CHAPTER THREE

1. Estelle Griswold Interview with Cheek; Yale University “History of the Class of 1919,” “Decennial Record of the Class of 1919” (1929), and “A Twenty-Five Year Record of the Class of 1919” (1946), containing biographical entries and updates on both Dick and then also Estelle Griswold, Yale University Archives; Estelle Griswold Resume, 20 November 1953, Schlesinger Library 223–2–13; New Haven Register, 10 April 1965, p. 32; New Haven City Directories, 1951–1954; Hilda Crosby Standish Interviews with Nichols and Hubbell; Garrow interviews with Hilda Crosby Standish and Gary R. Trebert. Richard Griswold’s obituary appears in the New Haven Register, 2 October 1966, p. II-11; Estelle Griswold’s obituary appears in the 18 August 1981 New Haven Register, and in the 18 August 1981 New Haven Journal-Courier, p. 14.

2. Milmine to Cunningham, 4 December 1953, PPLC 22-K; Griswold Interview with Cheek; Standish Interviews with Nichols and Garrow; Imogene Monk, Board Minutes, 8 December 1953, PPLC 11-R; Milmine to Griswold, 8 December 1953, Griswold to Milmine, 11 December 1953, and PPLC press release, 12 January 1954, PPLC 22-H; New Haven Register, 14 January 1954. Also see Garrow interviews with Ellen Switzer: “She said she couldn’t have children and she always wanted children,” Fran McCoy: “I think there was definite regret,” and Cornelia Jahncke: “It was very devastating for her and her husband not to be able to have children.” “‘I would have liked to have had children but never could,’” Jahncke quoted Estelle as once having said. In one interview, Estelle characterized her initial hesitance about accepting the PPLC post somewhat differently: “I felt I was vulnerable because we have had no children.… There were no infertility clinics when we were younger. But then I realized that the work was basic to all the ideas in which I am interested.” Gereon Zimmerman, “Contraception and Commotion in Connecticut,” Look, 30 January 1962, pp. 78–83, at 83.

3. Milmine to Manternach, 20 January 1954, Manternach to Milmine, 21 January 1954, Ann Dingman to Milmine, 2 February 1954, and Milmine to Manternach, 8 February 1954, PPLC 5-K and J.

4. Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1954; Imogene Monk, Board Minutes, 9 February and 9 March 1954, PPLC 11-S. Also see Greenwich Time, 17 March 1954, p. 11. Two years earlier, on March 20, 1952, Harper had spoken, along with Herbert Thoms, at another Yale seminar on planned parenthood; in the fall of 1953 someone had suggested him as a possible member of a committee to study PPLC’s future. Connecticut Parenthood, Spring 1952; Milmine to Molly Cunningham, 23 September 1953, PPLC 22-K. Griswold many years later described her initial sense of the organization much more bluntly than she had put it to the board: “there was little constructive activity” going on. Griswold Interview with Nichols, p. 28.

5. Manternach to Milmine, 10 March 1954, PPLC 5-J; Buxton to Milmine, 12 April and 10 May 1954, PPLC 16-B; Imogene Monk, Board Minutes, 13 April 1954, PPLC 11-S; Connecticut Parenthood, Spring 1954; Manternach to Milmine, 11 May 1954, PPLC 5-L; Jane Daniells, “Legislative Committee Annual Report,” [18] May 1954, PPLC 22-K; Monk, Annual Meeting Minutes, and Milmine, “President’s Report,” 18 May 1954, PPLC 11-S. Also see Monk, Board Minutes, 8 June 1954, PPLC 11-S; Milmine to Buxton, 5 and 26 October 1954, PPLC 37-H. As Fran McCoy later commented on Estelle’s hiring of her, “She felt that it ought to be integrated.” Garrow Interview.

6. Milmine notes, 27 May 1954, PPLC 5-L; Milmine to Oliver L. Stringfield, and to Blaine Anderson, 1 June 1954, Milmine to Stringfield, and to John H. Riege, and to Herbert MacDonald, 17 August 1954, PPLC 37-G; Theodore J. Richard to Simon Frank, 15 September 1954, PPLC 5-F; Norman St. John-Stevas, Birth Control and Public Policy (Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, July 1960), p. 25; Milmine to Dr. Francis Sutherland, 8 December 1954, PPLC 5-F.

7. Griswold, “Director’s Report, June 9–October 1, 1954,” PPLC 11-S; Griswold to Maud Rogers, 24 June 1954, and to Mrs. William Darbee, 14 June 1954, PPLC 37-G. Also see Griswold to Milmine, 26 July 1954, PPLC 37-G; Miriam Garwood to William Vogt, 18 August 1954, PPFA II-185; New London Meeting Minutes, 21 September 1954, PPLC 50-A.

8. Imogene Monk, Board Minutes, 13 October 1954, and Gertrude Carpenter, Board Minutes, 14 December 1954, PPLC 11-S; New Haven Register, 21 November 1954; Milmine to Buxton, 6 December 1954, PPLC 37-G; Griswold to Harper, 9 November 1954, PPLC 37-H; Connecticut Parenthood, Fall 1954; Lockard, New England State Politics, pp. 235–238; Lieberman, The Power Broker, p. 188; Manternach to Milmine, 13 January 1955, Milmine to Manternach, 14 January 1955, and Manternach to Milmine, 17 January 1955, PPLC 5-K. Also see Francis Goodale to Loraine Campbell, 1 February 1955, PPLM Box 106.

9. Journal of the House, p. 270 (28 January); Journal of the Senate, pp. 326–27 (1 February); 1955 Connecticut General Assembly Records (RG 2), Box 334; “Legislative Report,” 17 May 1955, PPLC 5-M; Hartford Courant, 28 January 1955, 4 February 1955, 21 April 1955, p. 14; Waterbury Republican, 28 January 1955, 21 April 1955; Hartford Times, 4 February 1955, 16 and 21 April 1955; Bridgeport Herald, 13 February 1955; Gertrude Carpenter, Board Minutes, 15 February and 12 April 1955, PPLC 11-T; Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1955; Buxton to Milmine, 18 April 1955, PPLC 5-P; Transcript of Hearing, Public Health and Safety Committee, 20 April 1955, 96pp., PPLC 5-N and Connecticut State Library; Milmine to Albert Levitt, 25 April 1955, PPLC 37-I. Also see New Haven Journal-Courier, 24 April 1955, and New Haven Register, 25 April 1955.

10. Hartford Courant, 4 May 1955, 16 May 1955, 18 May 1955, p. 1, 24 May 1955, p. 3; Waterbury Republican, 4 May 1955, 18 May 1955, p. 5; New York Herald Tribune, 8 May 1955; Journal of the House, pp. 874, 900, 927, 949–959 (10, 12, 13, 17 May); Transcript of Proceedings, Connecticut General Assembly, House of Representatives, 17 May 1955, pp. 1554–1587, esp. pp. 1570 and 1577, Connecticut State Library; Journal of the Senate, pp. 1022 and 1053–1054 (19 and 23 May); Transcript of Proceedings, Senate, 23 May 1955, pp. 1582–1583; Bridgeport Telegram, 24 May 1955; Bridgeport Post, 24 May 1955.

11. “Legislative Report,” 17 May 1955, PPLC 5-M; Greenwich Time, 1 June 1955; Lockard, New England State Politics, pp. 281–291, at 282; Gertrude Carpenter, Annual Meeting Minutes, 17 May 1955, PPLC 11-S; Griswold, “Director’s Report, May 1954-May 1955,” PPLC 11-T; Connecticut Parenthood, Spring 1955 and Fall 1955; “Memories of Claudia McGinley,” 5 May 1983, 2pp., PPLC 33-I; McGinley to Buxton, 2 May 1955, PPLC 17-K; Buxton to McGinley, 4 May 1955, PPLC 38-M. “The whole problem is such a damnably emotional one,” Buxton added, “that any crusading within the profession serves no advantageous purpose and produces only intramural bitterness and strife.”

12. Griswold to Malin, 9 May 1955, PPLC 5-P; Bridgeport Herald, 5 June 1955; Griswold to Malin, 7 June 1955, PPLC 6-K; Lucy Head, Planning Committee Minutes, 8 June 1955, PPLC 23-K; [Griswold], “Legal Action,” [13 June 1955], McGinley to William B. Hamilton, 16 June 1955, PPLC 6-E; Harper to Griswold, 16 June 1955, PPLC 16-K; Executive Committee Minutes, 24 June 1955, PPLC 11-T; Griswold to Mrs. Sunde, 11 August 1955, PPLC-37-H1; [Griswold], “Report of Meeting,” 18 August 1955, PPLC 6-E and 11-T; Griswold Notes “Re Legal Advisory Committee,” 20 August–6 October 1955, Griswold to Roessle McKinney, 20 September 1955, PPLC 6-E; Mrs. Richard Price to Milmine, 20 October 1955, and McGinley to Price, 26 October 1955, PPLC 21-L; “Summary to Date of Plan,” PPLC 21-E.

Three years later a peeved Manternach, having learned of the Poe v. Ullman set of cases only through the newspapers, sent PPLC a bill for $269 for 1953 and 1955 work. Manternach to PPLC, 1 August 1958, and McGinley to Manternach, 11 August 1958, PPLC 7-G.

13. Gertrude Carpenter, Board Minutes, 9 November 1955, PPLC 11-T; Beatrice H. Hessel, “Report of the Planning Committee,” 9 November 1955, PPLC 23-K; Hartford Courant, 19 November 1955; Griswold to Ralph Brown, 9 December 1955, PPLC 21-F; F.H. Wiggin to Griswold, 13 December 1955, PPLC 6-E; “Summary to Date of Plan,” PPLC 21-E; Winfield Best to Mrs. Price, 20 December 1955, Price to Best, 10 January 1956, PPLC 21-F; Carpenter, Executive Committee Minutes, 10 January 1956, and Board Minutes, 24 January 1956, PPLC 12-A; Griswold to Officers and Board, “Proposed Referral Service,” [16 January 1956], PPLC 12-A and 21-E; Miriam Garwood to Doris Rutledge, “Conference with Mrs. McGinley …” 27 January 1956, PPFA II-185; Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1956; Vogt to Griswold, 30 January 1956, PPLC 21-F; Louis Joughin to Ralph Brown, 2 February 1956, ACLU 1956 Vol. 11; Dorothy Lorenzen, Stamford Minutes, 7 February 1956, PPLC 51-D; Griswold to Herbert S. MacDonald, and to Winfield Best, 14 February 1956, Griswold to William Vogt, 15 February 1956, F. H. Wiggin to Griswold, 16 February 1956, PPLC 21-F; Ralph Brown to Boris Bittker et al., 17 February 1956, ACLU 1956 Vol. 11; Carpenter, Executive Committee Minutes, 23 February 1956, PPLC 12-A.

14. Miriam Lynch, Referral Service Committee Minutes, 12 March 1956, Daisy M. Dennison, “Report on Progress of Referral Service,” 27 March 1956, PPLC 21-E; Newtown Bee, 2 and 23 March 1956, Stamford Advocate, 20 March 1956, New Haven Register and New Haven Journal-Courier, 11 March 1956, Middletown Press, 5 April 1956, and other similar clippings, all in PPLC 19-K; Gertrude Carpenter, Board Minutes, 27 March and 17 April 1956, PPLC 12-A; Milmine, “Report of the Legislative Committee,” 27 March 1956, PPLC 22-K; Dennison, “Report of Committee on Referral Service,” May 1956, PPLC 21-E; McGinley to Vogt, 18 April 1956, PPLC 21-G.

15. Griswold, “Director’s Report, May 1955–[May] 1956,” [22 May 1956], PPLC 12-A; Gertrude Carpenter, Annual Meeting Minutes, 22 May 195[6], PPLC 11-T; Hessel, “Annual Report of Planning Committee,” 22 May 1956, PPLC 23-K; Milmine, “Report of Legislative Committee,” 22 May 1956, PPLC 5-S.

16. Gertrude Carpenter, Board Minutes, 5 June 1956, PPLC 12-A; Griswold, “Meeting … Infertility Clinic,” 19 June 1956, McGinley to Buxton, 13 July 1956, Buxton to McGinley, 2 August 1956, PPLC 16-C; Griswold to Herbert MacDonald, Fowler Harper, Ralph S. Brown, J. Stephen Knight, and F. H. Wiggin, 31 May 1956, PPLC 21-F; Brown to Griswold, 5 June 1956, Wiggin to Griswold, 6 June 1956, PPLC 21-G; Bruce Manternach to Griswold, 7 June 1956, PPLC 5-L; McGinley to Vogt, 7 June 1956, PPLC 21-G; Winfield Best to Vogt, 8 June 1956, PPFA II-185; Griswold to Milmine, 19 June 1956, PPLC 5-R; Vogt to Sunnen, 19 July 1956, and Alfred L. Severson to Vogt, 25 July 1956, PPFA II-185; Mrs. Price to Griswold and Vogt, 8 August 1956, PPLC 21-O; Milmine to Griswold, 21 June 1956, PPLC 5-S; Dorothy Lorenzen, Executive Committee Minutes, 12 September 1956, PPLC 12-A; Lieberman, The Power Broker, p. 201; Lockard, New England State Politics, pp. 238–239. Also see Francis Goodale to Loraine Campbell, 8 February 1957, PPLM Box 106.

17. Gertrude Carpenter, Executive Committee Minutes, 12 November 1956, and Board Minutes, 27 November 1956, PPLC 12-A; Lockard, New England State Politics, pp. 238–239; Alan Olmstead, Meriden Record and Manchester Evening Herald, 11 December 1956; Phyllis Rudolph, Executive Committee Minutes, 13 December 1956, PPLC 12-A; Milmine, “Report of Legislative Committee,” 10 January 1957, PPLC 5-S; Journal of the House, p. 201 (22 January) Journal of the Senate, p. 217 (23 January); Waterbury Republican, 24 January 1957, p. 35; Cady to Milmine, 25 January 1957, Milmine to Cady, 26 January 1957, and McGinley to Cady, 29 January 1957, PPLC 4-A; Milmine, “Report of Legislative Committee,” 28 January 1957, PPLC 5-S; Carpenter, Board Minutes, 28 January 1957, PPLC 12-B; Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1957. Also see Milmine, “Annual Report, Legislative Committee,” 28 May 1957, PPLC 5-S.

18. Buxton to Milmine, 6 February 1957, PPLC 4-A and 5-P; Milmine to Buxton, 26 February 1957, PPLC 4-A and 5-R; Milmine to Griswold, 28 February 1957, PPLC 4-A; Buxton to Milmine, 4 March 1957, PPLC 4-A and 5-P; Milmine, “Report of Legislative Committee,” 7 March 1957, PPLC 5-S; Gertrude Carpenter, Executive Committee Minutes, 7 March 1957, PPLC 12-B; Miriam Garwood to William Vogt, 7 March 1957, and Best to Vogt, 20 March 1957, PPFA II-185; Milmine to Griswold, 15 March 1957, PPLC 4-A; Norman K. Parsells to Milmine, 18 March 1957, PPLC 5-Q. Theodore Powell’s The School Bus Law: A Case Study in Education, Religion, and Politics (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1960), esp. p. 170, is an excellent study of the 1957 legislative struggle over the parochial school transportation bill.

19. Transcript of Hearing, Public Health and Safety Committee, 21 March 1957, 77pp., PPLC 6-C and D and Connecticut State Library, esp. pp. 22, 62–63; Buxton to Milmine, 15 March 1957, PPLC 5-P; Buxton Papers Scrapbook; Hartford Courant, 22 March 1957, p. 2; Hartford Times, 22 March 1957, p. 4; New Haven Register, 22 March 1957; New York Herald Tribune, 22 March 1957; New Haven Journal-Courier, 22 March 1957; Bridgeport Herald, 24 March 1957 and 31 March 1957, p. M-7. Eighteen months later Buxton further observed that “an abortion of any kind is the taking of a life and to deny the fetus the right to future life is a decision not to be entered into lightly.” Buxton, Book Review, Eugenics Quarterly 5 (December 1958): 230–231. Also see Buxton, “Advances in Obstetrics and Gynecology,” The Practitioner 181 (October 1958): 395–403, at 396–397.

20. Buxton to Griswold, 22 March 1957, PPLC 6-B; Hartford Courant, 4 April 1957, p. 1, 18 April 1957, p. 1, 25 April 1957, p. 1; Waterbury Republican, 4 April 1957, 18 April 1957, p. 1, 25 April 1957; Hartford Times, 4 April 1957, 18 April 1957; New Haven Journal-Courier, 4 April 1957, 18 April 1957; Bridgeport Herald, 8 April 1957; Gertrude Carpenter, Board Minutes, 9 April 1957, PPLC 12-B; Journal of the House, pp. 869 and 944–948 (9 and 17 April); Transcript of Proceedings, Connecticut General Assembly, House of Representatives, 17 April 1957, pp. 1314–1333, Connecticut State Library; New Haven Register, 18 April 1957; New York Herald Tribune, 18 April 1957; Journal of the Senate, pp. 829 and 867 (18 and 24 April); Milmine to Watson, 25 April 1957, and Watson to Milmine, 2 May 1957, PPLC 5-S; Transcript of Proceedings, Senate, 24 April 1957, pp. 1527–1528; New York Times, 25 April 1957. Also see Powell, The School Bus Law, pp. 197–198, 213–214, 235, and three Milmine retrospectives regarding her difficulties in projecting an accurate tally within the senate: “Annual Report, Legislative Committee,” 28 May 1957, Milmine to William Vogt, 16 July 1957, and “Report of the Legislative Committee,” December 1957, PPLC 5-S.

21. Gertrude Carpenter, Executive Committee Minutes, 7 May 1957, PPLC 12-B; McGinley to Vogt, 9 May 1957, PPLC 21-F; Griswold, “Director’s Report, May 1956-May [1957],” 28 May 1957, Carpenter, Annual Meeting Minutes, 28 May 1957, PPLC 12-B; Connecticut Parenthood, Summer 1957; Winfield Best to Vogt, “Connecticut Situation,” 8 July 1957, PPFA II-185.

22. Connecticut Parenthood, Summer 1957 and Fall 1957; Anita Ernst, Executive Committee Minutes, 12 September 1957, PPLC 12-B; Griswold to Sanger, 25 June 1958, Sanger-SS Box 119; Ernst, Board Minutes, 26 November 1957 and 25 February 1958, PPLC 12-B and C.

23. See especially Janet Harbison, “The Doctor Tests the Law,” Presbyterian Life, 1 October 1962, pp. 14–15, 37. Also see William F. Mengert, “Buxton: Birth Control Martyr,” Ob. Gyn. News 10 ([15] November 1969): 14; John McLean Morris, “Charles Lee Buxton, 1904–1969,” Transactions of the American Gynecological Society 92 (1969): 165–166; New Haven Journal-Courier, 8 July 1969, p. 11; Princeton Alumni Weekly, 27 April 1962, p. 16; New Haven Register, 7 July 1969, pp. 1, 2; Connecticut Medicine, August 1969; Garrow conversations with Helen Rotch [Buxton] Rose and John M. Morris.

