Will Access to Contraception Face Criminalization Soon?
Written on
Chapter 1: A Troubling Trend in Reproductive Rights
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) appears to be engaging in a slow yet deliberate erosion of privacy rights, reminiscent of a death by a thousand cuts. The possibility of overturning Griswold v. Connecticut is now on the horizon.
Picture two women, Sarah and Emily, each in their separate bedrooms.
Sarah, residing in California, carefully opens a packet containing two pills prescribed by her physician. The first, mifepristone, is intended to halt her unwanted pregnancy, while the second, misoprostol, facilitates the removal of any remaining pregnancy material from her uterus. She enjoys the autonomy to manage her body in the privacy of her home.
Conversely, Emily, who lives in Mississippi, unwraps a single, small white pill known as Plan B, which functions similarly to her daily birth control to either prevent or postpone ovulation. Unfortunately, her state's regulations severely restrict her ability to make personal decisions regarding her reproductive health.
Emily feels fortunate to have the resources to obtain Plan B from a local pharmacy, yet she is acutely aware that soon, many contraception options may be out of reach. The state is poised to intrude upon her private choices within her home.
One might argue that Sarah's actions are a termination of a pregnancy while Emily's are merely preventive, making it seem exaggerated to draw parallels between the two. However, both women are united by a single, fragile thread: the concept of privacy.
Both are making intimate choices regarding their bodies within the confines of their own homes. Although the rights to abortion and contraception may seem different, they are deeply intertwined under the same legal principles.
The landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 established a constitutional right to privacy, which prevented government interference in a married couple's decision to use contraception. This was followed by Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972, which extended similar rights to single individuals.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade built upon the privacy foundations laid by these earlier cases, asserting that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
From a legal standpoint, the invalidation of one right could jeopardize the others. The implications of privacy rights have been subject to various interpretations, much like an inkblot test—each person sees what they wish to see.
Section 1.1: The Ambiguity of Privacy Rights
Constitutional privacy rights remain complex and contentious. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a "right to privacy." This concept is derived from multiple amendments, including the Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
For instance, while the right to bear arms is currently interpreted as part of privacy rights, the Constitution does not explicitly grant individuals the right to own firearms; the Second Amendment merely protects the formation of a militia.
This ambiguity allows for differing interpretations of the right to contraception. The legal discourse is likely to intersect with scientific definitions, particularly regarding how "conception" is understood.
The anti-abortion stance often reflects a troubling lack of scientific understanding. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) defines conception as occurring when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Conversely, some religious groups equate it with fertilization, conflating two distinct stages.
This misunderstanding—where fertilization is mistaken for pregnancy—highlights a significant gap in knowledge. In reality, many fertilized eggs fail to implant, which is a critical fact when discussing contraception methods.
All forms of hormonal birth control, including IUDs, Plan B, and the standard birth control pill, function by preventing implantation. However, anti-abortion advocates mischaracterize these methods as abortifacients, which are intended to terminate existing pregnancies.
Section 1.2: Political Responses and Future Implications
Republican legislators are making their intentions clear. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has proclaimed that "life begins at conception" but has dodged questions about whether he refers to fertilization or implantation. The state's limited access to contraception already renders it a "contraception desert."
Other political figures are even more forthcoming. U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn has labeled Griswold as "constitutionally unsound," while Idaho State Representative Brent Crane has indicated he may advocate for bans on Plan B and IUDs. In 2012, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to block insurance coverage for birth control, arguing it infringed upon religious freedoms.
The push to restrict women's reproductive choices is not new. Republicans have been systematically undermining reproductive rights for years. If they succeed in dismantling Griswold, states could potentially criminalize contraception, paving the way for future attacks on same-sex marriage.
In the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, SCOTUS indicated its intention to eliminate federal abortion rights. The decision warned that no current language prevents the federal government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, effectively disregarding exceptions for rape or incest.
The Court even suggested that women might need to seek abortion services in Canada if federal protections are revoked—an option not available to everyone.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for all Americans, regardless of gender. The ability to govern one’s own body is fundamental to human rights. By overturning Roe, SCOTUS has sent a chilling message about the loss of control over family planning.
The Court has openly signaled its intent to reconsider previous rulings regarding contraception, with Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly stating that future cases should address substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
For many, issues of privacy—like contraception and marriage—are considered "unenumerated rights," which lack explicit mention in the Constitution. These rights are the foundation for all other freedoms. If Griswold is overturned, the implications for democracy could be catastrophic.
The pressing question remains: what will America look like in the aftermath of such a drastic change?
This video discusses the potential implications of recent court decisions on contraception access, highlighting the slippery slope toward further restrictions.
This video explores the ongoing battle over reproductive rights, focusing on contraception as a new front in the fight for bodily autonomy.