Question: Do Griswold v. Connecticut and Presser v. Illinois both concern a fundamental right to privacy?
Context: Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1 (1915) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case based on US labor law allowing employers to implement contracts that forbid employees from joining unions.  These types of contracts were called yellow-dog contracts.  The case was decided in the era prior to the American Great Depression when the Supreme Court invalidated laws that imposed restrictions on contracts, especially those of employment.  During this time, liberty of contract was viewed as a fundamental right, and therefore, only in extreme circumstances, could this right be abridged.  When the fundamental right of freedom of contract was abridged, it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives, and banned doctors from advising their use, because the law had never been enforced.  Therefore, any challenge to the law was deemed unripe, because there was no actual threat of injury to anyone who disobeyed the law.  The same statute would later be challenged yet again (successfully) in "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965). Catherine Gertrude "Katie" Roraback (September 17, 1920 – October 17, 2007) was a civil rights attorney in Connecticut, best known for representing Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton in the famous 1965 Supreme Court case, " Griswold v. Connecticut", which legalized the use of birth control in Connecticut and created the precedent of the right to privacy.  She is also known for such cases as the New Haven Black Panther trials of 1971, in which she defended Black Panther member Ericka Huggins after she was accused of murder.  Roraback dealt with issues such as women's rights and racial discrimination, and lived her life to defend the rights of the "dissenters and the dispossessed". Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States."  Saying the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state and that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Estelle Naomi Trebert Griswold (June 8, 1900 – August 13, 1981) was a civil rights activist and feminist most commonly known as a defendant in what became the Supreme Court case "Griswold v. Connecticut", in which contraception for married couples was legalized in the state of Connecticut, setting the precedent of the right to privacy.  Griswold served as the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in New Haven when she and Yale professor C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in an attempt to change the Connecticut law banning contraception.  Their actions set into motion legislation that resulted in both "Poe v. Ullman" and "Griswold v. Connecticut." In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.  These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea[s]" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.  Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in "Griswold v. Connecticut" identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion was challenged.  The Court's plurality opinion reaffirmed the central holding of "Roe v. Wade" stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."  The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions.  "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" differs from "Roe," however, because under "Roe" the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on women's fundamental right to an abortion.  Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification. Database Nation is a non-fiction book written by Simson Garfinkel.  Published in January 2000, Database Nation provides the reader with a clear understanding of what privacy is today.  Starting with a broad definition of privacy, he goes in depth on various new technologies and practices that have reshaped our lives, at the cost of privacy.  Garfinkel goes into great detail to describe each type of privacy intrusion.  The current system prevents the individual from resisting; the individual can only do so much to maintain his privacy.  His most important point is that the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right and it does not have to be traded away for our way of life.  He calls the government to take a stand for privacy by establishing an agency that will enforce privacy laws and act as a representative of individual privacy.  Overall, he hopes to increase public awareness on the issue of privacy and raise the standard for individual privacy. Charles Lee Buxton (October 14, 1904 – July 7, 1969) was an American gynecologist, professor at the Yale School of Medicine, and appellant in US Supreme Court case "Griswold v. Connecticut".  He best known as a birth control advocate and, along with Estelle Griswold, party to several legal cases that ultimately repealed Connecticut's Comstock laws and established a Constitutional right to privacy for married couples. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) , is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution, through the Bill of Rights, implies a fundamental right to privacy.  The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."  By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices.  This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."
Answer: no