24. “Oldendorf” is a pseudonym chosen by this author.

25. “Odegard” is a pseudonym chosen by this author, at the principals’ request.

26. Harbison, “The Doctor Tests the Law,” pp. 14–15; Steven M. Spencer, “The Birth Control Revolution,” Saturday Evening Post, 15 January 1966, pp. 21–25, 66–70; Garrow conversations with Helen Rotch [Buxton] Rose, Robert “Oldendorf,” Hector Kinloch, and Elizabeth “Odegard.” Also see Buxton, “Birth Control Problems in Connecticut,” Connecticut Medicine 28 (August 1966): 581–584. Medical details and dates appear in the subsequent 22 May 1958 complaints, all in PPLC 6-L.

27. Hector Kinloch to Garrow, 26 April 1992, and Garrow conversation with Kinloch.

28. Garrow conversation with Robert “Oldendorf.”

29. Garrow conversation with Elizabeth “Odegard.”

30. Garrow conversations with Marvin and Jean Durning; Emerson, “Fowler Vincent Harper,” Yale Law Journal 74 (March 1965): 601–603.

31. Stephen C. Veltri, “Fowler Vincent Harper,” Writ [ONU College of Law], Winter 1989–1990, pp. 3–8; Veltri, “Fowler V. Harper and the Right of Privacy: Twenty-Five Years,” Ohio Northern University Law Review 16 (1989): 359–363; Harper’s principal FBI file, HQ 77–32691, kindly supplied by Professor Veltri; and Garrow conversations with Elizabeth Phillips. Also see “Fowler Harper’s Close Call,” Ada Record, 21 June 1922, p. 1; Harper, “The Work of the Federal Security Agency,” Ohio Northern Alumnus, April 1940, pp. 6–7, 16; New York Times, 17 August 1939, p. 4, 11 July 1940, p. 20, 16 November 1941, p. 35, 6 May 1942, p. 15, 19 October 1942, p. 6, 5 December 1942, p. 7, 17 December 1942, p. 36, 19 February 1943, p. 12, 28 February 1943, pp. 1, 38, 11 April 1943, p. 26, 15 April 1943, p. 16, 23 April 1943, p. 11, 28 April 1943, p. 15, 9 May 1943, p. 14, 7 September 1943, p. 17; Laura Kalman, Abe Fortas (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), p. 110. A comprehensive bibliography of Harper’s publications for those years as well as for later ones appears in the Ohio Northern University Law Review 16 (1989): 583–589.

32. Veltri, “Fowler V. Harper”; FBI HQ file 77–32691, especially serial 11, an Indianapolis report of 4 December 1946; Chicago Herald American, 31 October and 4 December 1946; Harper’s 11pp. formal “Statement” to the IU Board of Trustees, 3 December 1946, and a 189pp. Harper deposition, 29 December 1947, Harper Papers, Box 1; “Fowler V. Harper,” National Cyclopedia of American Biography 52 (1970): 526–527; New York Times, 11 March 1947, p. 14, 6 September 1948, p. 4, 10 August 1949, p. 18, 11 August 1949, p. 5; Laura Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, 1927–1960 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), pp. 158–159; Harper, “Loyalty and Lawyers,” Lawyers Guild Review 11 (Fall 1951): 205–209, and Harper, “Decision by Silence,” Atlantic Monthly 119 (April 1952): 44–48, at 46. Also see Harper, “The Supreme Court Reconsiders,” The Nation, 10 November 1951, pp. 396–398, “The Record of J. Howard McGrath,” The Nation, 24 November 1951, pp. 441–443, “Our Paper Curtain,” The Nation, 1 March 1952, pp. 198–200, “The Crusade Against Bridges,” The Nation, 5 April 1952, pp. 323–326, and “Immigrants: Still Fewer Wanted,” The New Republic, 3 March 1952, pp. 13–15.

33. National Cyclopedia of American Biography 52 (1970): 526–527; Garrow conversations with Elizabeth Phillips; Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, p. 282 n.64 (quoting an undated letter from one “Lew Good” in the Provost’s Papers, Box 38, Folder 382, Yale University Archives); Harper to Rostow, 10 March 1953, Harper Papers Box 3; Washington Times Herald, 27 May 1953, pp. 1, 5, 30 May 1953, p. 6; FBI HQ file 100–389390. Also see Sigmund Diamond, Compromised Campus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 164, 165–166, 214, 226–227, 240, 339–340.

34. Harper, Problems of the Family (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1952); Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, pp. 191–192; Dudley F. Sicher, Book Review, Lawyers Guild Review 13 (Fall 1953): 130–132 (and listing prior reviews in Psychiatric Quarterly [October 1952], Georgetown Law Journal and Yale Law Journal [January 1953], Marriage and Family Living [February 1953], Harvard Law Review and Kentucky Law Journal [March 1953], Minnesota Law Review and American Catholic Sociological Review [May 1953], and Sociology and Social Research [1953] and the Journal of Legal Education [1953]); Harper, Book Review, Yale Law Journal 63 (April 1954): 895–899; Harper and James, The Law of Torts (1956); Veltri, “Fowler V. Harper.” Also see Fowler and Miriam Harper, “Lawyers and Marriage Counseling,” Journal of Family Law 1 (1961): 73–88; and Harper and Jerome H. Skolnick, Problems of the Family, rev.ed. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962).

35. Garrow conversations with Marvin Durning, David and Louise Trubek, James M. Edwards, Louis H. Pollak, Robert B. Stevens, and Elizabeth Phillips; James, Rostow, and Emerson in “Fowler V. Harper,” Yale Law Journal 74 (March 1965): 599–605.

36. New York Times, 9 January 1965, p. 25; Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, pp. 197–199; Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331 (6 June 1955); New York Times, 7 June 1955, p. 18; Harper v. Adametz, 142 Conn. 218 (1 March 1955); New Haven Register, 16 March 1955; Garrow conversations with Catherine G. Roraback; New Haven Civil Liberties Council file in Emerson Papers, Box 30; Yale Law Report, Fall 1956, pp. 3–4, 8.

37. Griswold, “Summary of Action to Date on Five Lawsuits,” 15 July 1958, PPLC 6-K; Garrow conversations with Roraback; Roraback, “Griswold v. Connecticut: A Brief Case History,” Ohio Northern University Law Review 16 (1989): 395–401, at 397–398; Dorothy W. Wolfe, “Catherine Roraback: Her Aim is Justice,” Mount Holyoke Alumnae Quarterly, Summer 1973, pp. 78–81; Hartford Times, 1 January 1971, p. B7, 9 June 1975; New Haven Register, 22 January 1966; Hartford Courant, 9 April 1988, pp. C1, C7; McGinley, “Memories of Claudia McGinley,” 5 May 1983, 2pp., Bea Hessel, “PPLC—The 1960s,” 11 March 1983, 3pp., PPLC 33-I; Hessel to Loraine Campbell, 22 June 1959, PPLM Box 106.

38. Griswold, “Summary of Action to Date on Five Lawsuits,” 15 July 1958, PPLC 6-K; Garrow conversations with Catherine G. Roraback, Jean and Marvin Durning, Robert “Oldendorf,” Hector Kinloch, and Elizabeth “Odegard”; Roraback, “Griswold v. Connecticut”; Harper to McGinley, 12 May 1958, PPLC 6-E; Roraback, “Complaint” in Buxton, Doe, Poe, Hoe, and Roe v. Ullman, 22 May 1958, PPLC 6-L; Record and File for all five actions, #87983 through 87987, New Haven County Superior Court Clerk’s Office. Neither Hector Kinloch nor Elizabeth “Odegard” in 1992 had any recollection of signing a formal document or of meeting either Harper or Roraback, and no documents signed by the actual plaintiffs, sealed or unsealed, are now part of the official Superior Court case files. Undated and unsigned carbon copies of letters of authorization prepared for “Jane Doe” and the “Poes,” but not the Kinlochs or the Durnings, appear in Fowler Harper’s files on the cases, now in the Emerson Papers, Boxes 7 and 8. The “Odegards,” who arrived in New Haven in September 1957, recall that they were in Connecticut only for seven months before David’s employer transferred them elsewhere, and if their recollection is indeed correct, they would have left New Haven—and Connecticut—sometime in early April, well before Poe v. Ullman was actually filed. “We were not residents,” and “they knew we were leaving town,” Elizabeth “Odegard” volunteered in 1992.

39. Roraback, “Complaint,” in Buxton, Poe, Roe, Doe and Hoe, 22 May 1958, PPLC 6-L; Roraback to Griswold, 5 June 1958, and Griswold to Roraback, 9 June 1958, PPLC 6-K; Griswold, “Executive Director’s Report, May 1957–[May] 1958,” [27 May 1958], Anita Ernst, Annual Meeting Minutes, 27 May 1958, PPLC 12-C; Connecticut Parenthood, Summer 1958. Also see Lucia Jenney Parks, “Referral Report,” 25 February 1958 and 27 May 1958, PPLC 21-O, and Helen Kennedy to Griswold, 18 February 1959, PPLC 21-I.

40. Anita Ernst, Executive Committee Minutes, 5 June 1958, PPLC 12-C; New Haven Register, 6 June 1958, pp. 1, 3; New Haven Journal-Courier, 7 June 1958; Hartford Courant 7 June 1958; New York Times, 7 June 1958, p. 10; Patrick Malin to Alan Reitman et al., 9 June 1958, Louis Joughin to Ralph Brown, 10 and 18 June 1958, Brown to Reitman, 5 September 1958, ACLU 1961 Vol. 12; Griswold to Herbert Thoms, 30 June 1958, PPLC 17-K.

41. Ernst, Joint Executive/Finance Committee Minutes, 10 July 1958, PPLC 12-C; Griswold, “Summary of Action to Date on Five Lawsuits,” 15 July 1958, PPLC 6-K; Planned Parenthood Federation of America, The Anatomy of a Victory (New York: PPFA, 1959); Alan F. Guttmacher, Babies By Choice or By Chance (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 121–129; Murray, “America’s Four Conspiracies,” in John Cogley, ed., Religion in America (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1958), pp. 12–41, at 33; U.S. News & World Report, 22 August 1958, pp. 72–75; James Finn, “Controversy in New York,” Commonweal, 12 September 1958, pp. 583–586; John Cogley, “Controversy in Connecticut,” Commonweal, 28 March 1958, p. 657. Also see Murray, We Hold These Truths (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960), pp. 157–159; Time, 8 September 1958, pp. 74–75; Commonweal, 18 December 1959, and 22 April 1960, pp. 98–99; and William L. Bradley, “Birth Control Laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts,” Social Action 26 (April 1960): 20–23.

42. Ernst, Touch Wood: A Year’s Diary (New York: Atheneum, 1960), pp. 25, 32, 35; Garrow conversations with Roraback; Loraine Campbell Notes, 17 October 1958, and Campbell to Harper, 17 October 1958, PPLM Box 106.

43. Alfred Severson to Griswold, 8 October 1958, PPLC 6-K; Ernst, Executive Committee Minutes, 2 October 1958, Board Minutes, 28 October 1958, PPLC 12-C; Dorothy W. Lorenzen, “Legislative Report,” 28 October 1958, PPLC 6-E; Loraine Campbell Notes, 21 October 1958, Pilpel to Campbell, 29 October 1958, Campbell to Pilpel, 1 November 1958, PPLM Box 106.

44. Buxton et al. v. Ullman Case Files, Clerk’s Office, New Haven County Superior Court; Cannon, “Demurrer,” Buxton v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman, Clerk’s Files and PPLC 6-M.

45. Harper to Campbell, 5 November 1958, Pilpel to Campbell and Vogt, 7 November 1958, Campbell Notes, 7 November 1958, Pilpel to Harper, 10 November 1958, PPLM Box 106; Natalie Schwartz, Education Committee Minutes, 13 November 1958, PPLC 20-H; “Outline of Points Discussed at Conference,” 14 November 1958, Pilpel to Harper, 14 November 1958, Campbell to Buxton, 17 November 1958, Pilpel to Harper, 1 December 1958, PPLM Box 106.

46. New Haven Register, 2 December 1958, 6 December 1958, p. 3; New Haven Journal-Courier, 2 December 1958, 6 December 1958; Hartford Courant, 2 December 1958, p. 5, 6 December 1958, p. 19; Hartford Times, 2 December 1958, 6 December 1958; New York Post, 3 December 1958; Waterbury Republican, 6 December 1958, p. 1; New York Times, 6 December 1958; Cannon, “Brief of Defendant,” Buxton et al. v. Ullman, [1 December 1958], 14pp., Clerk’s File, New Haven County Superior Court, esp. pp. 5, 9 and 14; Roraback, “Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Demurrers,” Buxton et al. v. Ullman, 5 December 1958, 10pp., Clerk’s File, esp. p. 3; Morton David Goldberg to Ernst, “PPFA—Connecticut Birth Control Suit,” 9 December 1958, PPLM Box 106; Connecticut Parenthood, Fall 1958. Frank Healey, who graduated from Holy Cross in 1921 and from Yale Law School in 1925, had been named to the Superior Court bench only in mid-1957; he died in March of 1963 at age 65. On his earlier affiliation with Father Cryne, see the Waterbury Democrat, 11 May 1939, p. 3. On Raymond J. Cannon, who was six years younger than Healey, see his obituary in the Hartford Courant, 22 January 1981, p. A20.

47. Campbell, “Memorandum on Luncheon Conference with Morris Ernst,” 9 December 1958, 11pp., PPLM Box 106; Campbell Interview with Reed, p. 58; Ernst, Touch Wood, p. 150; Campbell Notes, 11 December 1958, PPLM Box 106. On Harriet Pilpel, who had graduated from Vassar in 1932, from Columbia Law School in 1936, and then immediately joined Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst, see her obituary in the New York Times, 24 April 1991, p. D23, and “Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst—A Brief History of the Firm,” 1955, with a December, 1960, Supplement, Ernst Papers Box 846.

48. Healey, “Memoranda of Decision on Demurrer,” Buxton et al. v. Ullman, 31 December 1958 [Filed 5 January 1959], PPLC 6-M, Clerk’s File, New Haven County Superior Court, and Poe v. Ullman Record, pp. 16–18; Hartford Courant, 7 January 1959, 23 February 1959, p. 8; New York Times, 7 January 1959; New York Herald Tribune, 7 January 1959; Waterbury Republican, 7 January and 23 February 1959; Hartford Times, 7 January 1959; Poe Record, pp. 18–23 (Cannon’s 21 January motion, Judge John R. Thim’s 30 January order entering judgment, and Roraback’s 11 February notice of appeal); Campbell, “Memorandum re Connecticut Test Cases,” 24 December 1958, PPLM Box 106; Bridgeport Herald, 22 February 1959; [Griswold], “Meeting with Lawyers,” 16 January 1959, PPLC 6-K; Garrow conversations with Jean and Marvin Durning.

49. Lotta Moser, Executive Committee Minutes, 4 December 1958, PPLC 12-C; Lieberman, The Power Broker, p. 222; Anita Ernst, Executive Committee Minutes, 8 January 1959, and Board Minutes, 27 January 1959, PPLC 12-D; [Griswold], “Meeting with Lawyers,” 16 January 1959, PPLC 6-K; Journal of the House, p. 276 (22 January); Journal of the Senate, p. 292 (22 January); Waterbury Republican, 22 January 1959; Harper to Pilpel, 22 January 1959, and Pilpel to Harper, 10 February 1959, PPLM Box 106; “Legislative Committee Report,” 27 January 1959, and [Dorothy Lorenzen], “Notes on Meeting,” 2[9] January 1959, PPLC 6-E; Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1959. Also see Joseph A. Gianelli, Jr., “An Analysis of the Connecticut Gubernatorial Election of 1958” (unpublished B.A. thesis, Princeton University, 1959).

50. Griswold to John Morris, 18 February 1959, PPLC 6-F; Dorothy Lorenzen, “Legislative Committee Report,” 24 March 1959, PPLC 6-E; Morris to Lockard, 26 March 1959, Morris Papers; Transcript of Hearing, Public Health and Safety Committee, 24 April 1959, 65pp., PPLC 6-G and H and Connecticut State Library, esp. pp. 14 and 62; Hartford Courant, 25 April 1959, p. 2; Waterbury Republican, 25 April 1959; Hartford Times, 25 April 1959; New York Herald Tribune, 26 April and 3 May 1959; New York Times, 2 May 1959; PPLC “Report to Members,” [19 May 1959], PPLC 14-D. On the 1959 session in general, see Van Dusen, Connecticut, pp. 395–396; Lieberman, The Power Broker, pp. 246–247; and James David Barber, The Lawmakers: Recruitment and Adaptation to Legislative Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965).

51. Garrow conversations with Marvin and Jean Durning and with David and Louise Grossman Trubek; Louise Trubek Interview with Brecher; Louise Farr to Griswold, 16 February 1959, Harper to Griswold, 13 March 1959, PPLC 6-F; Board Minutes, 24 March 1959, PPLC 12-D; Griswold to Vogt, [9 April 1959], PPFA II-184; Anita Ernst, Executive Committee Minutes, 21 April 1959, PPLC 12-D; Teague, Livingston, and Willard v. Ullman, #90315 to 90317, New Haven County Superior Court; Hartford Courant, 5 May 1959; Bridgeport Post, 5 May 1959; New York Times, 5 May 1959, p. 24, 27 May 1959, p. 23; New York Herald Tribune, 5 May 1959; Roraback, Complaint, Trubek v. Ullman, #90417, New Haven County Superior Court, 20 May 1959, PPLC 6-L; Roraback to Buxton, and to Mr. and Mrs. David M. Trubek, 20 May 1959, PPLC 7-G; Griswold to Vogt, 22 May 1959, PPLC 6-I; New Haven Register, 26 May 1959, 27 May 1959, p. 26; New Haven Journal-Courier, 26 May 1959; and New Haven Civil Liberties Council folder in Emerson Papers, Box 30. On C. Lawson Willard, see a New Haven Register profile of 29 March 1970, and his Register obituary, 10 April 1983, p. B14.

52. Buxton et al. v. Ullman Case Files #87983 et seq., Clerk’s Office, New Haven County Superior Court; Roraback, “Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants,” Poe v. Ullman, #4796, Connecticut Supreme Court, March Term 1959, pp. 10–11, “Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant,” Buxton v. Ullman, #4794, p. 16; Connecticut Parenthood, Summer 1959. Also see Roraback’s very similar “Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants” in Hoe, #4797, and Doe, #4798, Connecticut Supreme Court, Record and Briefs, March [October] Term 1959, A-380 I 1–96.

