fruit is another issue).
Of course, the argument goes, there is always abstinence. But, circling around to Griswold, what happens between a married (hell, unmarried too) couple in the privacy of their own bedroom (or any other private locale they choose) is no one’s business. Which is rather the point.
6 comments