CONNECTICUT’S ANTI-BIRTH CONTROL LAW UPHELD (Oct, 1964)

The test case they are referring to is of course Griswold v. Connecticut in which the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated a person’s right to privacy.

Of course there are still those, including the insufferable Rick Santorum (NSFW), a leading republican candidate for president who disagree with that ruling.

Fortunately Planned Parenthood is still around and could use your help in their good work.  Please consider donating today.

CONNECTICUT’S ANTI-BIRTH CONTROL LAW UPHELD

Once again Connecticut’s 85-year-old anti-birth control law has been upheld by the state supreme court. The state law, which has been attacked by Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut for more than 40 years, makes the use of contraceptives a crime. Another state law makes it illegal to give advice—even for doctors—on the use of contraceptives.

The Planned Parenthood League is expected to carry this test case to the United States Supreme Court. A previous case was not ruled on by the Supreme Court because it said that the law was really a dead issue since nobody had ever been arrested for violating it since its adoption in 1879.

In this case the Planned Parenthood League openly defied the law by opening a birth control clinic headed by a prominent Yale University gynecologist. The clinic was promptly closed by the police and its staff arrested, thus creating this new test case.

Birth control advocates are anxious for the United States Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the law.

16 comments
  1. Hirudinea says: February 17, 20122:33 pm

    Makes me wonder why anybody would adopt such a law in the first place.

  2. Charlene says: February 17, 20125:26 pm

    That’s easy: if you take away unmarried women’s ability to prevent pregnancy and make it shameful for her to openly have a child out of wedlock, you ensure a steady source of babies for your adoption clinic. Now everyone knows that nobody pays for adoption *wink wink* but those tens upon tens of thousands of dollars in “placement fees” sure add up.

  3. RS says: February 17, 20125:50 pm

    There are several reasons to oppose birth control.

    1. Population growth… an underpopulated America NEEDED a high birthrate.
    2. Public morals… opposition to promiscuity and sex out of marriage.
    3. Responsibility to your ancestors to procreate and carry on their genetics.
    4. Opposition to eugenics… birth control and sterilization were the tools of the eugenics movement

    Of course, the reason of the period was probably religious in basis.

  4. tom says: February 18, 201210:30 am

    I wonder if those that oppose birth control or birth control info are the ones lined up to adopt the unwanted babies; especially the bi-racial or those with birth defects.

  5. RS says: February 18, 20122:38 pm

    Given the uproar in the progressive community over Sarah Palin’s decision to not kill her child with birth defects, I would suspect that yes, cross-racial and those children with defects might indeed find more willing arms in those who morally oppose their slaughter.

    But that is just an opinion. Perhaps others can find statistics.

  6. Bobnormal says: February 18, 20122:44 pm

    try learning about Margaret Sanger,Eugenicist par excellence, i officially can’t stand this website! DELETE DELETE DELETE! i already told my friends, welcome to the U.S.A. fuckwit

  7. RS says: February 18, 20124:53 pm

    Bobnormal,

    why would you have something bad to say about this website, it’s a marvelous window on the past.

    IMO, one of the pinnacles of the web.

  8. Hirudinea says: February 18, 20125:14 pm

    @ tom – What, you mean the factory seconds? Some of those can be great!

  9. deanS says: February 19, 20121:55 am

    Before the comments devolve into a flame war.
    @RS odd I remember the uproar being about the idea that Trig is actually not Sarah Palin’s son but her grandson. Apparently this got in the news again around last year.http://articles.busines…
    if anything she was able to make the choice to have a child despite risks to herself or the child, especially if it was unplanned to have a child at her age.

    @Bobnormal how horrible that someone would excersise their rights and share an opinion that differed from yours with a example from history. “welcome to the U.S.A” indeed.

    Unluckliy I’m sure this whole discusion will turn into a big shouting match, with insulting remarks being tossed around about the “other side” back and forth.

    Take care and play nicely, Thank you for your time

  10. LightningRose says: February 19, 20128:55 am

    Sarah Sixpack Palin likes to brag about how she and her daughter “chose” to carry their babies to term.

    A choice she wants to deny all women.

  11. sdrgibn says: February 19, 20121:49 pm

    Oh boy, political discussion. Hooray.

  12. Hirudinea says: February 19, 20123:48 pm

    Every time somebody brings up birth control it always turns into a shouting match, sometimes I just wish we laid eggs! (Well women laid eggs, not men, like me, of course.)

  13. Nomen Nescio says: February 20, 20129:09 am

    we need to make some more science fiction ideas into reality. specifically, the uterine replicator. laying eggs might be a start, but really, we need to just make the whole link between reproduction and women’s health optional instead of mandatory.

    or maybe i’ve just been reading too much L.M. Bujold, assuming there can be too much of that.

  14. John Savard says: February 21, 20121:36 pm

    As to the infamous eugenics quotes from Margaret Sanger – I have seen a credible case made that when she first started her efforts for birth control, she did so as an advocate for poor people who were overburdened with children they could not support – and in that early part of her career, she faced arrest and other obstacles. So, she changed to advocating birth control for the benefit of the rich, to protect them from too many poor people, and no longer had problems – because now she was no longer a “radical”.

  15. Orv says: February 22, 20125:58 pm

    @12: Then we’d have arguments about whether it was moral to smash unwanted eggs. ;)

  16. hwertz says: February 23, 20125:25 pm

    *Orv, there’ve been real cases about this. They were eggs in a fertility clinic, then after the husband & wife got divorced, they got into a heated battle over what to do with them.

    Anyway… I’m impressed there WASN’T a flamewar. *shrug*

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.