53. Pilpel to Harper, 16 April 1959, Pilpel to Fred Jaffe, 5 May 1959, Harper to Pilpel, 7 May 1959, PPLM Box 106; Pilpel to Vogt, 11 May 1959, PPFA II-184; Campbell Notes, 14 May 1959, Pilpel to Roraback, 14 May 1959, Roraback to Pilpel, 18 May 1959, Campbell to Vogt, 19 May 1959, Pilpel to Campbell and Vogt, 4 June 1959, PPLM Box 106; Pilpel to Campbell and Vogt, 10 June 1959, PPFA II-184; Campbell, “Memo on Connecticut Litigation,” 10 June 1959, PPLM Box 106. Also see an earlier essay which Harper mentioned in his May 7 letter to Pilpel, an essay he had written with former Yale law student Edwin D. Etherington (who also had coauthored the 1950 litigation strategy paper previously considered by PPLC), “Lobbyists Before the Court,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 101 (June 1953): 1172–1179, a critical commentary on the value of amicus briefs which concluded that “for the most part, briefs amici are repetitious at best and emotional explosions at worst.”

54. Harper to Pilpel, 18 June 1959, PPLC 6-K and PPFA II-184; Pilpel to Fifield Workum and Francis Goodhue, 18 June 1959, Pilpel to Harper [draft], 19 June 1959, Kay [Mali] to Campbell, 21 June 1959, Hessel to Campbell, 22 June 1959, Margot Baruch to Campbell, 26 June 1959, Campbell to Hessel, 1 July 1959, Griswold to Vogt, [6] July 1959, Vogt to Griswold, 8 July 1959, Pilpel to Harper, 6 July 1959, Francis Goodhue to Vogt, 8 July 1959, Fifield Workum to Vogt, 8 July 1959, Campbell Notes, 11 July 1959, Campbell to Workum, 13 July 1959, Em Workum to Campbell, 15 July 1959, Vogt to Griswold, 17 July 1959, Griswold to Vogt, 20 July 1959, Workum to Vogt, 27 July 1959, PPLM 106.

55. Cannon, “Brief of Defendant-Appellee,” Hoe v. Ullman, #4797, Connecticut Supreme Court, 24 July 1959, 7pp., esp. p. 6, and a 10pp. “Brief” in Buxton (#4794) and two 4pp. briefs in Doe and Poe (#4798 and 4796), referring the Court to the Hoe brief, A-380 I; Griswold to Vogt, 31 July, 25 August and 3 September 1959, PPLC 7-A and PPLM Box 106; Roraback to Pilpel, 7 August 1959, Campbell Notes, 11 August 1959, PPLM Box 106; Rebecca Ehrinpries to Winfield Best, 11 August 1959, PPFA II-184; Best to Campbell, 12 August 1959, Pilpel to Roraback, 17 August 1959, PPLM Box 106; Buxton v. Ullman Case File, New Haven County Superior Court, #87983; Roraback, “Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants,” Poe v. Ullman, pp. 10 and 12, “Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant,” Buxton v. Ullman, pp. 3–4; and similar reply briefs in Doe and Hoe, A-380 I.

56. Vogt to Campbell, 5 August 1959, PPLM Box 106; Anita Ernst, Executive Committee Minutes, 10 September 1959, PPLC 12-D; Hessel to Miriam Garwood, 17 September 1959, PPLC 40-J and PPFA II-185; Campbell Notes, 18 September 1959, PPLM Box 106; Griswold to Vogt, 21 September 1959, PPLC 40-J; New London Day, 24 September 1959; Johnson, Raymond E. Baldwin, pp. 259–260; Campbell Notes, 7 October 1959, PPLM Box 106; Roraback to Rowland Watts, 20 October 1959, ACLU 1961 Vol. 12; Roraback to Pilpel, 20 October 1959, PPLM Box 106; Griswold to Vogt, 2 November 1959, PPFA II-184; Harper to Eugene Gressman, 2 November 1959, Emerson Box 8; Anita Ernst, Board Minutes, 5 November 1959, and Executive Committee Minutes, 10 December 1959, PPLC 12-D.

57. New York Times, 26 November 1959, pp. 1, 43, 6 December 1959, pp. 1, 74; Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake, “Birth Control and Public Policy,” Commentary 29 (February 1960): 115–121; Charles F. Westoff and Norman B. Ryder, “Methods of Fertility Control in the United States: 1955, 1960 and 1965,” in William T. Liu, ed., Family and Fertility (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967), pp. 157–169, at 168; Westoff and Larry Bumpass, “The Revolution in Birth Control Practices of U.S. Roman Catholics,” Science 179 (5 January 1973): 41–44; Phyllis T. Piotrow, World Population Crisis (New York: Praeger, 1973), pp. 23, 36–42. On the adoption of the ACLU’s policy, see ACLU Office to Due Process Committee, 19 June 1959, Due Process Committee Minutes, 15 July 1959, and ACLU Board of Directors Minutes, 17 August 1959, ACLU 1959 Vol. 1, and Civil Liberties, November 1959.

58. Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48, 156 A.2d 508, 513–514; Hartford Times, 22 December 1959; New Haven Register, 22 December 1959, pp. 1, 2; New York Post, 22 December 1959, p. 4; Hartford Courant, 23 December 1959, p. 5; New York Times, 23 December 1959, pp. 1, 13; New York Herald Tribune, 23 December 1959, pp. 1, 4; Time, 4 January 1960, pp. 18–19; Baldwin to Mrs. William B. Gandin, 6 September 1960, Baldwin Papers Box 81. Law review notes on the Connecticut Supreme Court decision in Buxton include Erik J. Stapper, Michigan Law Review 58 (April 1960): 929–931; Robert E. Slota, Villanova Law Review 5 (Summer 1960): 677–680; Albany Law Review 25 (January 1961): 143–146; and New York Law Forum 7 (February 1961): 73–81. Also see two more substantive essays, Alvah W. Sulloway, “The Legal and Political Aspects of Population Control in the United States,” Law and Contemporary Problems 25 (Summer 1960): 593–613; and Andrew N. Farley, “Conception, Contraceptives, and the Law: A Connecticut Problem,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 22 (October 1960): 91–103.

59. New York Herald Tribune, 24 December 1959, p. 12, 27 December 1959; Washington Post, 24 December 1959; Griswold to Chasie des Granges, 11 January 1960, PPLM Box 106; Gressman to Harper, 28 December 1959 and 9 January 1960, Harper to Gressman, 14 January 1960, Gressman to Harper, 27 January 1960, Harper to Gressman, 9 February 1960, Emerson Box 8; Garrow conversations with Hector Kinloch and Elizabeth “Odegard.”

60. Jerome E. Caplan to Alan Reitman, 7 January 1960, Rowland Watts to Caplan, 13 January 1960, Caplan to ACLU, 19 January 1960, ACLU 1961 Vol. 12; Hartford Courant, 19 April 1960; Hartford Times, 19 April 1960; Anita Ernst, Board Minutes, 26 January 1960, Executive Committee Minutes, 16 February 1960, Board Minutes, 22 March 1960, PPLC 12-E; Harper to Seymour, 9 February 1960, Emerson Box 8; Vogt to Pilpel, 25 February 1960, and Pilpel to Johanna von Goeckingk, 15 March 1960, PPFA II-184; Gressman to Harper, 12 and 23 March 1960, Emerson Box 8. On Trubek, see Judge Elmer W. Ryan, “Memorandum of Decision on Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint,” Trubek v. Ullman, #90417, New Haven Superior Court, PPLC 6-M; Trubek Record, A-391 590; and New Haven Register, 27 February 1960; on the ministerial ones, see Roraback to George Teague, 16 February 1960, PPLC 6-I.

61. Harper, “Jurisdictional Statement,” Poe et al. v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1959 #810, 31pp., 23 March 1960, esp. pp. 8–10, 20–22; Harper, “Jurisdictional Statement,” Buxton v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1959 #811, 13pp., 23 March 1960, esp. pp. 5 and 13; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952). On the Gallup Poll, see Hartford Courant, 17 February 1960 and New York Herald Tribune, 18 February 1960. On “the right to be let alone,” see Thomas M. Cooley, Torts, 2nd ed., p. 29: “The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: to be let alone.” Also see Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 4 (December 1890): 193–220, at 195; Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891); Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 471 (Brandeis, J., dissenting); Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 467, 468 (Douglas, J., dissenting); William O. Douglas, The Right of the People (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1958), pp. 87, 88; Erwin N. Griswold, “The Right to Be Let Alone,” Northwestern University Law Review 55 (May-June 1960): 216–226, esp. 216–217. Dean Griswold asserted that “‘The right to be let alone’ is the underlying theme of the Bill of Rights” and “is implicit in many of the provisions of the Constitution and in the philosophic background out of which the Constitution was formulated.” See as well Charles B. Nutting, “The Fifth Amendment and Privacy,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 18 (Spring 1957): 533–544, at 543 (privacy “is a generalized interest … which should receive protection as a ‘liberty’” under due process), and Harry Kalven, Jr., “A Special Corner of Civil Liberties,” New York University Law Review 31 (November 1956): 1223–1237, at 1228 (“the freedom of sex relations within marriage and the freedom to have children when wanted rank high among the basic personal liberties in our society”).

62. “SD” [Steven Duke], Poe et al. v. Ullman, Buxton v. Ullman, 1959 Term No. 810, 811, 16 May 1960, 1pp., Douglas Papers Box 1247; “TCW” [T. Cecil Wray], Poe v. Ullman, Buxton v. Ullman, 16 May 1960, 3pp. and 1pp., Clark Papers Box B178; “MHB” [Murray H. Bring], Poe v. Ullman, Buxton v. Ullman, n.d., 7 pp., Warren Papers Box 208; [Howard Lesnick], Poe v. Ullman, Buxton v. Ullman, n.d., 2 pp., Harlan Papers Box 117; Naim v. Naim, 350 U.S. 891 (1955) and 350 U.S. 985 (1956).

63. Docket Sheets recording the Poe vote appear in the Warren Papers, Box 374, the Brennan Papers, Box 407, and the Clark Papers, Box C76; a more informal but identical tally also appears in the Douglas Papers, Box 1247.

64. Poe et al. v. Ullman, and Buxton v. Ullman, 362 U.S. 987; Hartford Times, 23 May 1960; New York Times, 24 May 1960, p. 25; New York Herald Tribune, 24 May 1960; Hartford Courant, 24 May 1960, p. 2; New Haven Register, 24 May 1960; Pilpel to Vogt et al., 25 May 1960, and Pilpel to Harper et al., 27 May 1960, PPFA II-184 and Emerson Box 8; Harper to Gressman, 25 May 1960, and Gressman to Harper, 3 June 1960, Emerson Box 8; Loraine Campbell to McGinley, 27 May 1960, PPLM Box 106; Pilpel to Raymond J. Cannon, 31 May 1960, PPFA II-184; Harper to Connecticut Commissioner for Food and Drugs, 10 June 1960, Attilio R. Frassinelli to Harper, 30 June 1960, and Harper to Frassinelli, 5 July 1960, Emerson Box 7; Mary S. Calderone to Pilpel, 14 June 1960, PPFA II-184; Lee Buxton to various doctors, 10 June 1960, Harper to John Rock, 15 June 1960, Harper to Fifield Workum, 21 June 1960, Emerson Box 8; Pilpel to Harper, 30 June 1960, Pilpel to Vogt et al., 8 July 1960, Cannon to Pilpel, 15 August 1960, Pilpel to Cannon, 25 August 1960, Cannon to Pilpel, 30 August 1960, PPFA II-184. The PPFA brief was actually written by two of Pilpel’s junior associates, Julia Perles and Mark J. Kronman; Seymour’s brief was largely composed by Richard Hawkins.

Regarding Frankfurter’s temporary recusal, the other possible grounds lay in Frankfurter’s long friendship with Connecticut League of Women Voters activist Katharine Ludington, who had passed away in 1953 but whose sister, Helen (Mrs. Arthur G.) Rotch, was the mother of Buxton’s wife Helen. See Harlan B. Phillips, ed., Felix Frankfurter Reminisces (New York: Reynal & Co., 1960), p. 239; on Ludington, see New York Times, 9 March 1953, p. 29, and 21 March 1953, p. 16; also see Louise M. Young, In the Public Interest: The League of Women Voters, 1920–1970 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1989), pp. 50, 51, 75, 77, 93, 158; Mary Gray Peck, Carrie Chapman Catt (New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1944), pp. 327, 341. Mrs. Rotch herself had once been president of the Massachusetts League of Women Voters, and had been among the leading sponsors of the 1948 birth control referendum. See John R. Rodman, “Birth Control Politics in Massachusetts” (unpublished M.A. thesis, Harvard University, 1955), p. 37.

65. New York Herald Tribune, 28 May 1960, p. 10; John Maguire, “Should We Vote for a Birth Control Law?,” Ave Maria, 11 June 1960, p. 6; Newsweek, 27 June 1960, p. 94; Norman St. John-Stevas, Birth Control and Public Policy (Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, July, 1960); Newsweek, 25 July 1960, p. 70; Waterbury Republican, 11 July 1960; Hartford Times, 12 July 1960, p. 22; Bridgeport Telegram, 12 July 1960; Bridgeport Herald, 17 July 1960.

66. Harper to E. P. Cullinan, 11 July 1960, Harper to Gressman, 15 July 1960, Cannon to Harper, 20 July 1960, Gressman to Harper, 21 July 1960, Emerson. Box 8; Pilpel to Harper, 10 August 1960, Pilpel to Harper et al., 26 August 1960, Emerson Box 8; Wulf to Ruth Emerson, 22 August 1960, Wulf to Cannon, 24 August 1960, Emerson to Wulf, 25 August 1960, Cannon to Wulf, 26 August 1960, Harper to Wulf, 31 August 1960, ACLU 1961 Vol. 12; Garrow conversations with Ruth Emerson and Mel Wulf; Wulf, “On the Origins of Privacy,” The Nation, 27 May 1991, pp. 700–704.

67. Roraback, “Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants,” Trubek et ux. v. Ullman, #4979, Connecticut Supreme Court, 16pp., c.11 July 1960, A-391; Pilpel to Harper, 2 September 1960, Emerson Box 8; Wulf to Roraback, 20 September 1960, and Roraback to Wulf, 26 September 1960, ACLU 1961 Vol. 12; Workum to Vogt, 21 September 1960, and Vogt to Workum, 11 October 1960, PPFA II-184; Anita Ernst, Executive Committee Minutes, 22 September 1960, PPLC 12-E; New Haven Register, and New Haven Journal-Courier, 26 September 1960; Civil Liberties, October 1960; Pilpel to Vogt, 6 October 1960, PPFA II-184; Hartford Times, 10 October 1960; [Joseph W. Bartlett] to Earl Warren, Poe v. Ullman, and Warren notation, n.d., Warren Box 208; undated, unsigned clerk’s notes, Poe v. Ullman, Douglas Box 1247; Poe v. Ullman Case File, U.S.S.C., RG 267, Box 3551, National Archives; James R. Browning to Rowland Watts, 10 and 17 October 1960, ACLU 1961 Vol. 12; 29 U.S. Law Week 3101 (11 October 1960); Cannon, “Brief of Defendant-Appellee,” Trubek et ux. v. Ullman, #4979, Connecticut Supreme Court, 10pp., c.30 August 1960, A-391 606–610 and Emerson Box 8, esp. p. 9; Medical World News, 9 September 1960, pp. 18–19; New York Herald Tribune, 22 September 1960, p. 19, and 24 September 1960; “Coming Up in Court,” America, 15 October 1960, pp. 67–68. Kennedy’s well-known 12 September 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association appears in full in Theodore C. Sorensen, ed., Let the Word Go Forth: The Speeches, Statements, and Writings of John F. Kennedy (New York: Delacorte Press, 1988), pp. 130–136, at 131.

68. Harper, “Brief for Appellants,” Poe et al. v. Ullman and Buxton v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1960, #60 and 61, 72pp., PPLC 6-S, esp. pp. 9, 28–29, 72; Seymour, “Motion for Leave to File a Brief and Brief as Amici Curiae for Sixty-Six Doctors,” Buxton v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1960, #61, 15pp., PPLC 6-S; Ernst and Pilpel, “Motion for Leave to File a Brief with Brief and Appendices as Amicus Curiae for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America,” Poe et al. v. Ullman and Buxton v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1960, #60, 61, 53pp., PPLC 6-S; Osmond K. Fraenkel and Jerome E. Caplan, “Motion for Leave to File Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae,” Poe et al. v. Ullman and Buxton v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1960, #60, 61, 21pp., PPLC 6-S, esp. pp. 5–10; Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27 (1949); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) [“implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”]; Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (Brandeis, J., dissenting); Wulf Interview with Garrow; Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925); also see Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), and Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). See also Wulf, “On the Origins of Privacy,” The Nation, 27 May 1991, pp. 700–704; see as well Feldman v. U.S., 322 U.S. 487, 490 (1944) (acknowledging a “constitutional purpose … to maintain inviolate large areas of personal privacy”).

69. Campbell to Leo Arffman, 10 October 1960, PPLM Box 106; Pilpel to Griswold, 19 September 1960, Griswold to Pilpel, 20 October 1960, Griswold to Harper, 7 October 1960, Harper to Griswold, 17 October 1960, PPLC 7-A; Cannon, “Brief for Appellee,” Poe et al. v. Ullman and Buxton v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1960, #60, 61, 17pp., esp. pp. 13, 16.

70. Harper to Griswold, 27 October 1960, PPLC 7-A; Pilpel to Harper, 14 November 1960, PPFA II-184 and Emerson Box 8; Trubek v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 633, 165 A.2d 158; New Haven Register, 15 and 16 November 1960; New Haven Journal-Courier, 16 November 1960; Hartford Courant, 16 November 1960; New York Times, 16 November 1960, p. 28; Louis H. Pollak to Roraback, 18 November 1960, Pilpel to Vogt et al., 28 November 1960, Pilpel to Harper, 23 December 1960, Emerson Box 8; Anita Ernst, Board Minutes, 25 October 1960 and 12 January 1961, PPLC 12-E; Legislative Committee Minutes, 5 December 1960, PPLC 22-K; Journal of the House, pp. 281–282 (24 January); Journal of the Senate, pp. 353–354 (25 January); New Haven Journal-Courier, 29 December 1960, p. 20; New York Daily News, 29 December 1960, p. 12; Hartford Courant and Waterbury Republican, 30 December 1960; New York Herald Tribune, 30 December 1960, p. 3; Hartford Times, 30 December 1960, p. 19; Medical World News, 6 January 1961, pp. 17–18; New Haven Register, 29 January 1961; New England Journal of Medicine, 9 February 1961, p. 304; Hartford Times, 23 February 1961; New York Times, 24 February 1961, pp. 1, 16; Clerk’s Office to Harper, 24 January 1961, Emerson Box 7. Representative Dorothy Miller of Bolton, PPLC’s 1959 sponsor, also introduced a “reform” bill, H.B. 3741.

