Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(61,538 posts)

1. That is correct and it would be a simple matter for the Supreme Court to overturn it.

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:10 PM

Oct 2012

If Roe v Wade goes, then Griswold probably goes too, because they are based on the same premise.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

True on both but DURHAM D Oct 2012 #6

I shouldn't laugh Sekhmets Daughter Oct 2012 #8

Not actually ashling Oct 2012 #15

The private prison industry must be salivating! KansDem Oct 2012 #2

Thats the goal. Outlawing contraception. Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #3

Anti-choice, anti-birth control fanatics should just call themselves Butterbean Oct 2012 #4

It's more about controlling women than sex Freddie Oct 2012 #5

I agree StarryNite Oct 2012 #7

Correct! Kber Oct 2012 #14

Forget Griswold, Eisenstadt v. Baird is far more in danger. NutmegYankee Oct 2012 #9

It would allow states to make contraception illegal. onenote Oct 2012 #10

No it wouldn't. (nt) Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #11

Technically, it would allow states to enact such laws. hifiguy Oct 2012 #12

Roe v. Wade is entirely predicated on Griswold v. CT RomneyLies Oct 2012 #13

That's okay. randome Oct 2012 #16

well there's always the butt! upi402 Oct 2012 #17

Yes...however OmahaBlueDog Oct 2012 #18