Three Republican candidates for attorney general in Michigan, vying to win their party’s primary so they can attempt to oust the current Democratic incumbent, indicated support for undoing a landmark Supreme Court decision from over half a century ago that lifted restrictions to accessing birth control.
Former state House Speaker Tom Leonard, current state Rep. Ryan Berman, and Matthew DePerno, a lawyer in the state who has pushed false claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election, met on Friday in Alpena, Michigan, for a debate over who should become the Republican nominee for state Attorney General. During the event, a member of the audience asked the candidates what their views were on the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut, a ruling made in 1965 that guaranteed couples in the U.S. the right to receive information on and access to contraceptives.
All three candidates were “caught off guard” by the question, according to reporting from The Detroit News, and were apparently ignorant of what the ruling entailed. Upon further clarification, however, all three candidates indicated opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying that it violated states’ rights to restrict access to birth control for their residents.
“This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because this is, it was an issue that trampled upon state’s rights,” Leonard said in response. “It was an issue that should have been left up to the states.”
“The Supreme Court … has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a states’ rights issue on all these things, as it should be,” chimed in DePerno.
Berman said he needed to do more research on the ruling, but also stated that he’s for “states’ rights” and in favor of limiting “judicial activism” at the federal level.
Current Democratic state Attorney General Dana Nessel responded to the comments from the three men with shock, writing on Twitter her own response to their views.
“The party of ‘limited government’ wants direct involvement in everything you do in the bedroom,” Nessel wrote. “The Handmaids Tale is no longer dystopian fiction.”
In another tweet, Nessel made a promise to voters to defend against the undoing of Griswold.
“As MI Attorney General, I will continue to defend the constitutional right to privacy and to ensure (and, oh my God, I can’t believe I have to say this) your legal right to use contraceptives in our state,” Nessel said. “This is definitely a campaign promise I never imagined having to make.”
Seeking to clarify their stances, the Republican candidates for attorney general tried to stipulate that they weren’t against contraception or birth control, but rather the way the Supreme Court had ruled in 1965.
“Our rights should be grounded in the Constitution’s text and tradition, not a judge’s feelings,” Leonard said in a statement on Monday, adding that Nessel’s comments indicated, in his mind, that she is a “fringe culture war activist.”
Leonard, who admitted his ignorance about the ruling, wrongly purported that the Constitution was not involved in the forming of Griswold. In fact, several constitutional amendments and the precedent they created were cited in the Court’s 7-2 decision forming a penumbra of rights that allowed the justices to affirm a right to privacy in certain situations.
“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship,” the Court’s opinion stated.
The ruling also referenced the Ninth Amendment, found within the Bill of Rights, which recognized that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Responding to Leonard’s comments made on Monday, Nessel asked whether other rulings from the Court – including those disallowing restrictions on marriage rights, access to education, and other topics – were improperly made, since they trampled on supposed states’ rights.
“If Griswold was wrongly decided and criminalization of contraception is a ‘state’s rights’ issue the legislature gets to vote on, what about Loving v VA? Brown v Bd of Ed? Lawrence v Texas? Obergefell v Hodges? Bostock v Clayton Co? Also all wrongly decided & fringe war activism?” Nessel asked.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.