The Yale Law Journal essay, by James O. Freedman, noted both briefs’ citations to the various Supreme Court precedents but complained that “these dicta concerning overt forms of intrusion furnish no basis for suggesting the existence of a right to privacy so sweeping in its terms that it would encompass the regulatory intervention of the anticontraceptive statute. Nor do they suggest any guides for defining and limiting so broad a right.” Freedman did concede that “It is difficult to imagine any area of human activity which more reasonably ought to be beyond the reach of the state,” and he also acknowledged that the Connecticut law “impinges upon a privilege far more basic to the individual’s fulfillment and well being and to the protection of the married state than the liberty established in Meyer and Pierce.” He concluded by suggesting that the Court could recognize “either the right to privacy or the more narrow marital right.” “Connecticut’s Birth Control Law: Reviewing a State Statute Under the Fourteenth Amendment,” Yale Law Journal 70 (December 1960): 322–334, at 332–333. Also see Richard J. Regan, “The Connecticut Birth Control Ban and Public Morals,” Catholic Lawyer 7 (Winter 1961): 5–10, 49, at 6, which wisely noted that the Connecticut statute was largely symbolic but that “controversies over symbols very often are fought more bitterly than controversies over realities.”

71. [Charles Fried], “Bench Memorandum,” Poe v. Ullman, Buxton v. Ullman, #60, 61, n.d., 22pp., Harlan Papers Box 117, esp. pp. 1, 10–13, 15–16, 19–21; Garrow conversation with Charles Fried; and Tinsley E. Yarbrough, John Marshall Harlan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 310.

72. [Richard S. Arnold], “Nos. 60 & 61—The Birth Control Cases,” n.d., 14pp., and [Arnold], “Memo on Nos. 60 & 61—The Merits,” n.d., 12pp., Brennan Papers Box 55; Garrow conversation with Richard S. Arnold; and Arnold, “A Remembrance: Mr. Justice Brennan, October Term 1960,” Journal of Supreme Court History 1991, pp. 5–8. On “justiciability,” see Justice Frankfurter’s subsequent comment on the term in his opinion in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 508: “Justiciability is of course not a legal concept with a fixed content or susceptible of scientific verification.”

73. Garrow conversations with Catherine Roraback, Elizabeth Phillips, Nancy F. Wechsler, Jerold Israel, and Richard Arnold; Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 38; Pilpel to Harper, 16 February 1961, Emerson Box 8; Hartford Courant, 26 and 28 February 1961; New York Times, 28 February 1961; Bea Hessel, “PPLC—The 1960s,” 11 March 1983, 3pp., PPLC 3-I.

74. Poe v. Ullman Oral Argument Tapes, 1 and 2 March 1961, National Archives; “Arguments Before the Court: Birth Control,” U.S. Law Week 29 (7 March 1961): 3257–3260; [Fred Jaffe], “Supreme Court Hearing on Connecticut Case,” 1 and 2 March 1961, 7pp., PPFA II-184; Medical News, 24 March 1961, p. 20; New York Times, 2 March 1961, p. 14, 3 March 1961, p. 18; New York Herald Tribune, 2 March 1961, p. 6, 3 March 1961, p. 17, 5 March 1961; New York Post, 2 and 3 March 1961; Time, 10 March 1961, pp. 49–50. Also see Hartford Times, 1 and 2 March 1961; Hartford Courant, 2 March 1961, 3 March 1961, p. 4; New Haven Register, 2 and 3 March 1961; Waterbury Republican, 3 March 1961, p. 1; Middletown Press, 3 March 1961. The five-by-eight file cards which Harper used for his Poe oral argument are in the Harper files in the Emerson Papers, Box 7. All quotations from the March 1 portion of the oral argument have been verified with the original audiotape; the recording of the March 2 argument, however, is distorted by variable speed problems, and quotations for that portion have been drawn from press observer accounts.

75. Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 38; Frances Ferguson to Bea Hessel, 24 March 1961, PPFA II-184 and Emerson Box 8; Anita Ernst, Board Minutes, 28 March 1961, PPLC 12-E; Fred Jaffe to Cass Canfield, 21 April 1961, PPFA II-184; UPI dispatch in Waterbury Republican, 3 March 1961, p. 1; Time, 10 March 1961, pp. 49–50.

76. Bea Hessel, “PPLC—The 1960s,” 11 March 1983, PPLC 33-I. Detailed notes on the March 3 conference were taken by both Justice Brennan and Justice Douglas and appear respectively in Justice Brennan’s 1961 Docket Book (Brennan Papers Box 407) and in Justice Douglas’s Papers (Box 1247). Far more cryptic notes on the discussion appear on Chief Justice Warren’s Docket Sheet for Poe (Warren Papers Box 374), and explicit conference vote tallies appear on both the Brennan and Warren Docket Sheets as well as on that of Justice Clark (Clark Papers Box C76). Also see the unattributed discussion in Bernard Schwartz, Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court (New York: New York University Press, 1983), pp. 378–380, which in fact, although without footnotes, is drawn directly, with some editorial emendations, from Justice Brennan’s conference notes. Internal evidence suggests that the Schwartz study does not draw upon the Douglas conference notes, which, perhaps surprisingly, are oftentimes distinctly more detailed and extensive than Justice Brennan’s.

As an authoritative and extremely impressive recent study emphasizes in correcting the erroneous but widely repeated descriptions that appear in many political science texts, “a justice’s vote is announced at the time he discusses the case” and “there is no formal vote per se” at the overall conclusion of a case’s discussion. Hence, as one justice put it, “the vote goes from the most senior to the most junior.” See H. W. Perry, Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), pp. 44–48.

My discussion of individual justices here draws upon conversations with Jesse Choper, George L. Saunders, Jr., Lawrence Wallace, Daniel K. Mayers, Charles Fried, Richard S. Arnold, Daniel A. Rezneck, James M. Edwards, and Jerold Israel, and upon correspondence from Joseph W. Bartlett and Bernard E. Jacob, as well as upon conversations with additional former clerks from other terms, including G. Edward White. A number of clerks from the 1960 Term have indicated that they have no recollections whatsoever concerning Poe. See Murray H. Bring (Warren) to Garrow, 11 June 1992, John D. French (Frankfurter) to Garrow, 19 June 1992, and James E. Knox, Jr. (Clark) to Garrow, 22 June 1992. Also see particularly Richard S. Arnold, “A Remembrance: Mr. Justice Brennan, October Term 1960,” Journal of Supreme Court History 1991, pp. 5–8. Also note G. Edward White, Earl Warren: A Public Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); on Justice Brennan, also see Edward V. Heck, “The Socialization of a Freshman Justice: The Early Years of Justice Brennan,” Pacific Law Journal 10 (1979): 707–728; and Heck, “Justice Brennan and the Heyday of Warren Court Liberalism,” Santa Clara Law Review 20 (1980): 841–887. On the now largely forgotten Charles E. Whittaker, who has been omitted from at least one otherwise comprehensive bibliography of all Supreme Court justices, see Henry J. Abraham, Justices and Presidents (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 247–248, 287. On Potter Stewart, see Tinsley E. Yarbrough, “Justice Potter Stewart,” in Lamb and Halpern, eds., The Burger Court, pp. 375–406.

77. [Frankfurter], “Re: Poe v. Ullman,” 6 March 1961, FF-HLS II-70–376; Dan [Mayers] to “Dear Mr. Justice,” n.d., 1pp., FF-HLS II-70–495 and 546. Perhaps quite surprisingly, twenty-nine years later Anthony Amsterdam insists that “my memory relating to Poe is a total blank.” Amsterdam to Garrow, 28 May 1992.

78. Upson to Harper, 9 and 15 March 1961, Emerson Box 8; Poe v. Ullman Case File, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1960, #60, RG 267, Box 3551, National Archives; Frankfurter to Warren, 15 March [1961], Warren Box 354; Dan [Mayers] to “Dear Mr. Justice,” n.d., 1pp., FF-HLS-II-70–441; Garrow conversations with Daniel K. Mayers and Anthony Fitzgerald; also see chapter two here, at note four.

79. “Birth Control Statute Brings Local Conviction,” Wallingford Post, 6 April 1961, pp. 1, 15.

80. Harper, “Jurisdictional Statement,” Trubek v. Ullman, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1960, #847, 24 March 1961, 14pp., Trubek Case File, RG 267, Box 3815, National Archives; Griswold, Executive Committee Minutes, 9 March 1961, Anita Ernst, Board Minutes, 28 March 1961, PPLC 12-E; Transcript of Hearing, Public Health and Safety Committee, 12 April 1961, pp. 12–23, Connecticut State Library, esp. p. 21; New Haven Register, 12, 13 and 27 April 1961; Hartford Courant, 13 April 1961, p. 28, 27 April 1961; Waterbury Republican, 13 April 1961; New Haven Journal-Courier, 13 April 1961; Hartford Times, 13 April 1961, p. 40, 27 April 1961, 6 and 9 May 1961; Bridgeport Herald, 16 April 1961; Journal of the House, pp. 881 and 973 (2 and 9 May).

81. Natalie Schwartz, Executive Committee Minutes, 4 May 1961, PPLC 12-E; Griswold, “Director’s Report,” [24 May 1961], PPLC 14-D; Fred Jaffe to Cass Canfield, 18 May 1961, PPFA II-184; Canfield, Text of Remarks, 24 May 1961, PPLM Box 106; [Griswold], Annual Meeting Minutes, 24 May 1961, PPLC 12-E; New Haven Journal-Courier, 25 May 1961; New Haven Register, 14 June 1961, p. 48. On Fowler Harper in this period, also see the Register, 30 April 1961, 8 May 1961, p. 33, and 21 May 1961. On Lucia Parks’s earlier involvement, see Bridgeport Post, 17 April 1938; Parks, “1961–1964,” n.d. [1983], 4pp., PPLC 33-I; and Garrow conversations with Lucia and Charles Parks. The hilarious essay from which Harper read is [Alan R. Novak], “Man, His Dog and Birth Control: A Study in Comparative Rights,” Yale Law Journal 70 (June 1961): 1205–1209.

82. Dan [Mayers] to “Dear Mr. Justice,” n.d., 1pp., FF-HLS-II-70–511, 512 et. seq., Dan [Mayers] to “Dear Mr. Justice,” n.d., 1pp., FF-HLS-II-70–495 et seq., 70–546 et seq., and 70–644 et seq.; Tony [Amsterdam] to “Dear Mr. Justice,” n.d., 2pp., FF-HLS-II-70–488; “Tony’s draft,” n.d., FF-HLS-II-70–622 et seq.; Harlan, “Memorandum to the Conference,” 3 June 1961, Harlan Box 117, Warren Box 476, Brennan Box 55, Clark Box A109; Garrow conversation with Charles Fried; undated, pencil-annotated 60pp. typescript draft, Harlan Papers, Box 117; Yarbrough, John Marshall Harlan, pp. 311–313. Also see particularly Charles Fried, Order and Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991), pp. 72–73, 76, which mistakenly calls Poe “a criminal case” but terms the Harlan dissent “[t]he seminal statement of the constitutional right to privacy.” See as well Fried, “The Conservatism of Justice Harlan,” New York Law School Law Review 36 (1991): 33–52, at 35. Copies of all the printed draft circulations of different opinions appear in both the Warren Papers, Box 476, and the Brennan Papers, Box 55.

83. Garrow conversations with Charles Fried, Richard S. Arnold, Jesse Choper, Jerold Israel, Lawrence Wallace, James M. Edwards, Daniel A. Rezneck, George L. Saunders, Jr., and Daniel K. Mayers. Also see Bernard Jacob to Garrow, 28 May 1992, and especially Richard S. Arnold, “A Remembrance: Mr. Justice Brennan, October Term 1960,” Journal of Supreme Court History 1991, pp. 5–8, at 6: “the Justice would always sit down with us and go over his notes when he returned from Conference.”

84. Typescript draft of Douglas dissent, labeled “OK for printer 3/22/61 WOD,” Douglas Papers Box 1247; Garrow conversations with Daniel A. Rezneck and Richard S. Arnold; Whittaker to Frankfurter, 5 June 1961 (“I agree”), FF-HLS-II-70–436; Clark to Frankfurter, 6 June 1961 (“Good riddance! Join me up”), FF-HLS-II-70–437 and Clark Box A109.

85. Garrow conversations with Richard S. Arnold, Jesse Choper, Jerold Israel, and Lawrence Wallace; Frankfurter, “Memorandum for the Conference,” 15 June 1961, Harlan Box 117, Warren Box 476, and Brennan Box 55; Warren to Frankfurter, 16 June 1961, FF-HLS-II-70–305 and Warren Box 476. I am most deeply indebted to Judge Arnold, who reviewed his contemporaneous notes in some detail in the course of our discussion.

As Lawrence Wallace later noted, Justice Black’s dissent did not speak to the merits, and Black of course certainly did not share John Harlan’s view of Fourteenth Amendment due process liberty. And as Charles Fried has emphasized—see Order and Law, p. 73—Harlan indeed took pleasure in demonstrating how his jurisprudence at times could indeed be more protective of individual rights than that of Black. On Poe also see Jesse H. Choper, Judicial Review and the National Political Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 407, who describes it as involving a situation “where there was no realistic threat of deprivation of appellants’ individual constitutional rights.” The dismissal of Trubek v. Ullman appears at 367 U.S. 907.

86. Poe et al. v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 501, 502, 504, 508. Also see Frankfurter’s opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 151 (1951); see as well Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U.S. 549, 571 (1947). But see District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 113–114 (1953), where the Court observed that “The failure of the executive branch to enforce a law does not result in its modification or repeal.” A well-known defense of the Frankfurter opinion appears in Alexander M. Bickel, “The Supreme Court, 1960 Term—Foreword: The Passive Virtues,” Harvard Law Review 75 (November 1961): 40–79, at 59, 64; also see Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962), pp. 143–156. Bickel in turn was answered by Gerald Gunther, “The Subtle Vices of the ‘Passive Virtues’—A Comment on Principle and Expediency in Judicial Review,” Columbia Law Review 64 (January 1964): 1–25, at 17–21. A superb critical note by Laurence D. Kay appears in the California Law Review 50 (March 1962): 137–143; also see Mississippi Law Journal 33 (December 1961): 138–139, Columbia Law Review 62 (January 1962): 106–132, Columbia Law Review 63 (April 1963): 688–707, and Arthur E. Bonfield, “The Abrogation of Penal Statutes,” Iowa Law Review 49 (Winter 1964): 389–440, at 435–439.

87. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 509.

88. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 509, 555.

89. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 509, 511, 513, 515, 517, 519–520, 521. Also see Norman Redlich, “Are There ‘Certain Rights … Retained by the People’?,” New York University Law Review 37 (November 1962): 787–812, at 799; and Note, Women’s Rights Law Reporter 10 (Winter 1988): 177–208, at 184; but see Robert L. Calhoun, “Democracy and Natural Law,” Natural Law Forum 5 (1960): 31–69.

90. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 522, 524, 531–534, 539, 543, 548, 550, 552, 553, 554; Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). Three months later, in replying to a writer who had offered his comments on the Poe dissent, Harlan added that “I cannot see that this statute is far removed from one that sought to punish a marital relationship not resulting in procreation by those possessing such capabilities.… The Connecticut statute seems to me to be a very different thing from one that undertakes merely to regulate or prohibit the sale of contraceptives.” Harlan to Joseph O’Meara, 19 September 1962, Harlan Box 117. On the Harlan dissent, also see Fowler V. Harper, Justice Rutledge and the Bright Constellation (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), pp. 104, 339–340; Richard J. Regan, American Pluralism and the Catholic Conscience (New York: Macmillan, 1963), pp. 217–231, at 224–226; Sanford Levinson, “Constitutional Rhetoric and the Ninth Amendment,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 64 (1988): 131–161, at 136 (“Harlan’s opinion … is one of the greatest achievements in our judicial history”); Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf, On Reading the Constitution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), pp. 76–79; Melvin Wulf, “On the Origins of Privacy,” The Nation, 27 May 1991, pp. 700–704, at 703; Nadine Strossen, “Justice Harlan and the Bill of Rights,” New York Law School Law Review 36 (1991): 133–154, at 143; Bruce Ackerman, “The Common Law Constitution of John Marshall Harlan,” New York Law School Law Review 36 (1991): 5–32, at 21–25; and Norman Dorsen, “Celebrating (?) the Bill of Rights,” Kentucky Law Journal 80 (1991–92): 843–860, at 856. As noted before, Mapp v. Ohio was handed down the same morning as Poe, and Justice Clark’s majority opinion included several comments about how the Fourth Amendment protected the right to privacy from unreasonable invasion or intrusion by a state. 367 U.S. 643, 654–657.

CHAPTER FOUR

1. New York Times, 20 June 1961, pp. 1, 23, 21 June 1961; Washington Post, 20 June 1961; New York Herald Tribune, 20 June 1961, 21 June 1961, pp. 1, 14; Hartford Courant, 20 June 1961, pp. 1, 3, 21 June 1961; New Haven Register, 20 June 1961, 21 June 1961, pp. 1, 52; Hartford Times, 20 June 1961, 21 June 1961; Griswold Interview with Cheek, pp. 31–32; Press Release, “Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut to Offer Contraceptive Services,” 20 June 1961, PPLC 7-Q; New Haven Journal-Courier, 21 June 1961; New Republic, 3 July 1961, pp. 7–8.

2. New York Times, 21 June 1961, p. 36; Washington Post, 20 June 1961; New York Herald Tribune, 21 June 1961, pp. 1, 14, 24 June 1961; “Ahead: Acid Test of a Law,” Connecticut Life, 27 July 1961, pp. 8–10; Pilpel to Harper, 20, 23, and 28 June 1961, Emerson Boxes 8 and 7 and PPFA II-184; Clifford R. Kaeser [to Harper], “Memo: What Constitutes the Practice of Medicine in Connecticut?,” 26 June 1961, 11pp., Griswold to Harper (and Lucia Parks letter to doctors), 22 June 1961, Emerson Box 7; Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 32.

3. Calderone to Somers H. Sturgis, 2 June 1961, PPLM Box 106; Buxton to Robert John, 26 June 1961, PPLC 7-J; Fran McCoy, Minutes, Medical Advisory Meeting, 28 June 1961, PPLC 15-E; PPLC press releases, 28 June 1961, PPLC 26-O1; Fred Jaffe to Canfield, “Connecticut Meeting,” 29 June 1961, PPFA II-184; New Haven Register, 28 and 29 June 1961; New Haven Journal-Courier, 28 June 1961; Hartford Courant, 28 and 29 June 1961; Calderone to Buxton, 5 July 1961, PPFA II-184; Hartford Times, 12 July 1961.

4. Buxton to Ernst, 12 July 1961, PPLC 7-I; “Ahead: Acid Test of a Law,” Connecticut Life, 27 July 1961, pp. 8–10; Rock, “We Can End the Battle Over Birth Control!,” Good Housekeeping, July 1961, pp. 44–45, 107–110, and in Reader’s Digest 79 (September 1961): 103–107; Catholic Transcript, 29 June 1961. Also see Rev. John A. O’Brien, “Let’s Take Birth Control Out of Politics,” Look, 10 October 1961, pp. 67–70 (excerpted in the 3 October 1961 Hartford Times); William H. Draper, Jr., “Birth Control: The Problem We Fear to Face,” Look, 5 December 1961, pp. 39–44; and New York Times, 2 December 1961, p. 25 (and Hartford Times, 2 December, and Hartford Courant, 3 December), for an AP dispatch reporting critical comments by Jesuit scholar Rev. Dexter Hanley of Georgetown Law School.

