Reproductive freedom

  • June 8, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Nancy Northup, President and CEO, Center for Reproductive Rights

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium honoring the 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.

    Fifty years ago yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that forever changed the legal landscape of our right to plan our families and make private decisions that are fundamental to our lives.  The 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, found that married couples have a constitutional right to obtain and use birth control when planning their families, free from antiquated laws that criminalized their doctors and prevented them from making personal decisions about when and whether to have children.

    Griswold’s recognition of a constitutional right to privacy was a first step towards the Court’s subsequent decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Lawrence v. Texas, which found the right to liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment protects a broad set of liberty rights ― including the rights to bodily integrity, family decision making, and personal dignity and autonomy ― as well as privacy.

    But the story does not end there.  Far too many American women still face an uphill battle when trying to plan their families ― including efforts by politicians to choke off women’s access to emergency contraception and defund family planning clinics which provide low or no cost birth control.

    Political hurdles such as these are especially high for women living in poor, rural, and immigrant communities ― where access to any health care services can be sparse and the cost of contraception could mean the difference between making the rent and putting food on the table.  And when women don’t have access to reproductive health care, the impact is clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended or mistimed ― one of the highest amongst developed nations in the world.

  • June 5, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Davida Silverman and Adriana Kohler. Silverman is Senior Policy Analyst for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Kohler is Public Policy Analyst for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium reflecting on the 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.

    This week marks the 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark United States Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of privacy and right for married couples to use contraception.  This decision was the first in a series of events that transformed the lives of American women and their families.  

    Half a century later, birth control has become integral to a woman’s life: More than 99 percent of sexually active women have used at least one form of birth control at some point in their lives. Yet, there is still a very real danger that the right to birth control may be derailed through legal attacks and ongoing efforts by lawmakers to undermine access to contraception.


    The Benefits

    Access to birth control has dramatically improved women’s lives and ushered in profound societal changes:  

    Birth control has contributed to the significant decline in unintended pregnancies, dramatic improvements in maternal and infant health, decreased rates of infant death, and women’s educational, political, professional, and social advancements.  

    In fact, one-third of the wage gains women have made since the 1960s are the result of access to oral contraceptives, and being able to get the birth control pill before age 21 has been found to be the most influential factor in enabling women enrolled in college to stay in college.  

    Additionally, a study on the long-term effects of access to contraception found that individuals born in the years immediately after the rollout of federal family planning programs were less likely to live in poverty in childhood and as adults.  

    Access to birth control also has helped bring teen pregnancy rates to a 40-year low.


    Making Legal Birth Control Affordable

    Even though birth control became legal and widely available after Griswold, lack of insurance coverage and cost barriers continued to prevent women — particularly lower-income women and women of color — from accessing the birth control they needed. Out-of-pocket costs for birth control could amount to up to $600 per year, depending on the birth control method.

    In response, roughly 45 years after Griswold, women’s health champions in Congress pushed for a key provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that would require most health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive care without out-of-pocket costs. The administration tasked the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine to determine which women’s health services to consider preventive. Based on those recommendations, the Obama administration adopted guidelines in 2011 (which took effect in 2012) affirming that the women’s preventive health provision must include coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods without out-of-pocket costs.

  • June 5, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Director of Reproductive Health Programs, National Partnership for Women & Families

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium honoring the 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.

    On Sunday, I’m getting married.  As I prepare for this milestone and draft my vows, I’m thinking about our life together and the family we might someday create.  About the promises we’ll make to support each other through life’s twists and turns.  And about our partnership in decision making and family life.

    In this moment, my mind turns to Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision first protecting the right of married couples to access contraception, which will mark its 50th anniversary on the day of my wedding.

    These two events are inextricably linked – and not only because I’m a reproductive rights advocate.  Griswold is foundational to my equality in our upcoming marriage.  It guarantees my ability to pursue my chosen career (law) the same way that my fiancé pursues his (medicine).  Griswold allows my career to be valued in our relationship and ensures that our joint decisions will further our professional choices.  And it enabled us to spend the last 3 1/2 years in a wonderful romance exploring the potential of a life together – without being forced into parenthood before we are ready.

    Griswold makes my marriage possible because it makes my life possible.  Professors Reva Siegel and Neil Siegel have described Griswold as “offer[ing] women the most significant constitutional protection since the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote, constitutional protection as important as the cases prohibiting sex discrimination that the Court would decide in the next decade – perhaps even more so.”  The Connecticut ban at issue in Griswold prohibited “[a]ny person” from “us[ing] any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.”  This denied women control over their reproductive lives, affecting their ability to obtain an education, pursue their careers, become financially stable, and follow their dreams.  As the U.S. Supreme Court put it three decades later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

  • June 4, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Jill Adams, Executive Director, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, University of California, Berkeley School of Law

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium honoring the 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.

    When it comes to our most intimate experiences and decisions, the right to privacy should arm the many, not just shield the few who can afford to pay for it.  We’ve learned in the years since Griswold v. Connecticut that privacy is not a panacea for the fulfillment of all people’s sexual and reproductive rights.  The right to privacy has not granted secure and reliable respect for decisions we make in our bedrooms and about our bodies.  This is especially disappointing in a country that places such a legal and cultural premium on matters of autonomy and individualism – particularly in the private sphere.

    Cast in the mold of Griswold’s privacy-based right to use contraception, the right to choose abortion declared in Roe v. Wade similarly presents an important avenue but imperfect vehicle for everyone’s guaranteed arrival at reproductive self-determination.  Courts have allowed the proliferation of countless contractions, exemptions, and restrictions on the rights to abortion and contraception, siphoning power out of the hands of individuals wishing to exercise their reproductive rights and into the hands of states, corporations, and institutions wishing to constrain or control them.

    Is privacy really a “right” if you can’t afford to exercise it?
    The abstract right to use reproductive health services  free from governmental interference rings hollow without the necessary, enabling conditions to ensure access to such services and the ability to make decisions about them free from coercion by person, system, or circumstance.  For low-income people, and other marginalized populations, the right to privacy may merely be a right on paper if it is not a right they can actually afford to exercise.
  • June 3, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Anthony S. Winer, Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium honoring the 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.

    Griswold v. Connecticut is justly celebrated for discerning the constitutional right to privacy, and thus constitutional protection for reproductive freedom.  It not only protected access to contraceptives, but also provided the foundation for the later cases constitutionally protecting access to abortion.  Moreover, Griswold helped instill constitutional respect for the broader concerns of “marriage, procreation, and family relationships,” and ultimately for the even broader concern of “personal dignity and autonomy.”

    However, where the privacy and personal autonomy of LGBT people are concerned, the legacy of Griswold is more nuanced.  Doctrinal developments following Griswold constrained gay rights in some respects, and in some respects fortified them.  And the way in which the Supreme Court has been treating LGBT rights recently may presage salutary changes to come.

    The most negative aspect of the Griswold legacy for LGBT people is that it did nothing to forestall the disaster of Bowers v. Hardwick.  This was the 1986 case in which the Supreme Court held that Georgia’s anti-sodomy law did not protect sexual relations between two men (nor presumably between two women).  When Bowers was decided, Griswold was already 21 years old, and Roe v. Wade had already passed its thirteenth anniversary.  Cases applying the right to privacy were not in short supply, but the Court majority could not bring itself to allow lesbians and gay men to share in the newly discerned freedoms.  There was no principled reason for Bowers to come out differently from the contraception or abortion cases.  Bowers seemed to create a “special case,” perhaps founded on homophobia, excluding lesbian and gay rights from the zone of privacy that protected others.