Privacy: Griswold and Eisenstadt

1
Privacy Griswold and Eisenstadt

• Professor Garcia
• I will be in the office 2-230 today
• Rjgarcia_at_ucsd.edu
• Monday Roe v. Wade
• Wednesday Bowers, Lawrence
• Friday Romer v. Evans Special Guest Speaker
  Professor Glenn Smith, California Western
• On Romer and the Politics of Initiatives
• The Romer case on my web page

2
Reading For Next Week

• Monday, Read Roe v. Wade, Majority Opinion Parts
  I, II, V, VIII, X, XI and Justice Rehnquist
  Dissenting Opinion
• Omit Justice Stewarts Concurring Opinion in
  Roe.
• Wednesday, Read Bowers v Hardwick Majority
  Opinion only Lawrence v Texas, Majority Opinion
  and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Scalia.
• Omit OConnor concurrence
• Friday Read Romer (all) on my web site

3
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

• Court strikes down CTs law prohibiting the use
  of contraceptives by any couple.
• The specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
  have penumbras, formed by emanations from those
  guarantees that help give them life and
  substance. These are found in the 3rd, 4th and
  9th Amendments
• Justice Black dissents There are no penumbras.

4
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

• Court struck down a law prohibiting distribution
  of contraceptives to unmarried individuals.
• Majority If the right of privacy means
  anything, it is the right of the individual,
  married or single, to be free from unwarranted
  intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting
  a person as the decision whether to bear or beget
  a child.
• C.J. Burger dissents The state can rationally
  regulate distribution.