5. Pilpel to Frances Ferguson, 5 July 1961, PPFA II-184; Harper, “Motion for Leave to File and Petition for Rehearing of Decision,” Poe et al. v. Ullman, 7 July 1961, 7pp., PPLC 6-P and Poe Case File, RG 267, Box 3551, National Archives, esp. pp. 2 and 5; Harper to Pilpel, 7 July 1961, and Harper to Gene Gressman, 11 July 1961, Emerson Box 8. Also see Harper’s Application for Stay of Issuance of Mandate, granted by Justice Frankfurter on 19 July, and oppositions to both the petition and the application filed by Raymond Cannon in mid-July, Poe Case File and Emerson Box 8.

6. William J. Brennan, “Remarks,” The Law Society, London, 10 July 1961, 17pp., Harlan Papers Box 587, at pp. 2–3; Fletcher to Canfield, 19 July 1961, Harper to Fletcher, 26 July 1961, Fletcher to Fred Jaffe, 2 August 1961, PPFA II-184. On Joseph F. Fletcher, see his New York Times obituary, 30 October 1991, p. D25.

7. Harper to Griswold, 24 July 1961, Griswold to Buxton, 27 July 1961, Buxton to Griswold, 28 July 1961, PPLC 7-A; New Haven Register, 2 and 3 August and 7 September 1961; New Haven Journal-Courier, 2 August and 7 September 1961; New York Daily News, 3 August 1961; New York Post, 3 August 1961; Griswold to Harry Cupp, 3 August 1961, PPLC 38-H; Edith M. Gates, “Report on Telephone Conversation …” [16 August 1961], Gamble 6–121; Harper to Griswold, and to Buxton, 18 August 1961, PPLC 7-G; Griswold to Clarence Gamble, 23 August 1961, PPLC 42-A1 and Gamble 6–121; New York Herald Tribune, 6 September 1961, p. 13.

8. Stamford Advocate, 22 September 1961; Hartford Courant, 15, 28 and 29 September 1961; Hartford Times, 15 and 29 September 1961; Manchester Herald, 15 September 1961; Middletown Press, 27 September 1961.

9. Poe v. Ullman, 368 U.S. 869; Griswold to Thomas Fletcher, 10 October 1961, PPLC 38-H; Harper to Pilpel, 12 October 1961, PPFA II-184; Margaret Dinsmore, New Canaan Minutes, 16 October 1961, PPLC 52-M; Frances Winkler, New Haven League Minutes, 17 October 1961, PPLC 41-A; [PPFA] Planned Parenthood News, Fall 1961, p. 3; New York Times, 27 October 1961; New York Herald Tribune, 27 October 1961; New Haven Register, 27 October 1961; Hartford Courant, 27 October 1961; Hartford Times, 27 October 1961. No indications exist that the Court, or any individual justice, gave anything more than habitual consideration to the Poe petition. An undated clerk’s note in the Douglas Papers (Box 1247) observes “nothing new,” and a similarly undated one in the Warren Papers (Box 208) by “RGG” [R. Gordon Gooch] also recommends denial.

10. Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1961; Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 33; Medical Tribune, 17 November 1961, 15 and 22 January 1962; PPLC Press Release, 1 November 1961, PPLC 26-O1; New Haven Register, 2 November 1961, p. 6, 3 November 1961, pp. 1, 16; Hartford Times, 2 November 1961; New York Times, 3 November 1961, p. 37; New Haven Journal-Courier, 3 November 1961, p. 1; Hartford Courant, 3 November 1961, p. 4; Waterbury Republican, 3 November 1961; New York Herald Tribune, 3 November 1961. On Arthur Gorman and his replacing the retiring Ab Ullman, see the New Haven Journal-Courier, 16 May 1961, p. 1; New Haven Register, 26 June 1961, pp. 10–11. Gorman was a New Haven native, and a graduate of Catholic University in Washington and Yale Law School, 1927; his obituary appears in the Register, 3 February 1967, pp. 1, 2.

11. New Haven Register, 3 November 1961, p. 16; Morris to Raymond E. Baldwin, n.d. [15 December 1961], Baldwin Papers Box 81; Morris in “Birth Control and the Law,” CBS Reports, 10 May 1962, p. 21; Gereon Zimmerman, “Contraception and Commotion in Connecticut,” Look, 30 January 1962, pp. 78–83.

12. “Report of Det. John A. Blazi—November 3rd, 1961,” I-115-C, 4pp., Clark Papers; New York Herald Tribune, 4 November 1961, pp. 1, 10; Hartford Courant, 4 November 1961, p. 2; Hartford Times, 4 November 1961; New York Times, 4 and 5 November 1961; New York Post, 4 November 1961; Waterbury Republican, 5 November 1961, p. 68; Bridgeport Herald, 5 November 1961; Newsweek, 13 November 1961, p. 60; Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1961; Gereon Zimmerman, “Contraception and Commotion in Connecticut,” Look, 30 January 1962, pp. 78–83; Brookfield Journal and New Milford Times, 1 February 1962; Griswold Interview with Cheek, pp. 33–34; Berg in New York Times, 28 May 1989, pp. CN6–7, and in Fred W. Friendly and Martha J. H. Elliott, The Constitution: That Delicate Balance (New York: Random House, 1985), p. 196; Garrow conversations with John A. Blazi, Harold Berg, Frances McCoy and Virginia Stuermer. On Julius Maretz’s appointment as circuit prosecutor, see New Haven Register, 22 and 27 November 1960; his obituaries appear in the New Haven Journal-Courier, 29 November 1979, and the Register, 29 November 1979, p. 18. On John Blazi, see an extensive 1 February 1964 New Haven Register profile; on Harold Berg, see a 20 February 1976 Register item. A superb and justly famous study of New Haven politics and government in that era is Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961). Also see Nelson W. Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 69–97; William L. Miller, The Fifteenth Ward and the Great Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966); Allan R. Talbott, The Mayor’s Game: Richard Lee of New Haven and the Politics of Change (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); and Fred Powledge, Model City (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970).

13. Hartford Courant, 4 November 1961, p. 2; New York Herald Tribune, 4 November 1961, pp. 1, 10; Connecticut Parenthood, Winter 1961; “Report of Det. John A. Blazi—November 9th, 1961,” 1pp., Clark Papers; Forsberg in Hartford Courant, 7 June 1985, pp. A1, A8; Forsberg Interview with Hubbell; Garrow conversations with John Blazi, Joan Bates Forsberg, Rosemary Stevens, and Robert B. Stevens; “Statement by Joan B. Forsberg,” 2 p.m., 9 November 1961, 3pp., Clark Papers; “Statement by Rosemary Anne Stevens,” 3:45 p.m., 9 November 1961, 2pp., Clark Papers. Both of the Stevenses subsequently became prominent scholars and higher education administrators; Robert Stevens’s books include Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983); Rosemary Stevens’s books include American Medicine and the Public Interest (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), and In Sickness and in Wealth: American Hospitals in the Twentieth Century (New York: Basic Books, 1989).

14. “Report of Det. John A. Blazi—November 10th, 1961,” 1pp., Clark Papers; Maretz, “Information with Warrant,” State of Connecticut v. Estelle T. Griswold, CR6–5653, and State v. C. Lee Buxton, CR6–5654, 10 November 1961, Griswold Record, Connecticut Supreme Court, A-427; Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 35; Garrow conversations with Catherine G. Roraback and Lucia Parks; New York Herald Tribune, 11 November 1961, pp. 1, 7, 12 November 1961, p. 26; New Haven Register and New Haven Journal-Courier, 11 November 1961, pp. 1, 2; New York Times, 11 November 1961, p. 25; Hartford Times, 10 and 11 November 1961; Hartford Courant, 11 November 1961, pp. 1, 2, 12 November 1961; New York Post, 11 November 1961. Also see Frances Winkler, New Haven League Minutes, 27 November 1961, PPLC 41-A; Medical Tribune, 27 November 1961, p. 1; Zimmerman, “Contraception and Commotion,” p. 83; Buxton, “Birth Control Problems in Connecticut,” Connecticut Medicine 28 (August 1964): 581–584; and New Haven Journal-Courier, 7 June 1985, pp. 39, 56.

15. Pilpel to Harper, 14 November 1961, PPFA II-184 and Emerson Box 7; Pike to Canfield, 17 November 1961, and Canfield to Pike, 21 November 1961, Emerson Box 7; Rock to Buxton, 14 November 1961, PPLC 7-J; Buxton to Rock, 21 November 1961, PPLC 7-I; Director to SAC, New Haven, 26 May 1961, 100–389390–7, SAC, New Haven to Director, 14 November 1961 (II), 100–389390–11 and 12. Also see Pilpel to Harper, and to Jaffe, 20 November 1961, Emerson Box 7 and PPFA II-184. On the “Reserve Index,” see Athan Theoharis, Spying on Americans (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978), pp. 43–62.

16. “Report of Det. Harold Berg—Nov. 14th, 1961,” and “Report of Det. Harold Berg—Nov. 15th, 1961,” 1pp., “Statement by Marie W. Tindall, 2:30 p.m., Nov. 15, 1961,” 2pp., “Statement by Rosemary Anne Stevens, 3:30 p.m., Nov. 16, 1961,” 1pp., “Statement by Joan B. Forsberg, 9:50 a.m., Nov. 17, 1961,” 1pp., Clark Papers; Garrow conversations with Harold Berg, Rosemary Stevens, and Joan Forsberg; Forsberg Interview with Hubbell.

17. Morris to Raymond E. Baldwin, n.d. [15 December 1961], Baldwin Box 81; Zimmerman, “Contraception and Commotion,” pp. 80–81; “Statement by James Gibbons Morris, 11:35 a.m., 11–21–61,” 2pp., Clark Papers.

18. New Haven Register, 24 November 1961, pp. 1, 3; New Haven Journal Courier, 24 November 1961, pp. 1, 2; Hartford Times, 24 November 1961; New York Times, 24 November 1961, 25 November 1961, p. 25; New Haven Register/Journal-Courier, 25 November 1961, p. 5; Hartford Courant, 25 November 1961; Waterbury Republican, 25 November 1961; Christian Science Monitor, 25 November 1961; Roraback, “Demurrer,” State of Connecticut v. Estelle T. Griswold, and State v. Buxton, 24 November 1961, Griswold Record A-427, p. 2; Pilpel to Jaffe, “Connecticut Clinic Cases,” 27 November 1961, Pilpel to Canfield, 8 December 1961, PPFA II-184; Jack Fox/UPI dispatch in New York World-Telegram, 6 December 1961, p. 37, and Hartford Times, among other papers.

19. Roraback, “Memorandum of Law in Support of Demurrers,” State of Connecticut v. Estelle T. Griswold and State v. Buxton, 8 December 1961, 22pp., PPLC 7-B, esp. pp. 4–5, 14; Maretz and Clark, “Brief of State of Connecticut,” State v. Buxton, 8 December 1961, 3pp., Clark Papers; Transcript of Proceedings, State v. Buxton and Griswold, 8 December 1961, 27pp., Clark Papers, esp. pp. 4–5, 12–13, 17, 19; New Haven Register, 9 December 1961, pp. 1, 2, 14 December 1961; New Haven Journal-Courier, 9 December 1961, p. 6; New York Times, 9 December 1961, p. 12; Hartford Times, 9 December 1961; Pilpel to Roraback, 14 December 1961, PPFA II-184.

20. Morris to Baldwin, n.d. [15 December 1961], and Baldwin to Morris, 27 December 1961, Baldwin Box 81.

21. J. Robert Lacey, “Memorandum on Demurrer to Information,” State of Connecticut v. C. Lee Buxton, CR6–5654, and State v. Estelle T. Griswold, CR6–5653, Sixth Circuit Court, 20 [22] December 1961, 4pp., PPLC 7-C and Griswold Record A-427, pp. 1–10; New Haven Register, 22 December 1961, pp. 1, 2; Hartford Times, 22 and 23 December 1961; Hartford Courant, 23 December 1961, p. 2; New York Times, 23 December 1961; Waterbury Republican, 23 December 1961; Garrow conversations with Joan Forsberg; Griswold to Cordelia May, 26 December 1961, PPLC 42-A1; Bridgeport Herald, 31 December 1961.

22. Transcript of Proceedings, State of Connecticut v. C. Lee Buxton and Estelle T. Griswold, Sixth Circuit Court, 2 January 1961, 135pp., Clark Papers, esp. pp. 63, 84, 96, 100; New Haven Register, 2 January 1962, 3 January 1962, pp. 1, 9; Hartford Times, 2 January 1962, p. 17, 3 January 1962, p. 13; New Haven Journal-Courier, 3 January 1962, pp. 1, 4; New York Times, 3 January 1962, p. 16; New York Herald Tribune, 3 January 1962; Hartford Courant, 3 January 1962, pp. 1, 2; Waterbury Republican, 3 January 1962; Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 36; Garrow conversations with Joan Forsberg, Rosemary Stevens, Robert Stevens, and Catherine G. Roraback.

23. New York Herald Tribune, 3 and 6 January 1962; Newsweek, 15 January 1962, p. 55; Zimmerman, “Contraception and Commotion in Connecticut,” Look, 30 January 1962, pp. 78–83; New Haven Register, 13, 15 and 16 January 1962; New Haven Journal-Courier, 15 January 1962; Waterbury Republican, 16 January 1962; The Reporter, 8 January 1962, pp. 14–20, and 15 February 1962, p. 12; Hartford Courant, 13 and 17 January 1962; Bridgeport Herald, 14 January 1962, p. 1; Roraback letter in Lakeville Journal, 18 January 1962; Commonweal, 26 January 1962, p. 450; Roraback to Griswold, 10 January 1962, and Roraback to Pilpel, 1 February 1962, PPLC 7-F; Roraback, “Request for Finding” and “Draft Finding,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 31 January 1962, 16pp., Clark Papers; Pilpel, “Connecticut Planned Parenthood,” 5 January 1962, Pilpel to Winfield Best, 6 February 1962, and Mary Calderone to Pilpel, 6 March 1962, PPFA II-184; Zelma Moss, Executive Committee Minutes, 8 March 1962, PPLC 12-F; Pilpel to Roraback, 14 March 1962, PPLC 7-F.

24. Hartford Times, 16 February 1962, 5 April 1962, p. 17, 26 April 1962, p. 21, 11 May 1962; New Haven Register, 21 February 1962, 8 March 1962, 6 and 9 April 1962, 7 May 1962; Stamford Advocate, 13 March 1962; Gary G. Barnes to Griswold, 25 March 1962, PPLC 38-H; Connecticut Daily Campus, 9 May 1962; Morris to Gorman, 2 February 1962, Clark Papers; Bridgeport Herald, 25 February 1962; Transcript of “Birth Control and the Law,” CBS Reports, 10 May 1962 (produced and written by Stephen Fleischman), 28pp., esp. pp. 21–25. On the Chicago conflict, see Planned Parenthood Association of the Chicago Area (PPACA), “Chronological History of the Birth Control Controversy in Chicago,” n.d. [c.June 1965], 11pp., Schlesinger Library 223–2–18; the files of “Citizens for the Extension of Birth Control Services” (CEBCS), a very small Planned Parenthood front group, in Box 12 of the PPACA Papers; CEBCS, “A Report,” 24 August 1962, 3pp., Myers Papers I-10, and especially John A. Rohr, “Birth Control in Illinois: A Study in Church-State Relations,” Chicago Studies 4 (Spring 1965): 31–51. Also see New York Times, 30 September and 4 December 1962, and Albert Q. Maisel, “The New Battle Over Birth Control,” Reader’s Digest 82 (February 1963): 54–59. On a similar dispute in Phoenix, see a unanimous ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court that a state statute prohibiting the “advertising” of contraceptive information could not be applied or construed to forbid the distribution of noncommercial literature from Planned Parenthood announcing the availability of its birth control services to patrons of public health facilities. Planned Parenthood Committee of Phoenix v. Maricopa County, 375 P.2d 719 (31 October 1962). Also see Kenneth D. McCoy, Jr., Louisiana Law Review 23 (June 1963): 773–778.

25. New Haven Register, 20 May, 25 and 26 June 1962; New Haven Journal-Courier, 26 June 1962.

26. Clark, “Request for Counter Finding,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 19 February 1962, 8pp., Clark Papers; Griswold to Harry Cupp, 8 June 1962, and to Cass Canfield, 9 July 1962, PPLC 38-H and 7-F; Lacey, “Finding,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 25 July 1962, 16pp., PPLC 7-C and Griswold Record A-427; New Haven Register, 26 July 1962, pp. 1, 6; Hartford Courant, 27 July 1962; Roraback, “Motion to Correct Finding,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 31 July 1962, 1pp., PPLC 7-D and Griswold Record A-427; Lacey, “Memorandum on Motion to Correct Finding,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 22 August [13 September] 1962, Griswold Record, pp. 32–33; Roraback to Harper, 18 September 1962, PPLC 7-E; Roraback, “Assignment of Errors,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 26 September 1962, 5pp., Griswold Record, pp. 33–40; Juliet Taylor, Executive Committee Minutes, 27 September 1962, PPLC 12-F.

27. Pilpel to Fred Jaffe, 9 October 1962, PPFA II-184; Roraback to Lacey, 8 October 1962, Clark Papers; Roraback, “Appellants’ Brief,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, Appellate Division, 15 October 1962, 42pp., PPLC 7-D, esp. pp. 14, 20; Pilpel to Roraback, 15 October 1962, PPFA II-184 and Emerson Box 7; Hartford Courant, 20 October 1962, p. 3; New Haven Register, 20 October 1962; Waterbury Republican, 20 October 1962; New York Times, 20 October 1962; Bridgeport Herald, 21 October 1962; UPI dispatch in Waterbury American and New Britain Herald, 15 December 1962; Griswold to Helen Clarke, 18 December 1962, PPLC 7-E. The two other panel members were Erving Pruyn and Searles Dearington.

28. Hartford Courant, 28 August 1962, p. 2, 3 October 1962, 11 October 1962, p. 4, 7 January 1963; New Haven Register, 14 August 1962, 7 January 1963, p. 28; Waterbury Republican, 11 October 1962; New York Times, 18 November 1962; Juliet Taylor, Executive Committee Minutes, 27 September and 1 November 1962, PPLC 12-F; Kay Mali to Naomi T. Gray, 17 October 1962, and Gray to Alan Guttmacher, 28 November 1962, PPFA II-185; Hartford Times, 5 January 1963, 7 January 1963, p. 15, 9 January 1963, 13 January 1963, 15 January 1963, p. 13. Also see Bridgeport Herald, 12 and 26 August 1962.

