Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

DeBose, Cynthia Hawkins; Rosenbury, Laura A.; Stanchi, Kathryn M.; Berger, Linda L.; Crawford, Bridget J.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316411254.007

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Substantive Due Process Privacy and Liberty For Women And1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…protected privacy rights and gave women new power to make decisions about their bodies and reproduction. 139 This allowed them to take control of their health and delay having children, making it possible to take advantage of higher education and career opportunities at a much higher rate. 140 For Black women, it was a continuation of their liberation, since Black women's bodies had not been their own during slavery, when they were forced to bear children for the benefit of their enslavers.…”

Section: Substantive Due Process Privacy and Liberty For Women Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional Demotion

2023

mnjli

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

party seems to fear democracy itself 4 because they fear losing power and influence in an increasingly diverse country. 5 Black Americans, women, and members of the LGBTQ+ community also fear losing the limited power they have acquired, but they also fear losing rights. 6 While White men always have been able to claim the full benefit of the rights conferred or protected by the Constitution, the same cannot be said of other groups. 7 Justice Kagan gives a concise description

show abstract

Section: Substantive Due Process Privacy and Liberty For Women Andmentioning

confidence: 99%