tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663977289289455099.post7212961447272572308..comments2021-03-27T13:50:36.768-07:00Comments on diatribes and discourse: And just one more thing (still contraceptives)TheThirdWheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11299446452796373895noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663977289289455099.post-27782369878625089172012-03-02T17:53:12.782-08:002012-03-02T17:53:12.782-08:00Thanks for the assist! That makes the legal positi...Thanks for the assist! That makes the legal position of the religious institutions in this question seem pretty shaky.TheThirdWheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11299446452796373895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1663977289289455099.post-55992363800658815382012-03-02T17:45:38.546-08:002012-03-02T17:45:38.546-08:00"At a broader level, the "right" in..."At a broader level, the "right" in question is reproductive choice, which is a widely recognized human right, but to my knowledge has no basis in U.S. law or in the constitution."<br /><br />Actually there is a basis in U.S. law. With Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment protected your right to privacy which included a right to marital privacy which meant you had the right to make your own reproductive choices, including using contraceptives. This set the precedent for later Supreme Court ruling Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) which ruled that a woman's marital status had no bearing on her right to contraceptives.<br /><br />Therefore since 1972 reproductive choice has been a legal right for every woman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com