29. Redlich, “Are There ‘Certain Rights … Retained by the People’?” New York University Law Review 37 (November 1962): 787–812, at 798, 811–812; Wulf to Redlich, 15 January 1963, ACLU 1964 Vol. 16; Roraback, “Griswold v. Connecticut: A Brief Case History,” Ohio Northern University Law Review 16 (1989): 395–401, at 401; Garrow conversations with Catherine G. Roraback.

Previous judicial and scholarly commentary on the Ninth Amendment was extremely scanty. See Knowlton L. Kelsey, “The Ninth Amendment of the Federal Constitution,” Indiana Law Journal 11 (April 1936): 309–323, at 313 (“Natural rights … include … the right of privacy”); Robert H. Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System of Government (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 74–75 (“the Ninth Amendment rights which are not to be disturbed by the Federal Government are still a mystery to me”); Bennett B. Patterson, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1955), p. 55 (“the right of privacy may be” a right protected by the Ninth Amendment); Leslie W. Dunbar, “James Madison and the Ninth Amendment,” Virginia Law Review 42 (June 1956): 627–643; Mitchell Franklin, “The Relation of the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Third Constitution,” Howard Law Journal 4 (June 1958): 170–192; O. John Rogge, “Unenumerated Rights,” California Law Review 47 (December 1959): 787–827.

30. State of Connecticut v. Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton, 3 Conn. Cir. 6; New Haven Register, 17 January 1963, pp. 1, 2; Hartford Times, 17 January 1963, pp. 1, 2; Middletown Press, 17 January 1963; New York Times, 18 January 1963, p. 2; Medical Tribune, 1 February 1963, pp. 1, 17; Yale Daily News, 8 February 1963, pp. 1, 4; Roraback, “Petition for Certification By Supreme Court of Errors,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 31 January 1963, 9pp., PPLC 7-E; Joseph B. Clark, “Respondent’s Brief on Petition for Certification,” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 6 February 1963, 4pp., Clark Papers; State v. Griswold and Buxton Record, A-427, pp. 42–50; Pilpel to Winfield Best, 7 February 1963, Pilpel, “PPFA—Connecticut,” 18 February 1963, Pilpel to Roraback, 19 February 1963, PPFA II-184; New Haven Register, 21 February 1963, 3 March 1963; Roraback to Raymond E. Baldwin, and to Raymond G. Calnen, 26 February 1963, Clark Papers; Best to Bea Hessel, 26 March 1963, PPFA II-184.

31. Journal of the House, p. 327 (29 January) Journal of the Senate, p. 392 (30 January); Juliet Taylor, Executive Committee Minutes, 7 March 1963, PPLC 12-F; Christian Science Monitor, 16 February 1963; New Haven Register, 17 February 1963, 12 April 1963, p. 10, 22 April 1963; Dorothy D. Bromley, Catholics and Birth Control (New York: Devin-Adair, 1965), pp. 142–143; Hearing Transcript, Public Health and Safety Committee, 11 April 1963, Connecticut State Library, pp. 11–22; Hartford Courant, 12 April 1963, p. 19, 27 April 1963; Hartford Times, 12 April 1963; Rock, The Time Has Come (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963); Rock, “It Is Time to End the Birth-Control Fight,” Saturday Evening Post, 20 April 1963, pp. 10, 14; Life, 10 May 1963, pp. 37–40. On the Rock-Cushing friendship and Rock’s book, see Loretta McLaughlin, The Pill, John Rock, and the Church: The Biography of a Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown, 1982), pp. 157–164.

32. Lucia Parks to Louise H. Fleck, 20 February 1963, Fleck to Parks, 27 February 1963, PPLC 18-N; Doris Allen, “Resumé of what I think I said …” 11 March 1963, Ruth Zelitch, New Haven League Minutes, 18 March and 8 April 1963, Zelitch to PPLC Board Members, 18 March 1963, Lucia Parks, “Report on Matters Brought Up By Planned Parenthood League of New Haven,” 21 March 1963, PPLC 41-A; Bea Hessel to Naomi Gray, 27 March 1963, PPFA II-185; Lucia Jenney Parks, “1961–1964,” n.d. [1983], 4pp., PPLC 33-I; Griswold to PPLC Officers and Board Members, 10 April 1963, PPLC 18-N; Griswold to Parks, 17 April 1963, PPLC 22-H; Garrow conversations with Gary Trebert, Frances McCoy, Ellen Switzer, Lucia and Charles Parks, Cornelia Jahncke, Hilda Crosby Standish, Elizabeth Phillips, Joan Forsberg, and Catherine G. Roraback.

33. Howson to Parks, 23 April 1963, Standish to Griswold, and Standish to “Dear Colleagues,” 29 April 1963, Schlesinger Library 223–2–14; Parks, “A Suggested Statement,” 27 April 1963, PPLC 12-F; “Resolution” to the Executive Committee, n.d. [c.2 May 1963], Juliet Taylor, Executive Committee Minutes, 2 May 1963, PPLC 12-B.

34. Juliet Taylor, Annual Meeting Minutes, 28 May 1963, PPLC 12-F; Griswold, “Director’s Report,” 1 May 1962–30 April 1963, in PPLC Annual Report, PPLC 14-D; Dorothy Giles, New Haven League Minutes, 3 June 1963, PPLC 41-A; Hartford Courant, 21 April 1963, p. 14, 24 April 1963, p. 10, 15 May 1963, pp. 1, 5; Waterbury Republican, 21 April 1963, 15 May 1963, pp. 1, 2; New Haven Register, 22 April 1963, 15 May 1963; Bridgeport Herald, 28 April 1963, p. 7; Journal of the House, pp. 1030 and 1132–1135 (8 and 14 May); Transcript of Proceedings, Connecticut General Assembly, House of Representatives, 14 May 1963, pp. 2321–2325; New Haven Journal-Courier, 15 May 1963; New York Times, 15 May 1963, p. 41, 17 and 19 May 1963; Journal of the Senate, p. 1064 (16 May); Hartford Times, 31 May 1963; Lee Buxton to Shirley Lapp, 1 August 1963, Buxton Scrapbook.

35. Pemberton to John E. Coons, 31 January 1963, Coons to Pemberton, n.d. [c.11 February 1963], Russell W. Gibbons to Pemberton, 12 February 1963, Pemberton to Coons, and to Gibbons, 14 February 1963, Pemberton to Coons, and to Gibbons, 18 March 1963, Pemberton to Roraback, 15 April 1963, Roraback to Pemberton, 22 April 1963, ACLU 1964 Vol. 16; Pilpel to Fred Jaffe, 24 April and 5 June 1963, PPFA II-184 and 185; George N. Lindsay, Jr., to Roraback, 8 July 1963, Roraback to Lindsay, 29 July 1963, Roraback to Pilpel, 30 July 1963, PPFA II-184; Pemberton to Roraback, 30 July 1963, and Pemberton to Gibbons, 9 August 1963, ACLU 1964 Vol. 16; Hartford Times, 6 and 20 August 1963; Bridgeport Herald, 11 August 1963; Roraback to Lacey, 13 August 1963, and to Raymond E. Baldwin, 23 August 1963, Clark Papers; Hartford Courant, 21 August 1963; Roraback to Pilpel, 23 August 1963, PPFA II-184; Roraback to Griswold, 26 August 1963, PPLC 7-F; Roraback to Pemberton, 29 August 1963, ACLU 1964 Vol. 16; Roraback, “Brief of Defendants-Appellants,” State of Connecticut v. Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton, #5485, Connecticut Supreme Court, 62pp., 30 August 1963, A-427 586–616, esp. pp. 16–19; Pilpel to Roraback, 20 August 1963, PPFA II-184.

36. New York Times, 5 August 1963, pp. 1, 12, 6 August 1963, pp. 1, 16, 7 August 1963, pp. 1, 18, 8 August 1963, pp. 1, 12; James O’Gara, “Birth Control and Public Policy,” Commonweal, 23 August 1963, p. 504; John C. Knott, “The Catholic and Contraception,” 22 August 1963, 4pp., Archives of the Archdiocese of Hartford; John A. O’Brien, “Let’s End the War Over Birth Control,” Christian Century, 6 November 1963, pp. 1361–1364. Also see Rosemary Ruether, “Why I Believe in Birth Control,” Saturday Evening Post, 4 April 1964, pp. 12–14; Bridgeport Herald, 10 May 1964.

37. Clark, “Brief of State-Appellee,” State of Connecticut v. Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton, #5485, Connecticut Supreme Court, 21pp., 1 October 1963, A-427 617–627, esp. p. 15; Hartford Times, 19 October 1963, p. 3, 25 October 1963, p. 17, 12 November 1963, pp. 1, 2, 13 November 1963; New Haven Register, 10 and 11 November 1963, 12 November 1963, pp. 1, 2, 13 November 1963; New Haven Journal-Courier, 13 November 1963; Hartford Courant, 13 November 1963; Garrow conversations with Joseph B. Clark and Catherine G. Roraback; Juliet Taylor, Executive Committee Minutes, 21 November 1963, PPLC 12-F.

38. New Haven Register, 27 and 29 November 1963, 9 December 1963; Waterbury Republican, 10 December 1963, p. 4; Bridgeport Post and Danbury News-Times, 10 December 1963; Griswold to Thirja Muffatti, 18 December 1963, PPLC 46-O; Griswold to Naomi Gray, 13 March 1964, PPFA II-185; Garrow conversations with Frances McCoy, Hilda Crosby Standish, Gary Trebert, Ellen Switzer, Catherine G. Roraback, Lucia and Charles Parks, Cornelia Jahncke, Helen [Buxton] Rose, and Elizabeth Phillips.

39. Juliet Taylor, Annual Meeting Minutes, 28 April 1964, PPLC 12-G; Hartford Courant, 20 April 1964, p. 3, 30 April 1964, 12 May 1964, pp. 1, 5; Griswold, “Executive Director’s Report,” 1 May 1963–31 March 1964, PPLC 14-D; State of Connecticut v. Griswold et al., 151 Conn. 544, 546, 200 A.2d 479; Hartford Times, 12 May 1964; Waterbury Republican, 12 May 1964; New Haven Register, 12 May 1964; New York Times, 12 May 1964, p. 39; New Haven Journal-Courier, 13 May 1964. On Cornelia Jahncke, a 1939 Vassar graduate and mother of four, see a profile in Greenwich Time, 10 May 1982, p. A3.

40. Jim Dull, “Point of View” Editorial, WELI Radio, 12 May 1964, PPLC 24-J; New Haven Register, 17 May 1964; Harper to Griswold, 27 May 1964, PPLC 7-H; Stephen Mann to Harper, “Standing of Defendants in Birth Control Case …” 22 May 1964, Emerson Box 8; Natalie Schwartz, Board Minutes, 19 May 1964, PPLC 12-G; Roraback to John H. King, 18 May 1964, Raymond J. Cannon to Clark, 5 June 1964, Clark Papers; Garrow conversations with Joseph B. Clark; Harper to Pilpel, 13 June 1964, Pilpel to Harper, 16 June 1964, PPFA II-184; Ernst to Pilpel, 12 and 22 May and 1 June 1964, Ernst Box 593; Melvin Wulf to Robert B. Fleming, 14 May 1964, Ernst to Fleming, 15 May 1964, Fleming to Ernst, 21 May and 8 June 1964, Pilpel to Fleming, 16 June 1964, ACLU 1964 Vol. 16; Harper, “Notice of Appeal …” State v. Griswold and Buxton, 22 July 1964, 2pp., Clark Papers; Harper to Nancy Wechsler, 28 July 1964, and Pilpel to Harper, 18 August 1964, Emerson Box 7.

41. Harper to Clark, 2 September 1964, Clark Papers; Harper, Jurisdictional Statement, Griswold and Buxton v. State of Connecticut, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496, 19pp., 14 September 1964, esp. pp. 3–6, 11–19; Hartford Times, 15 September 1964, 21 September 1964, p. 6; New Haven Register, 15 and 20 September 1964; Hartford Courant, 16 September 1964; New Haven Journal-Courier, 16 September 1964; Waterbury Republican, 16 September 1964; Pilpel to Harper, 21 September 1964, PPFA II-184. Harper’s Jurisdictional Statement is reprinted in full in Ohio Northern University Law Review 16 (1989): 373–394.

42. Harper to Griswold, 24 September 1964, Griswold to Harper, 25 September 1964, PPLC 7-H; Natalie Schwartz, Executive Committee Minutes, 10 September 1964, and Board Minutes, 22 September 1964, PPLC 12-G; Dorothy Giles to Cornelia Jahncke, 12 September 1964, “Summary of Reports of President of New Haven Planned Parenthood League,” 22 September 1964, Griswold to Fred Jaffe, 8 October 1964, PPFA II-185; Amelia Roe, New Haven Minutes, 13 October 1964, Jahncke to Giles, 17 October 1964, PPLC 41-B; [Griswold], untitled memo on 28 October PPFA meeting, 31 October 1964, Jaffe to Buxton, 2 November 1964, Henrietta Metcalf to [Doris] Allen, n.d., Jaffe to Giles, 5 November 1964, PPLC 44-A.

43. Natalie Schwartz, Executive Committee Minutes, 6 November 1964, PPLC 12-G; Elizabeth Whittall to Giles, 7 November 1964, PPLC 44-A; Schwartz, Board Minutes, 17 November 1964, PPLC 12-G; Mabel Jenkins to PPLC Board, 19 November 1964, PPLC 46-O; Emergency Executive Committee Minutes, 24 November 1964, PPLC 12-G and 41-B; Jahncke to Giles, 1 December 1964, PPLC 44-A; Jahncke to Buxton, 10 December 1964, PPLC 22-H; Giles to Jahncke, 14 December 1964, PPLC 44-A.

44. Clark, “Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” Griswold et al. v. State of Connecticut, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496, 30 September 1964, 12 pp., esp. p. 9; New Haven Register, 4 October 1964, pp. 1, 2; Hartford Times, 5 October 1964; Waterbury Republican, 6 October 1964; Yale Daily News, 6 October 1964; Harper, “Reply to Motion to Dismiss,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 13 October 1964, 6pp.; Bridgeport Herald, 25 October 1964, p. 11; Pilpel to Harper, 14 October 1964, Pilpel to Guttmacher and Jaffe, 15 October 1964, Pilpel to Jaffe, 22 October 1964, PPFA II-184.

45. Hartford Courant, New Haven Register and New Haven Journal-Courier, 16 October 1964; Dorsey, “Changing Attitudes Toward the Massachusetts Birth-Control Law,” New England Journal of Medicine 271 (15 October 1964): 823–827, at 826; Cushing in a 1 August 1964 Foreword for Dorothy D. Bromley, Catholics and Birth Control (New York: Devin-Adair, 1965), p. xi; January 1965 Gallup results in Hartford Courant, 13 January 1965, and Hazel Erskine, “The Polls: The Population Explosion, Birth Control, and Sex Education,” Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (Fall 1966): 490–501; Charles F. Westoff and Norman B. Ryder, “Methods of Fertility Control in the United States: 1955, 1960 and 1965,” in William T. Liu, ed., Family and Fertility (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967), pp. 157–169, at 168. Also see Ruth and Edward Brecher, “How New Methods and Changing Attitudes are Affecting the Battle Over Birth Control,” Good Housekeeping, August 1964, pp. 59, 152–158; and a five part series in the New York Post Daily Magazine, 12–16 April 1965, p. 1, especially the April 13 installment.

46. Michael M. Maney, “Griswold v. Connecticut,” 30 November 1964, 1pp., Harlan Box 235; [Michael W. Maupin], Griswold v. Connecticut, 1 December 1964, 4pp., Clark Box B202; James S. Campbell, Griswold v. Connecticut, 28 November 1964, 1pp., Douglas Box 1346; Ely, Griswold v. Connecticut, 23 November 1964, 4pp., Warren Box 267. Docket sheets recording the unanimous December 3 conference vote appear in both the Warren Papers, Box 379, and the Clark Papers, Box C81.

47. New Haven Register, 7 December 1964, pp. 1, 2, 8 and 13 December 1964; Hartford Times, 7 December 1964, p. 18; Waterbury Republican, 8 December 1964, p. 2; New York Times, 8 December 1964, p. 41; Miami Herald, 10 December 1964, p. G25. Also see New Haven Register, 10 November 1964; Time, 18 December 1964.

48. Garrow conversations with Elizabeth Phillips, Ruth Emerson, and Catherine G. Roraback; SAC, New Haven to Director, 30 November 1964, 100–389390–15; Harper, Justice Rutledge and the Bright Constellation (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965); “The Collaborators,” National Review, 17 July 1962, pp. 8–9; New York Times, 30 August 1963, p. 16, 4 November 1965, p. 54, 5 November 1965, p. 26, 13 November 1965, p. 17, 29 April 1966, p. 34. Also see Harper, “Mr. Justice Rutledge and the Fourth Amendment,” University of Miami Law Review 18 (Fall 1963): 48–67, and a review of the biography by Robert F. Drinan in the American Journal of Legal History 9 (1965): 371–375.

49. Griswold Case File, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496, RG 267, Box 5946, National Archives; Griswold to Emerson, 9 December 1964, PPLC 7-F and Emerson Box 7; Griswold to Harper, 9 December 1964, PPLC 7-H; Pilpel to Jaffe, 11 December 1964, PPFA II-184; Garrow conversations with Ruth Emerson, Catherine G. Roraback, Louis H. Pollak, Robert B. Stevens, Marvin Durning, David and Louise Trubek, and James M. Edwards; Louis H. Pollak, “Thomas I. Emerson, Lawyer and Scholar: Ipse Custodiet Custodes,” Yale Law Journal 84 (March 1975): 638–655; Pollak, “Thomas I. Emerson: Pillar of the Bill of Rights,” Yale Law Journal 101 (November 1991); 321–326; Emerson and David Haber, Political and Civil Rights in the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 1952, 2nd ed., 1958). Also see Emerson, “Freedom of Association and Freedom of Expression,” Yale Law Journal 74 (November 1964): 1–35; Emerson, “Law as a Force for Social Progress,” Connecticut Law Review 18 (Fall 1985): 1–5; Emerson, Young Lawyer for the New Deal: An Insider’s Memoir of the Roosevelt Years (Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1991); Norman Dorsen, “Thomas Irwin Emerson,” Yale Law Journal 85 (March 1976): 463–466; New York Times, 22 June 1991, p. 21; Guido Calabresi, “Tom Emerson: The Scholar as Hero,” Yale Law Journal 101 (November 1991): 315–316; Dorsen, “In Memory of Tom Emerson,” Yale Law Journal 101 (November 1991): 317–320; Sigmund Diamond, Compromised Campus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 211, 213–214.

