Following the reversal of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly two years ago, commentators have raised concerns that this might not only impact abortion rights but also lead to the erosion of contraception access. This fear was brought to the forefront recently when U.S. lawmakers had the opportunity to pass the Right to Contraception Act. This proposed legislation was designed to affirm an individual’s right “to obtain contraceptives and to voluntarily engage in contraception.”
The bill also would ensure the protection of healthcare providers in offering contraceptives, alongside related services and information. Moreover, it aimed to shut down any legal barriers to birth control access. Regrettably, all but two Republican Senators opposed it.
The threat to birth control availability is not simply speculation. In his concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—which dismantled Roe—Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the Supreme Court revisit decisions on same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and even contraception rights.
“In due time, this Court should reassess all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, inclusive of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas articulated. He argued that such decisions are ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ obliging the Justices to ‘correct the error’ set by these precedents.”
The case of Griswold vs. Connecticut, referenced by Thomas, concluded in 1965 that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of married couples to use contraceptives, declaring that a ban infringed upon marital privacy. This pivotal ruling greenlighted contraception legality in the 1970s and any reversal could impact national access to birth control.
“Until they can accept that if life begins at conception is a hormetic concept… they will continue to challenge the legitimacy of birth control.”
Analysts previously interviewed by Salon shared their fears that Griswold is now vulnerable post-Roe. The Republicans’ recent failure to endorse the Right to Contraception Act signals that a clampdown on birth control might be on the horizon.
Reproductive Freedom For All’s leader, Mini Timmaraju, in her two decades of advocacy, acknowledges the perpetual contentious status of birth control access. Post-Roe, a significant concern is the erroneous portrayal of contraception as an abortifacient by anti-abortion movements.
Subscribe to Salon’s weekly Lab Notes newsletter for more impactful health and science stories.
“They can’t rectify their condemnation of birth control while adhering to the conviction that life begins at conception — a notion they’re using as policy groundwork,” she expressed. “They ignore the scientific and medical consensus that preventing implantation is not inducing abortion.”
Timmaraju monitors key abortion-related cases that may hint at the direction of the Supreme Court regarding Griswold. Observing the court’s rulings on FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and whether EMTALA supersedes Idaho’s rigorous abortion laws, could give further indications.
Interestingly, during arguments in March, Justices Alito and Thomas cited the Comstock Act with relevance to drug regulations like those affecting mifepristone distribution.
SMU’s Seema Mohapatra warns that, similar to Roe’s precarious standing before its overturn, Griswold now faces serious dangers.
Emergency contraception encounters barriers in some states, with a dozen allowing healthcare providers to deny contraception-related services, as reported by the Guttmacher Institute.
For ACLU’s Madison Roberts, the challenge to Roe was merely a stepping stone for extreme agendas. Recent attacks on reproductive rights corroborate the severity of the threats to birth control access.
“The necessity of a legislative safeguard for contraceptive rights, decades after Griswold, underscores the extremity of current challenges,” Roberts concluded. Approving the Right to Contraception Act should have been a straightforward decision.
Delve further
into post-Dobbs discussions on abortion
FAQs about Contraception and Reproductive Rights
- What is the Right to Contraception Act?
- A proposed legislation that aims to affirm an individual’s right to obtain contraceptives and engage in contraception while protecting healthcare providers who offer such services and information from legal barriers.
- Why is the Griswold vs. Connecticut case significant?
- Decided in 1965, it recognized the constitutional right of married couples to use contraceptives, marking the basis for the legality of birth control.
- Is access to contraceptives at risk in the United States?
- Yes, following the overturn of Roe v. Wade, contraception rights are also being challenged as indicated by recent political actions and judicial opinions.
- Are there currently any cases pending that could impact reproductive rights?
- Yes, there are several key cases, such as FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, that could signal shifts in the legal landscape regarding reproduction rights.
- What role does the Comstock Act play in the conversation on reproductive rights?
- The Comstock Act was cited during Supreme Court hearings as potentially having broad application that could affect regulations around drugs, including those for birth control.