We just passed the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a monumental black eye in the fabric of American history. To better understand how the Supreme Court legalized abortion, however, we shall examine the impact of Griswold v. Connecticut, a prior Supreme Court case.

A subtle, yet seismic shift occurred in our country’s moral fabric when that case was finalized. The legal code officially jumped the track in 1965 and has been running away ever since. What follows is a short analysis of the impact of Griswold v. Connecticut.

This case essentially struck down all state laws forbidding the sale, distribution and use of contraceptives. It did so on an innovative “right to privacy” supposedly found protected by the Constitution, though not explicitly stated.

The Impact of Griswold v. Connecticut Morally Speaking

The Supreme Court decision of 1965 may not have been considered in its day a monumental event. However, that did not change the fact that its horrendous decision made a mess of things morally.

Despite about 30 states having laws regulating contraception distribution and use, contraceptives were easily obtainable. Their usage was popular and was growing.

Instead of placing a national prohibition on this growing phenomenon, the Supreme Court codified its acceptance into law. Despite the Natural Law being upended by use of contraceptives, seven of the nine Supreme Court justices thought it their duty to circumvent moral authority.

The court had no right to deem a “right” to do something that directly defies Divine Law (Genesis 38:8-10, among other sources). The civil law acts as a guide for the populace. When a civil law contradicts the Natural Law and the Divine Law above it in the hierarchy, it neuters itself from being a good source for policy making.

The Natural Law did not change in 1965 to allow for unnatural sex to become natural. Nor did God renege on His Word either despite the seven justices’ maneuver.

The Impact of Griswold v. Connecticut Legally Speaking

Thanks to Griswold v. Connecticut the legal precedent was set to permit any sexual deviancy in the name of “privacy.”

At first, Griswold called the use of contraception a matter of marital privacy. But that extra proviso did not last long.

For, the Supreme Court case, Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972 dropped all pretenses and found a legal “right” to contraception use for all unmarried individuals as well. This could hardly be a surprise.

A year later, as everyone should know by now, the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were handed down. Together they expanded this “right to privacy” to include the legal permission to murder one’s own unborn child for virtually any reason.

Fast forward a few decades to 2003 with the Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas. There the Supreme Court advanced the “right to privacy” clause by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). Where Bowers recognized a state’s right to prohibit homosexual sodomy, the Lawrence decision reversed this.

In that same year, the Supreme Court handed down their ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. This trainwreck of a decision found a legal “right” for sodomitic marriages. It did so citing Lawrence.

Of course, no overview would be complete without mention of the monstrosity that was the Obergefell v. Hodges case, issued in June 2015. That decision cited both Eisenstadt and Griswold to rule same-sex couples had a legal “right” to marriage licenses in all 50 states.

That’s quite the poor legacy for the impact of Griswold v. Connecticut.

Practical Impact of Griswold v. Connecticut

Where will it end?

The Supreme Court first fell for the lie that contraceptive sex should be a legally protected right for married couples (Griswold, 1965). Once they bought the premise that contraceptive sex was permissible for married folks, there was no justification to restrict it to those already wed. Thus, the Court moved to legalize contraceptive sex for all (Eisenstadt, 1972).

Since the US government granted its citizens an expectation that sex could be had without any resulting children, it needed to answer for when an unwanted pregnancy occurred. Enter Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973). Now if the legally-protected contraceptives fails, at least parenthood could be avoided legally by way of abortion.

But the Court could not logically stop there. Since sex and babies need not go together according to the Court, there is no logical reason to limit sexual activity to those of the opposite gender. Enter the Lawrence case (2003) to make legal homosexual sex.

Thus, the natural institution of marriage was severely undermined. As a natural consequence, Goodridge (2003) found a legal recognition for so-called “gay marriage” for the state of Massachusetts. The Obergefell ruling (2015) only advanced this “right” to every US citizen practicing homosexuality.

The Natural Law did not change in 1965 to allow for unnatural sex to become natural.

So, I will ask again, where does this end?

For instance, why does marriage need to be limited to just two people? Soon enough a case will come before the court to settle that. If the Natural Law can be ignored as to the gender of the married persons, then what prevents it from being legally recognized for three or more people? Here is an example of this being tried.

Why does marriage need to be limited to human persons? Why can’t a human legally marry an animal or an inanimate object? Both the former and the latter are being attempted.

And how can they be stopped? Either our binary sexuality means something or it means nothing. Either there is a natural process to procreation worthy of ordering society around, or there’s total chaos. As we are witnessing unfold before our very eyes.

YOUR TURN

How would you assess the impact of the Griswold v. Connecticut case?
Please leave your thoughts below.