50. Griswold to Emerson, 9 December 1964, PPLC 7-F and Emerson Box 7; Pilpel to Jaffe, 11 December 1964, PPFA II-184; Emerson to E. P. Cullinan, 17 December 1964, Griswold Case File, Box 5946 and Emerson Box 7; Emerson to Arthur E. Bonfield, 17 December 1964, Pilpel to Emerson, 22 and 23 December 1964, Emerson to Pilpel, 29 December 1964, Buxton to Pilpel, 7 January 1965, Emerson Box 7; Natalie Schwartz, Executive Committee Minutes, 7 January 1965, PPLC 12-H; Griswold to Miriam Harper, 11 January 1965, PPLC 7-H; New Haven Register, 8 January 1965, pp. 1, 2; New York Times, 9 January 1965, p. 25; Yale Daily News, 11 January 1965; Yale Law Report, Winter 1965, p. 32, and Spring 1965, pp. 30–33; Emerson in “Fowler Vincent Harper,” Yale Law Journal 74 (March 1965): 599–605, at 602.

51. Garrow conversations with Joseph B. Clark; Roger Hunting to Clark, 18 December 1964, Clark to Hunting, 22 December 1964, Melvin Wulf to Clark, 21 December 1964, Clark to Wulf, 29 December 1964, Seymour to Clark, 8 January 1965, Clark to Seymour, 12 January 1965, Fleming to Clark, 7 January 1965, Clark to Fleming, 12 January 1965, Clark to Mancini, 22 January 1965, Mancini to Judge Zarrilli, 25 January 1965, Clark Papers; New Haven Register, 22 January 1964, p. 1, 25 January 1965, 15 February 1965.

52. Emerson to E. P. Cullinan, 14 January 1965, Griswold Case File, Box 5946; Pilpel to Jaffe, 22 January 1965, Eleanor M. Fox to Jaffe, 22 January 1965, Jaffe to Emerson, and to Fox, 26 January 1965, Pilpel to Jeannie Rosoff and Jaffe, 29 January 1965, Emerson to Jaffe, 2 February 1965, PPFA II-184; Buxton to Emerson, n.d., Emerson Box 7; Buxton to Seymour, 3 February 1965, PPFA II-184; Jahncke to Frances Ferguson, 12 January 1965, PPLC 19-B; Bridgeport Herald, 17 January 1965, pp. 1, 16; Hartford Courant, 21 January 1965; Hartford Times, 21 January and 3 February 1965; Natalie Schwartz, Board Minutes, 26 January 1965, Juliet Taylor, Emergency Executive Committee Minutes, 2 February 1965, Jahncke to Dorothy Giles, 2 February 1961, PPLC 12-H; Giles to Jahncke, [9 February 1965], PPLC 41-B; Lucia Parks, Executive Committee Minutes, 8 March 1965, PPLC 12-H; Amelia Roe, New Haven Minutes, 11 March 1965, PPLC 41-B; Natalie Schwartz, Board Minutes, 16 March 1965, PPLC 12-H; Jahncke to Naomi Gray, 18 March 1965, PPLC 38-C. During an extended late February–early March visit to Tucson, Arizona, Buxton and his wife had the opportunity to meet the ageing Margaret Sanger, whose son Grant had been a medical school classmate of Lee’s. Buxton to Emerson, n.d. [February 1965], Emerson Box 7; Garrow conversation with Helen [Buxton] Rose.

53. Emerson, “Brief for Appellants,” Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496, 11 February 1965, esp. pp. 12, 79, 82, 85, 87. Also see a 20 February 1965 letter from Catherine Roraback, explaining the Griswold-Buxton brief’s disinclination to advance any desuetude argument, as quoted extensively in Linda and William Rogers, “Desuetude as a Defense,” Iowa Law Review 52 (August 1966): 1–30, at 8, 15.

54. Ernst, Pilpel and Wechsler, “Motion for Leave to File a Brief with Brief and Appendices as Amicus Curiae for Planned Parenthood Federation of America,” Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496, 15 February 1965, 40pp.; Seymour and Eleanor M. Fox, “Brief as Amici Curiae for Drs. John M. Adams et al.,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 12 February 1965, 19pp.; Fleming, “Motion for Leave to File a Brief with Brief and Appendix as Amicus Curiae for the Catholic Council on Civil Liberties,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 15 February 1965, 15pp., at 7; Rhoda H. Karpatkin and Melvin L. Wulf, “Motion for Leave to File Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union and Brief Amici Curiae,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 26 February 1965, 18pp., at 11, 16. Also see Emerson to Wulf, 4 March 1965, expressing anger that the CCLU, of which he was the current chairman, had been included in the ACLU brief without any express authorization or consideration of the apparent conflict of interest, and Wulf to Emerson, 9 March 1965, explaining that everything had simply been modeled on the one in Poe. ACLU 1964 Vol. 16 and Emerson Box 7.

55. New Haven Register, 12 February 1965, pp. 1, 2, 16 February and 10 March 1965; Hartford Courant, 13 and 16 February 1965; Waterbury Republican, 13 and 16 February 1965; New York Herald Tribune, 16 February 1965; Bridgeport Herald, 26 February 1965, p. 2; Hartford Times, 9 March 1965; Time, 26 February 1965, p. 50; Medical World News, 12 February 1965, 12 March 1965, p. 78; Information Center on Population Problems, “Birth Control and the Law,” 20pp., April 1965; Clark to Peter Smith, 17 February 1965, Clark Papers; Morris Ernst to Emerson, 17 February 1965, Emerson to Ernst, 25 February 1965, Emerson Box 7; Pilpel to John F. Davis, 3 March 1965, Clark Papers; Pilpel to Emerson, 3 March 1965, Emerson to Pilpel, 4 March 1965, Emerson Box 7.

56. Clark, “Brief for Appellee,” Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496, 9 March 1965, 34pp., at 20 and 12; New Haven Register, 11 March 1965, pp. 1, 2, 19 March 1965; Hartford Courant, 12 March 1965, p. 10; Waterbury Republican, 12 March 1965; Earl Warren notations on John Hart Ely memo, 10 March 1965, Warren Box 267; John F. Davis to Pilpel, 15 March 1965, PPFA II-184; E. P. Cullinan to Emerson, 16 March 1965, Emerson Box 7; Roraback to Buxton, 24 March 1965, Buxton Scrapbook. Also see Emerson and Roraback, “Reply Brief for Appellants,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 25 March 1965, 5pp., Emerson Box 7 and PPLC 7-N.

57. New York Times, 3 March 1965, p. 31, 4 March 1965, p. 30; Joseph L. Dorsey, “Morals in Massachusetts,” Commonweal, 30 April 1965, pp. 188–190; Dorsey, “Massachusetts Liberalizes Birth Control Law,” Dartmouth Medical School Quarterly 3 (Summer 1966): 8–12. Also see Kingsbury Browne, Jr., “Birth Control in Massachusetts,” Boston Bar Journal, March 1965, pp. 7–10; [PPLM] Planned Parenthood News, Spring 1965, and the extensive materials in the PPLM Papers, Boxes 101 and 102.

58. Journal of the House, p. 137 (11 February); Journal of the Senate, p. 177 (18 February); Hartford Courant, 20 and 24 March 1965; Hearing Transcript, Public Health and Safety Committee, 23 March 1965, pp. 1, 3–6, Connecticut State Library; Hartford Times, 24 March 1965, p. 35. On Connecticut’s long overdue 1964–1965 reapportionment experience, see Butterworth v. Dempsey, 229 F.Supp. 754 (D. Conn. 1964), affirmed sub nom. Pinney v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 564 (22 June 1964); Lieberman, The Power Broker, p. 326; and especially I. Ridgway Davis, The Effects of Reapportionment on the Connecticut LegislatureDecade of the Sixties (New York: National Municipal League, 1972).

59. Garrow conversations with Michael M. Maney, Michael W. Maupin, James S. Campbell, S. Paul Posner, Lee A. Albert, Stephen Goldstein, and Stephen Breyer; Monroe Price to Garrow, 30 June 1992, Charles R. Nesson to Garrow, 15 June 1992; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965); Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965); Ely, “Bench Memorandum,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 26 February 1965, Warren Box 267, esp. pp. 15–23, 28–29; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 375 (1886). Also see “Abstention and Certification in Diversity Suits,” Yale Law Journal 73 (April 1964): 850–872. Twenty-seven years later Ely explained that “I literally do not remember anything about the Chief’s and my interchange concerning Griswold that would not have been reflected in the memoranda.” Warren “had a close social relationship with his clerks, but the great bulk of our professional communication was done on paper.” Ely to Garrow, 28 May 1992. Also see Dennis M. Flannery to Garrow, 20 June 1992: “I have no information that would be relevant.” On Justice White’s basketball-playing, also see J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Serving Justice (New York: Charterhouse, 1974), p. 40.

60. Garrow conversations with Cornelia Jahncke, Lucia and Charles Parks, Catherine G. Roraback; Transcript of Proceedings, Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496; Audiotape of Griswold Oral Argument, National Archives; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 38; New Haven Journal-Courier, 30 and 31 March 1965; UPI dispatch in Naugatuck Daily News, 30 March 1965. A nineteen-page Emerson outline entitled “Griswold v. Connecticut—Oral Argument,” is in Emerson Box 7. In later acknowledging that “The lawyer’s problem with the case was that the issue did not readily fit into any existing legal pigeonhole,” Emerson also conceded that his First Amendment argument “was relatively weak.” Emerson, “Nine Justices in Search of a Doctrine,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 219–234, at 219–220, 221.

61. New Haven Journal-Courier, 29 March 1965; Garrow conversations with Joseph B. Clark; Transcript of Proceedings, Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S.S.C., O.T. 1964, #496; Audiotape of Griswold Oral Argument, National Archives; Sanger v. People, 251 U.S. 537 (1919); Gardner v. Massachusetts, 305 U.S. 559 (1938); New Haven Journal-Courier, 31 March 1965; New York Times, 30 March 1965, p. 7, 31 March 1965, pp. 41, 46; Hartford Courant, 30 March 1965, 31 March 1965, p. 10; New Haven Register, 30 and 31 March 1965; Washington Post, 30 March 1965; Hartford Times, 30 March 1965; UPI dispatch in Naugatuck Daily News, 30 March 1965; New York Daily News, 31 March 1965, p. 10; New York Herald Tribune, 31 March 1965. On Joseph B. Clark, see the New Haven Register, 11 May 1961; on his subsequent appointment as a Connecticut Superior Court judge, see the Register, 27 January 1984; also see Hartford Courant, 9 April 1988, pp. C1, C7.

62. Warren annotations on page one of Ely’s “Bench Memorandum,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 26 February 1965, Warren Box 267; William O. Douglas, Conference Notes, Griswold v. Connecticut, 2 April 1965, 3pp., Douglas Box 1346; William J. Brennan, Docket Book Conference Notes, Griswold v. Connecticut, 2 April 1965, Brennan Box 411; Garrow conversations with Stephen Breyer, Stephen Goldstein, Paul Posner, and Michael Maney; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964). The high degree of congruence and agreement between the Douglas and Brennan notes is extremely striking. On the White and Goldberg nominations, see Henry J. Abraham, Justices and Presidents (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 253–258; on White also see Daniel C. Kramer, “Justice Byron R. White,” in Lamb and Halpern, eds., The Burger Court, pp. 407–432; on Goldberg, also see Daniel P. Moynihan, ed., The Defenses of Freedom: The Public Papers of Arthur J. Goldberg (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), and David L. Stebenne’s forthcoming biography, Arthur J. Goldberg, New Deal Liberal (Oxford University Press). Docket Sheets and/or conference lists all clearly showing a 7 to 2 outcome on Griswold and the April 5 assignment to Douglas appear in Brennan Box 118, Warren Box 379, and Clark Box C81; both the Warren and Clark docket sheets also each contain a fragmentary note or two on conference discussion comments. Also see the unfootnoted discussion in Bernard Schwartz, Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court (New York: New York University Press, 1983), pp. 577–580, again based solely on the Brennan notes, as well as Schwartz, The Unpublished Opinions of the Warren Court (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 227–229, 237; Schwartz, The Ascent of Pragmatism (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990), pp. 295–296, 409; Schwartz, The New Right and the Constitution (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990), pp. 55–57.

63. “Byron” to “Bill,” n.d., 3pp., and “WOD” to “Tom,” n.d., 1pp., Douglas Box 1346; Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Also see Howard Ball’s reference, based upon a 1986 interview comment made to him by Justice White, to Douglas’s taste for ribald jokes in Stephen L. Wasby, ed., “He Shall Not Pass This Way Again”: The Legacy of Justice William O. Douglas (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990), p. 26 n.8.

64. Garrow conversations with Joseph B. Clark and Catherine G. Roraback; Emerson to John P. Frank, 2 April 1965, Emerson Box 35; Emerson to Joseph Forer, 5 April 1965, Emerson to Buxton, and to Griswold, 8 April 1965, Griswold to Emerson, 13 April 1965, Emerson Box 7. Also see Emerson comments in Hartford Courant, 7 June 1985, pp. A1, A8, and New York Times, 28 May 1989, pp. CN6-CN7.

65. Douglas, Handwritten and Typescript Drafts of Opinion for the Court, Griswold v. Connecticut, 16 April 1965, Douglas Box 1346; Steven B. Duke in Wasby, ed., “He Shall Not Pass This Way Again”, p. 133; Garrow conversation with James S. Campbell.

66. Campbell to Douglas, 22 April 1965, Douglas Box 1346; Douglas ‘Print #3,’ 23 April 1965, Brennan Box 130; 4pp. draft of Brennan to Douglas letter, Brennan Box 130, and Brennan to Douglas, 24 April 1965, 3pp., Douglas Box 1346 and Brennan Box 130; Brennan Chambers, October Term 1964, pp. ii–xv; Brennan commenting on Douglas in Nat Hentoff, “The Justice Breaks His Silence,” Playboy, July 1991, pp. 120–122, 154–158, at 122; Garrow conversations with James S. Campbell and S. Paul Posner; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). Also see Schwartz, The Unpublished Opinions of the Warren Court, pp. 231–239; Schwartz, Super Chief, pp. 578–580; Schwartz, Ascent of Pragmatism, pp. 296–297; Schwartz, The New Right, pp. 56–57; David M. O’Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1986), pp. 255–256.

67. Posner to Brennan, [27 April 1965], 2pp., and Douglas ‘Print #5,’ Brennan Box 130; Garrow conversations with S. Paul Posner. Also see Howard Ball in Wasby, ed., “He Shall Not Pass This Way Again”, p. 27 n.13.

68. Ely to Warren, “Justice Douglas’ Opinion in No. 496, Griswold v. Connecticut,” 27 April 1965, 5pp., Warren Box 520. Also see again Ely’s 1992 comments as quoted in note 59 above.

69. Clark Note on page one of 28 April Douglas opinion, Clark Box A178; Clark to Douglas, 28 April 1965, Goldberg to Douglas, 29 April 1965, Douglas Box 1346; Harlan to Douglas, 29 April 1965, Harlan Box 235 and Douglas Box 1346; Stewart, “Memorandum to the Conference,” 29 April 1965, Harlan Box 235, Douglas Box 1346, Clark Box A178, and Warren Box 520; Garrow conversations with James S. Campbell, Stephen Goldstein, and Lee A. Albert.

70. Garrow conversations with James S. Campbell, Stephen Goldstein, and Stephen Breyer; Stewart Draft Opinion, 5 May 1965, Brennan Box 130, Harlan Box 235, Warren Box 520, Clark Box A211; Campbell to Douglas, 7 May 1965, Goldberg to Douglas, 14 May 1965, Douglas Box 1346; and particularly the suggestive but chronologically garbled discussion of Goldberg’s recollections in Howard Ball and Phillip J. Cooper, Of Power and Right: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and America’s Constitutional Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 288; as well as Dorothy Goldberg, A Private View of a Public Life (New York: Charterhouse, 1975), p. 176.

71. Garrow conversations with Stephen Goldstein, Stephen Breyer, and Lee A. Albert; Ely to Warren, “Justice Goldberg’s Concurrence in No. 496, Griswold v. Connecticut,” 17 May 1965, 4pp., Warren Box 520; Goldberg ‘Print #4,’ 18 May 1965, Brennan Box 130, Harlan Box 235, Clark Box A211, Warren Box 520; White ‘Print #1,’ 19 May 1965, and ‘Print #3,’ 20 May 1965, Brennan Box 130, Harlan Box 235, Clark Box A211; Campbell to Douglas, 19 May 1965, Douglas Box 1346; Ely to Warren, “Justice White’s Concurrence in No. 496, Griswold v. Connecticut,” 19 May 1965, 2pp., Warren Box 520; Brennan Chambers, October Term 1964, pp. ii–xv.

72. Natalie Schwartz, Executive Committee Minutes, 27 April 1965, PPLC 12-H; Griswold, “Executive Director’s Report,” 31 March 1965, 3pp., PPLC 14-D; Bridgeport Herald, 9 May 1965; Dorothy Giles, New Haven “Annual Report,” and Amelia Roe, New Haven Minutes, 11 May 1965, PPLC 41-B; Journal of the House, pp. 971 and 1061–1065 (12 and 18 May 1965); Marion Miller, Executive Committee Minutes, and Natalie Schwartz, Annual Meeting Minutes, 13 May 1965, PPLC 12-H; Waterbury Republican, 19 May 1965, p. 13; Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and Hartford Times, 19 May 1965; Journal of the Senate, p. 1008 (20 May 1965). In early May PPLC’s two remaining and long-dormant clergy cases that originally had been filed in 1959 on behalf of ministers C. Lawson Willard and Luther Livingston were dismissed because they had been inactive for more than five years; the third had been withdrawn in 1961 when Reverend George Teague had left New Haven. After Poe none of them had stood much chance of satisfying a “case or controversy” requirement. See Roraback to Griswold, 15 September 1961 and 12 May 1965, PPLC 6-I.

73. Black draft opinion, 11pp. handwritten, 8pp. typed, 13 May 1965, Black Box 383; Black ‘Print #1,’ 21 May 1965, and ‘Print #2,’ 22 May 1965, Black Box 383, Harlan Box 235, Warren Box 520, Clark Box A211; Stewart ‘Print #2,’ 25 May 1965, Harlan Box 235, Warren Box 520, Clark Box A211; Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 308 (24 May 1965); Brennan Chambers, October Term 1964, pp. ii–xv; Campbell to Douglas, 28 May 1965, Harlan to Douglas, 2 June 1965, Douglas Box 1346; Harlan draft opinion, 8pp. handwritten, and Harlan ‘Print #1,’ 2 June 1965, Harlan Box 235; White ‘Print #5,’ 3 June 1965, Goldberg ‘Print #9’ (II), 4 June 1965, Brennan Box 130, Harlan Box 235, Warren Box 520 and Clark Box A211; Garrow conversations with James S. Campbell, Stephen Goldstein, Stephen Breyer, Michael Maney, Lee A. Albert, and S. Paul Posner; Ball and Cooper, Of Power and Right, p. 288; Goldberg, A Private View of a Public Life, p. 176; Schwartz, Super Chief, pp. 579–580. Also see Douglas to Clark, 21 May 1965, Douglas Box 1346 and Clark Box A178.

