Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_22_issue_1?pg=10
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:19:07+00:00

Document:
institutions have, historically, been permitted to do so without direct regulation by the government, 11 such exercises of State power have gone relatively unaddressed by scholars.
11. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496-97 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring) (noting that the governmental power to ban contraceptives without compelling state interest would implicate the state’s ability to circumvent a couple’s desire to reproduce, the constitutionality of which he characterized as “silly”).
12. E.g., Id.; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
13. E.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 121 (1973); accord Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 840 (1992); accord Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 917 (2000); accord Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 134 (2007).
14. E.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 564 (2003); accord Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 189 (1986).
15. See generally Carey v. Population Servs. Int’l, 431 U.S. 678, 681 (1977) (“The decision whether or not to beget or bear a child is at the very heart of . . . [a] cluster of constitutionally protected choices . . . [and] holds a particularly important place in the history of the right of privacyFalse”); see also Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 54 (1973) (The right to privacy “encompasses and protects the personal intimacies of the home, the family, . . . motherhood, [and] procreationFalse” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); see generally Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 843 (1992) (Concluding that “personal decisions relating to . . . procreation” are among “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, [that] are central to the liberty protected by the” Constitution); Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey at 926-27 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in part) (“Throughout this century, this Court . . . has held that the fundamental right of privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion in such intimate family matters as procreationFalse”).
www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/TissueSafety/ucm232852.htm (last visited July 26, 2012) [hereinafter “Order”] (ordering Mr. Arsenault to cease dispensation of his sperm to committed couples on an uncompensated basis or risk criminal and financial penalty).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.