Talk:Griswold v. Connecticut

message: A landmark ruling in 1965 that struck down a state law that banned contraceptives for everyone, including married couples.
"Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors"
Vandalism?Countmippipopolous 09:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: "The polemic around Poe led to the appeal in Griswold v. Connecticut, primarily based on the dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Poe, one of the most cited dissents in Supreme Court history."
To say that something is one of the most cited in history should be cited itself, either to an authoritative legal review or journal, or to a site that has counts of citations of Court dissents with a retrieval date. I'm not familiar with the different citation formats for wiki, but I know that the Cornell law site as well as legal services like RIA Checkpoint offer counts of citations. CountryMama27 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: The text makes reference to a concurring opinion written by Goldberg, though the sidebar doesn't mention it.
:The text was correct; the sidebar originally included the concurrence, but it was accidentally omitted when it was changed to a template code format.  I've corrected it.  Postdlf 16:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatch between sidebar and text 

message: In the "Subsequent Jurisprudence" section I added appropriate quotations from and the citation for Lawrence v. Texas, while focusing on the legal basis of Lawrence and its derivation from Griswold as laid out by Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion. Feliciapatch 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence v. Texas 

message: "Privacy" as used in Griswold is based on due process and has a very particular meaning that isn't elaborated on here.  It's not simply privacy in the usual sense of the word.  Most of the problems even pro-choice jurists have with Roe is it's use (misuse) of the right to privacy - in effect, Griswold's dicta makes a narrow argument based on the fact that to enforce the law would violate any form of due process (that's the sort of privacy that emanates from the "penumbras" of the Constitution), whereas Roe found that some external right to privacy existed and that abortion during the first trimester was protected by that privacy.  The points are very different in theory and in practice, and its distinction should be made here. Ryanluck (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Right of Privacy" doesn't mean what's implied here 

message: The sidebar says that stewart dissented and was joined by black. Right beneath that it said Black dissented and was joined by stewart. Seems rather unnecesary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.50.71 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: The first Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut opened in 1935 in Hartford. It provided services to women who had no access to a gynecologist, information about contraception or other methods to plan the growth of their families.
I'm just highlighting this for public review and consideration, because it feels quite propaganda-ish to me.  Sure that might have been what was SAID, even then, but no one (now, or then) really "plans" their families.  They might plan to NOT get pregnant, they might plan to abort a fetus if she's pregnant, but those aren't really "planning" services as the name of the organization tries to imply.  I'd be willing to be the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood was to hand-out condoms and provide abortions.  While this might be loosely considered to be "planning", it in now way is reflective of the full connotational load of the word "planning", although Planned Parenthood does use that as a rhetorical outpost.  Using the word "plan" this loosely renders it meaningless, as well as ceding conversational territory to the pro-abortionists.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Family planning seems to be a well accepted term of art in literature around this topic. Personal opinions aside about "no one really plans their families" we edit based on the available published literature. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Planned Parenthood's Origins 

message: This article claims Roe v. Wade established "Right to birth control for any woman" in the section header but then (correctly) describes it as about abortion.  I bring this up here because for some reason my edit was undone as being a "test edit".50.157.104.147 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roe vs. Wade 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: With how much discussion this article is getting, I think it would be a good idea to take this article to GA and then FA. Pinging major contributor  and , who indicated interest in WT:LAW. What areas do y'all think need the most improvement? I think the "precedent" section most definitely is the area needing most urgent improvement. I also think the background section needs a bit more coherence. What are y'all's thoughts? — Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Join WP:FINANCE!  18:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly agree re:"precedent" section, although that's mostly just based on a quick once-over of the article and not any real knowledge of the literature about that case that has come out since then. I'll start doing some reading in the legal journals I have access to and see what I turn up. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the background does an okay job at describing the history of the clinic and pro-contraception organizing in Connecticut, but needs more explanation of the legal history of contraception regulation both in the US and in Common Law generally, as a start. — Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Join WP:FINANCE!  21:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking the article to GA