Post by Moses on Jun 10, 2005 8:03:12 GMT -5
Even right to birth control under assault:
By Lisa Bennett, Communications Director
June 7, 2005
Imagine a time when the right of married couples to use birth control was not protected in the United States. Surprisingly, that time was only 40 years ago. On June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a "right to privacy" can be found within the U.S. Constitution which includes the use of contraception by married couples. This decision paved the way for Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972, which extended the right to single people. Since the Griswold decision, many of our most cherished rights have emanated from the right to privacy, including the right to abortion. More recently, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court relied upon it to extend privacy rights to gay and lesbians within their homes.
"Today NOW celebrates the 40th anniversary of a truly groundbreaking decision," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Griswold changed women's lives, the lives of their families and this country as a whole in profound and empowering ways."
The landmark case involved an 1879 Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives or assisting anyone to obtain contraceptives. Authorities in the state used the law to arrest Estelle Griswold, executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and the league's medical director, and ultimately convict them of providing information about birth control to married couples. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices found the law unconstitutional and overturned the convictions.
The effects of Griswold are both measurable and immeasurable. By using birth control, women have been able to limit unintended pregnancies, controlling the timing and size of their families. In addition to giving women a level of freedom and opportunity they might never have experienced otherwise, contraception has drastically reduced maternal and infant mortality rates, literally saving lives.
While the right to use birth control seems ingrained in our society today, it still has its opponents—opponents who often wield power disproportionate to the marginal nature of their beliefs.
Recently, the news has been filled with stories of pharmacists who not only refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, but for the birth control pill as well.
"These pharmaceutical tyrants have supporters on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures who are only too happy to craft legislation allowing them to turn away women with birth control prescriptions. Those of us in the majority are demanding that our legislators stand up to the bullies who would take away our basic rights," said Gandy.
A powerful foe of women's hard-fought rights is poised to gain an even more influential post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Janice Rogers Brown, a judge on the California State Supreme Court, is one of President Bush's more radical nominees for the federal bench. Brown has proven adverse to the entire constitutional concept of individual privacy, and she was the sole dissenter in a judgment which upheld a law requiring that if an employer pays for prescription drugs, they cannot exclude contraceptive drugs from that coverage.
A vote on Brown is expected on Wednesday, and the following day the Senate is expected to vote on the Appellate Court nomination of William Pryor, Jr., who called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." The next big break for Bush's anti-reproductive rights agenda is an anticipated resignation on the Supreme Court, possibly as soon as this month.
"The right-wing majority in Congress is hacking away at women's access to reproductive health options. And Bush is intent on stacking our courts with judges hostile to the rights recognized in Griswold," said Gandy. "As we mark this 40th anniversary, NOW recommits to guaranteeing an enduring legacy of privacy and bodily integrity."
By Lisa Bennett, Communications Director
June 7, 2005
Imagine a time when the right of married couples to use birth control was not protected in the United States. Surprisingly, that time was only 40 years ago. On June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a "right to privacy" can be found within the U.S. Constitution which includes the use of contraception by married couples. This decision paved the way for Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972, which extended the right to single people. Since the Griswold decision, many of our most cherished rights have emanated from the right to privacy, including the right to abortion. More recently, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court relied upon it to extend privacy rights to gay and lesbians within their homes.
"Today NOW celebrates the 40th anniversary of a truly groundbreaking decision," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Griswold changed women's lives, the lives of their families and this country as a whole in profound and empowering ways."
The landmark case involved an 1879 Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives or assisting anyone to obtain contraceptives. Authorities in the state used the law to arrest Estelle Griswold, executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and the league's medical director, and ultimately convict them of providing information about birth control to married couples. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices found the law unconstitutional and overturned the convictions.
The effects of Griswold are both measurable and immeasurable. By using birth control, women have been able to limit unintended pregnancies, controlling the timing and size of their families. In addition to giving women a level of freedom and opportunity they might never have experienced otherwise, contraception has drastically reduced maternal and infant mortality rates, literally saving lives.
While the right to use birth control seems ingrained in our society today, it still has its opponents—opponents who often wield power disproportionate to the marginal nature of their beliefs.
Recently, the news has been filled with stories of pharmacists who not only refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, but for the birth control pill as well.
"These pharmaceutical tyrants have supporters on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures who are only too happy to craft legislation allowing them to turn away women with birth control prescriptions. Those of us in the majority are demanding that our legislators stand up to the bullies who would take away our basic rights," said Gandy.
A powerful foe of women's hard-fought rights is poised to gain an even more influential post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Janice Rogers Brown, a judge on the California State Supreme Court, is one of President Bush's more radical nominees for the federal bench. Brown has proven adverse to the entire constitutional concept of individual privacy, and she was the sole dissenter in a judgment which upheld a law requiring that if an employer pays for prescription drugs, they cannot exclude contraceptive drugs from that coverage.
A vote on Brown is expected on Wednesday, and the following day the Senate is expected to vote on the Appellate Court nomination of William Pryor, Jr., who called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." The next big break for Bush's anti-reproductive rights agenda is an anticipated resignation on the Supreme Court, possibly as soon as this month.
"The right-wing majority in Congress is hacking away at women's access to reproductive health options. And Bush is intent on stacking our courts with judges hostile to the rights recognized in Griswold," said Gandy. "As we mark this 40th anniversary, NOW recommits to guaranteeing an enduring legacy of privacy and bodily integrity."