As we examine once again the right to privacy issue which we began exploring last week, we want to look at the next step taken by the SCOTUS in “legislating” this right and all related rights into law.

We left off last week with Griswold v. Connecticut, and how a case involving contraceptives evolved into this issue. In 1972, seven years after Griswold, the Court took under consideration, contraceptives and unmarried couples. Griswold was about the use of contraceptives, but Massachusetts had laws restricting their distribution. William Baird, during the course of a speech at Boston University on birth control and overpopulation, gave a contraceptive to a young lady. He was promptly arrested and convicted with the case ending up in the SCOTUS on the lone issue of distribution in Eisenstadt v. Baird, and the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection grounds.

Mark Levin, quoting Justice William Brennan states the following:

Brennan found that the statute was a prohibition on contraception per se and ruled that “whatever the rights of the individual to access contraceptives may be, the rights must be the same for the unmarried and the married alike”.

Continuing with Brennan:

“If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible.”

By writing the above, Brennan dropped the facade concerning the sanctity of marriage and focused on the right to privacy belonging to individuals.

Finally, Brennan wrote in this opinion:

“If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” (emphasis mine)

This case was about contraceptives, so why did Brennan insert the phrase “bear or beget a child” above? Levin puts it this way:

“He was subtly laying the foundation to extend the right of privacy to encompass the right to abortion”

So once again we see that a quiet revolution has taken place where a majority of five Supreme Court Justices usurp the legislature’s authority and remove the power from the people, and assert it for themselves in setting social policy. These five have substituted their personal judgements for those of Congress and every State Government, all in the name of the right to privacy.

All quotations above, are take from Mark R. Levin’s book, Men In Black, which can be purchased by clicking on the link to your left. It is a fascinating and well written book, and a must read for anyone who wants to understand how the Supreme Court of the United States has usurped the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 14th, 2005 at 11:48 am and is filed under Saturday Evening Judicial Review Post. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Tags: Supreme Court, Eisenstadt v. Baird, quiet revolution, right of privacy, Judicial Activism