Featured Image
Judge Amy Coney Barrett.Andrew Caballero-Reynolds-Pool / Getty Images

WASHINGTON, D.C, October 14, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — On the third day of the hearings to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, she and her questioners visibly presented the moral and legal links joining contraception and abortion, as well as same-sex “marriage.”

Sen. Coons (D-Del.) made mention of the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which states that married couples cannot be legally forbidden to use contraceptives in their own homes. He then repeatedly asked Barrett if she agrees with former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia “that Griswold was wrongly decided, and thus states should be able to make it illegal to use contraceptives if they so chose[.]”

Barrett answered by reminding the senator that she could not express a view on such a matter but that Griswold was “very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere.”

However, she went on to note that “the only reason that it’s even worth asking that question is to lay a predicate for whether Roe was rightly decided, because Griswold does lie at the foundation of that line of precedent.”

Coons then presented the link between the legalization of contraception and a whole host of other changes in moral practice over the years. “It anchors a lot of modern liberty interests … it was extended to unmarried couples in Eisenstadt; it was extended into the right for women to control their reproductive choices in Roe and in Casey.”

The senator further presented the link between contraception and the promotion of the homosexual movement: “it was also extended to support same-sex couple intimacy in Laurence v. Texas, and ultimately that same-sex couples have a right to marry in Obergefell.”

The Eisenstadt case extended the use of contraceptives to un-married couples in 1972, while Roe used the arguments and language of Griswold and Eisenstadt to impose legal abortion on all fifty U.S. states in 1973.

The legal precedent set by the Griswold case, allowing married couples to use contraception, was thus employed throughout the decades until the Obergefell decision in 2015, which, citing Griswold, ruled that no state could refuse to recognize two men or two women calling themselves “married” as such.