Douglas had cited the Brandeis dissent in Olmstead in a concurring opinion two years earlier in which he had spoken of “the need for a pervasive right of privacy against government intrusion.” Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539, 568–569, 570 (1963). Noting what he called “the right of privacy implicit in the First Amendment,” Douglas had stated that “Whether the problem involves the right of an individual to be let alone in the sanctity of his home or his right to associate with others for the attainment of lawful purposes, the individual’s interest in being free from governmental interference is the same.”

74. Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483, 484, 485–486, 487, 488, 491, 493, 495, 498–499. Also note William M. Beaney, “The Constitutional Right to Privacy in the Supreme Court,” Supreme Court Review 1962 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 212–251, at 214 (“virtually all enumerated rights in the Constitution can be described as contributing to the right to privacy, if by the term is meant the integrity and freedom of the individual person and personality”); and Walter B. Hamlin (a member of the Louisiana Supreme Court), “The Bill of Rights …” Commercial Law Journal 68 (August 1963): 233–236, at 236 (“The right ‘to be let alone’ is one of our inherent rights which has been sustained by our courts; the right to privacy is inherent”). See as well York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 376 U.S. 939 (1964).

The statutes as struck down were Connecticut General Statutes 53–32 (the use provision) and 54–196 (the accessory provision); they had been recodified into those designations in 1958; previously, following a 1949 revision, they had been Sections 8568 and 8875, respectively. Arthur Goldberg, long after his summer 1965 resignation from the Court, revisited his Griswold opinion in a newspaper op-ed piece. The right to privacy, he wrote in 1987, “is embraced by the language and concept of liberty protected by the First [Fifth] and Fourteenth Amendments.” Also under the Fourteenth Amendment, “Privacy must be regarded as a privilege and immunity of citizens, as well as a cherished liberty,” and in Goldberg’s 1987 judgment the privacy right undeniably applied to and protected a woman’s right to choose abortion. Arthur J. Goldberg, “Confirming a Supreme Court Nominee,” Christian Science Monitor, 29 December 1987. Also see Goldberg, A Private View of a Public Life, pp. 145–146. In several 1971 lectures on the Warren Court, Goldberg never once referred either to Griswold or to the Ninth Amendment. Arthur J. Goldberg, Equal Justice: The Warren Era of the Supreme Court (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1971).

75. Griswold et al. v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 501, 507, 509, 510, 511, 527.

76. Garrow conversations with Catherine G. Roraback, Helen [Buxton] Rose, Frances McCoy, and Cornelia Jahncke; New Haven Register, 7 June 1965, p. 1, 8 June 1965, p. 1, 28 June 1965, p. 42; Hartford Times, 7 June 1965, p. 1; New Haven Journal-Courier, 8 June 1965; Hartford Courant, 8 June 1965, pp. 1, 4, 11, 13 June 1965; New York Herald Tribune, 8 June 1965, pp. 1, 19; New York Times, 8 June 1965, pp. 1, 34–35; Greenwich Time, 8 June 1965; Bridgeport Herald, 20 June 1965, pp. 2, 13; Medical Tribune, 21 June 1965; Newsweek, 21 June 1965, p. 60; Medical World News, 25 June 1965, pp. 23–25. Also see Joseph B. Clark to James D. St. Clair, 3 August 1967, Clark Papers.

77. New York Times, 9 June 1965, p. 46; Washington Post, 8 June 1965, p. A18; Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10 June 1965, p. 16; Boston Herald, 10 June 1965; Quincy Patriot-Ledger, 9 June 1965, and North Adams Transcript, 14 June 1965; Worcester Telegram, 9 June 1965; Life, 2 July 1965, p. 4; America, 19 June 1965, pp. 875–876; Commonweal, 25 June 1965, pp. 427–428. Also see Hartford Times, 9 June 1965, p. 34; New York Times, 15 June 1965, p. 25; Business Week, 19 June 1965, pp. 108–110; Christian Century, 23 June 1965, pp. 796–797, and 4 August 1965, pp. 970–973; William B. Ball, “The Court and Birth Control,” Commonweal, 9 July 1965, pp. 490–493, and letters, 20 August 1965, pp. 578–579, 607; Christian Science Monitor, 21 July 1965; William J. Curran, “Privacy, Birth Control and ‘An Uncommonly Silly Law,’” New England Journal of Medicine 273 (5 August 1965): 322–323; New York Times, 26 August 1965, p. 42, 15 November 1966, p. 25; Harriet F. Pilpel, “A Right is Born: Privacy as a Civil Liberty,” Civil Liberties 231 (November 1965): 1–2; and William B. Ball, “The Constitutional Question Respecting Birth Control and the Right of Privacy,” Lincoln Law Review 1 (December 1965): 28–38.

Somewhat oddly, Morris Ernst in the months to come would repeatedly disparage the amicus brief that his longtime partner Harriet Pilpel had filed, and at the same time would lavish undue credit on the amicus brief submitted by the Catholic Council on Civil Liberties. See Ernst to Jack Pemberton, 22 October 1965, ACLU 1965 Vol. 5, Ernst to Milton Eisenhower, 27 January 1966, Sanger-SSC, and Ernst to Grant Sanger, 15 February 1966, Sanger-SSC (“I am happy to say that the court paid little attention to the brief which our office filed, adopting in full the Catholic position”).

78. Robbins to Griswold, 21 June 1965, PPLC 38-J; Standish Interviews with Hubbell and Garrow; “Memories of Claudia McGinley,” 5 May 1983, 2pp., Lucia Parks, “1961–1964,” n.d. [1983], 4pp., PPLC 33–1; Garrow conversations with Lucia and Charles Parks, Cornelia Jahncke, Catherine G. Roraback, Frances McCoy, Helen [Buxton] Rose, Ellen Switzer, Anita Beloff, and Sue Neale.

79. Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 35; Griswold to Mary Grahame, 11 August 1975, PPLC 33-A.

80. Miriam Harper to Douglas, 9 June 1965, Douglas Box 1346; also see Miriam Harper to Donald B. Straus, 25 June 1965, PPFA II-184. Oddly enough, in his subsequent autobiography of his years on the Court, Douglas made not a single reference to Griswold, to privacy, or to any of the subsequent reproductive rights cases. The Court Years, 1939–1975: The Autobiography of William O. Douglas (New York: Random House, 1980). Also see Ball and Cooper, Of Power and Right, p. 283.

81. Emerson in the Hartford Courant, 7 June 1985, pp. A1, A8, in the New Haven Register, 30 April 1989, and in Carpenter, “Revisiting Griswold,” p. 44; Buxton to Emerson, 17 June and 23 July 1965, Emerson Box 7, Buxton to Jaffe, 17 June 1965, PPFA II-184; Helen Buxton to Emerson, 8 June 1965, Emerson Box 7; Garrow conversations with Helen [Buxton] Rose, Ruth Emerson, Catherine G. Roraback, Ellen Switzer, Elizabeth Phillips, Virginia Stuermer, and John M. Morris; Hartford Times, 21 July 1966; Buxton to Alan Guttmacher, 2 November 1967, PPFA II-185; John M. Morris, “Charles Lee Buxton, 1904–1969,” Transactions of the American Gynecological Society 92 (1969): 165–166. Obituaries on Lee Buxton appear in the New Haven Register (p. 1), New Haven Journal-Courier, Hartford Courant (p. 4), and Hartford Times of 8 July 1969; Timothy Buxton’s obituary appears in the New Haven Register of 16 July 1970. On Emerson’s recollections, also see Family Planning Population Reporter 4 (October 1975): 94–95, and New Haven Register, 22 January 1983, pp. 1, 2.

82. Emerson to Jahncke, 15 June 1965, PPLC 7-M; Emerson, “Nine Justices in Search of a Doctrine,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 219–234, at 227, 229, 231, 232. Also see Emerson to Otto Kahn-Freund, 15 June 1965, and to Arthur S. Miller, 21 July 1965, Emerson Box 7.

83. Cooley, Torts, 2nd ed., p. 29; E. L. Godkin, “The Rights of the Citizen,” Scribner’s Magazine 8 (July 1890): 58–67, at 67; Warren and Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 4 (December 1890): 193–220, at 193, 206–207, 215–216; “The Right to Privacy,” The Nation, 25 December 1890, pp. 496–497; Herbert S. Hadley, “The Right to Privacy,” Northwestern Law Review 3 (October 1894): 1–21, at 20.

Brandeis biographers erroneously have continued to repeat the wholly fictional notion that publication of the Warren and Brandeis Harvard Law Review essay was a direct response to unpleasant coverage of a Warren relative’s wedding by a Boston newspaper, the Saturday Evening Gazette. See Alpheus T. Mason, Brandeis: A Free Man’s Life (New York: Viking Press, 1946), p. 70, and Philippa Strum, Louis D. Brandeis (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 37–38; similarly see Morris L. Ernst and Alan U. Schwartz, Privacy: The Right to Be Let Alone (New York: Macmillan, 1962), p. 46, and Edward J. Bloustein, “Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity,” New York University Law Review 39 (December 1964): 962–1007. Two very good but little-noted law review articles correct that error and are far more dependable sources for evaluating the Warren and Brandeis essay. See particularly James H. Barron, “Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890): Demystifying a Landmark Citation,” Suffolk University Law Review 13 (Summer 1979): 875–922, esp. pp. 892 and 896 (“References to the family were virtually nonexistent, let alone lurid”); see as well Dorothy J. Glancy, “The Invention of the Right to Privacy,” Arizona Law Review 21 (1979): 1–39. Also note Walter F. Pratt, “The Warren and Brandeis Argument for a Right to Privacy,” Public Law 1975 (Summer): 161–179; Grant B. Mindle, “Liberalism, Privacy, and Autonomy,” Journal of Politics 51 (August 1989): 575–598, at 586–592; and Ken Gormley, “One Hundred Years of Privacy,” Wisconsin Law Review 1992, pp. 1335–1441, at 1343–1357.

Also see Frederick Davis, “What Do We Mean by ‘Right to Privacy?’” South Dakota Law Review 4 (Spring 1959): 1–24, at 3; William L. Prosser, “Privacy,” California Law Review 48 (August 1960): 383–423, at 384, 389; Leon Brittan, “The Right of Privacy in England and the United States,” Tulane Law Review 37 (February 1963): 235–268; Note, “The Right to Privacy in Nineteenth Century America,” Harvard Law Review 94 (June 1981): 1892–1910, at 1910; Ferdinand Schoeman, “Privacy: Philosophical Dimensions,” American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (July 1984): 199–213, at 202–203; William S. Gyves, “The Right to Privacy One Hundred Years Later,” St. John’s Law Review 64 (Winter 1990): 315–334; Irwin R. Kramer, “The Birth of Privacy Law: A Century Since Warren and Brandeis,” Catholic University Law Review 39 (Spring 1990): 703–724; four articles in the Northern Illinois University Law Review 10 (1990): Sheldon W. Halpern, “The ‘Inviolate Personality’—Warren and Brandeis After One Hundred Years …” pp. 387–399, Dorothy Glancy, “Privacy and the Other Miss M,” pp. 401–440, Anita L. Allen and Erin Mack, “How Privacy Got Its Gender,” pp. 441–478, and Richard C. Turkington, “Legacy of the Warren and Brandeis Article …” pp. 479–520; and Sheldon W. Halpern, “Rethinking the Right of Privacy …” Rutgers Law Review 43 (Spring 1991): 539–563.

84. Augustus N. Hand, “Schuyler Against Curtis and the Right to Privacy,” American Law Register and Review 45 (December 1897): 745–759, at 759; Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538 (1902); Wilbur Larremore, “The Law of Privacy,” Columbia Law Review 12 (December 1912): 693–708, at 694; Paolo Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68, 69–71 (1905).

With regard to the ongoing influence of the Warren and Brandeis article, see Elbridge L. Adams, “The Right of Privacy, and Its Relation to the Law of Libel,” American Law Review 39 (January-February 1905): 37–58, at 37; Wilbur Larremore, “The Right of Privacy,” Sewanee Review 21 (July 1913): 297–310, at 301.

A law review defense of Roberson by one of the four members of the New York Court of Appeals who comprised the majority for that decision is Denis O’Brien, “The Right of Privacy,” Columbia Law Review 2 (November 1902): 437–448, who was particularly upset at a 23 August 1902 New York Times editorial that had condemned the holding. An excellent historical discussion appears in Robert E. Mensel, “‘Kodakers Lying in Wait’: Amateur Photography and the Right of Privacy in New York, 1885–1915,” American Quarterly 43 (March 1991): 24–45, esp. at 36–40. Also see John G. Speed, “The Right of Privacy,” North American Review 173 (July 1896): 64–74; Percy L. Edwards, “Right of Privacy and Equity Relief,” Central Law Review 55 (15 August 1902): 123–127.

85. Positive responses to Pavesich include Michigan Law Review 3 (May 1905): 559–563, Case and Comment 12 (June 1905): 2–4, and Virginia Law Register 12 (June 1906): 91–99. The three pre-Brandeis Supreme Court references are Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886), Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891) (“No right is held more sacred … than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law”), and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (1894) (“the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s home, and the privacies of his life”). Also see Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 542–543 (1922).

Brandeis’s previous dissent was in Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920). On his dissent in Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 478, also see Mason, Brandeis, pp. 567–569, and Strum, Louis D. Brandeis, pp. 323–326.

86. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166–167 (1944); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455–456 (1948); Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 467, 468 (1952); Douglas, The Right of the People (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1958), pp. 87–88. Also see Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 587 (1946), Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 87 (1949), and Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958) (“outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases”); see as well Richard C. Gossweiler, “The Right of Privacy: Misuse of History” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1978), pp. 11–20.

On the application of the privacy right concept in the tort area during that time period, see George Ragland, Jr., “The Right of Privacy,” Kentucky Law Journal 17 (January 1929): 85–122; Note, “The Right to Privacy Today,” Harvard Law Review 43 (December 1929): 297–302; Roy Moreland, “The Right of Privacy Today,” Kentucky Law Journal 19 (January 1931): 101–136; Basil W. Kacedan, “The Right of Privacy,” Boston University Law Review 12 (June 1932): 353–395 and (November 1932): 600–647; Leon Green, “The Right of Privacy,” Illinois Law Review 27 (November 1932): 237–260; Gerald Dickler, “The Right of Privacy,” United States Law Review 70 (August 1936): 435–456; Louis Nizer, “The Right of Privacy,” Michigan Law Review 39 (February 1941): 526–560; Wilfred Feinberg, “Recent Developments in the Law of Privacy,” Columbia Law Review 48 (July 1948): 713–731; Jeptha H. Evans, “The Right of Privacy,” Arkansas Law Review 6 (Fall 1952): 459–472; Samuel H. Hofstadter, The Development of the Right of Privacy in New York (New York: Crosby, 1954); and Hofstadter and George Horowitz, The Right of Privacy (New York: Central Book Co., 1964).

87. Samuel H. Wilkins, Mississippi Law Journal 37 (March 1966): 304–306, at 306; Robert L. Knupp, Dickinson Law Review 69 (Summer 1965): 417–424, at 424. Note as well James F. Simon, Independent Journey: The Life of William O. Douglas (New York: Harper & Row, 1980), pp. 346–349; [Sheldon S. Adler], “Toward a Constitutional Theory of Individuality: The Privacy Opinions of Justice Douglas,” Yale Law Journal 87 (July 1978): 1579–1600; Note, “Substantive Due Process Comes Home to Roost,” Women’s Rights Law Reporter 10 (Winter 1988): 177–208, at 184–185; Sanford Levinson, “Constitutional Rhetoric and the Ninth Amendment,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 64 (1988): 131–161, at 136 (Douglas’s opinion “simply does not persuade”); and Kenneth Karst, “The Freedom of Intimate Association,” Yale Law Journal 89 (March 1980): 624–692, at 652 (“the result in the Griswold case seems inescapable; the chief problem before the Supreme Court was not what to decide, but how to decide”). Also see American Bar Association Journal 51 (September 1965): 870–871; Edward V. Long, “The Right to Privacy,” St. Louis University Law Journal 10 (Fall 1965): 1–29, at 5–6; Vanderbilt Law Review 18 (October 1965): 2037–2043; Harvard Law Review 79 (November 1965): 162–165; Robert B. McKay, “The Right of Privacy: Emanations and Intimations,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 259–282; Arthur E. Sutherland, “Privacy in Connecticut,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 283–288; W. Thomas Tete, Louisiana Law Review 26 (December 1965): 168–175; Richard Bronner, Western Reserve Law Review 17 (December 1965): 601–607; Brooklyn Law Review 32 (December 1965): 172–175; Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, The Supreme Court of the United States: A Review of the 1964 Term (Richmond, 1965), pp. 52–57; George C. Piper, Kentucky Law Journal 54 (1966): 794–799; Michael H. Terry, Wayne Law Review 12 (Winter 1966): 479–487; Louis M. Thrasher, University of Cincinnati Law Review 35 (Winter 1966): 134–140; Journal of Family Law 6 (Winter 1966): 371–375; Helen Garfield, University of Colorado Law Review 38 (Winter 1966): 267–270; Mike White, University of Missouri at Kansas City Law Review 34 (Winter 1966): 95–120; Catholic University Law Review 15 (January 1966): 126–132; [Sherwin S. Zetlin], Northwestern University Law Review 60 (January-February 1966): 813–833; Milton R. Konvitz, “Privacy and the Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 31 (Spring 1966): 272–280; Duke Law Journal 1966 (Spring): 562–577; Jerry K. Levy, Washburn Law Journal 5 (Spring 1966): 286–291; Herbert J. Lustig, Syracuse Law Review 17 (Spring 1966): 553–556; Stanley J. Mosk, “The Population Explosion and Due Process,” Lincoln Law Review 1 (June 1966): 149–165; Notre Dame Lawyer 41 (June 1966): 681–785, at 751; Frank R. Goldstein, Maryland Law Review 26 (Summer 1966): 249–259; Michael R. Perel, “Griswold v. Connecticut: Peripheral Rights and Rights Retained by the People Under the Ninth Amendment,” Connecticut Bar Journal 40 (December 1966): 704–717; Ernest Katin, “Griswold v. Connecticut: The Justices and Connecticut’s ‘Uncommonly Silly Law,’” Notre Dame Lawyer 42 (June 1967): 680–706; Jesse H. Choper, “On the Warren Court and Judicial Review,” Catholic University Law Review 17 (September 1967): 20–43, at 34 (Griswold “might better have been grounded in equal protection”).

88. William M. Beaney, “The Griswold Case and the Expanding Right to Privacy,” Wisconsin Law Review 1966 (Fall): 976–995, at 982; Robert G. Dixon, “The Griswold Penumbra: Constitutional Charter for an Expanded Right of Privacy?,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 197–218, at 213, 214, 217. See as well Anita L. Allen, “Taking Liberties: Privacy, Private Choice, and Social Contract Theory,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 56 (1987): 461–491, at 467; and Graham Hughes, The Conscience of the Courts (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), p. 72, emphasizing how it was the ideological heritage of substantive due process that produced “the circuitous reasoning of Griswold. Terrified by history to talk openly in terms of substantive liberty rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Justices talked instead in fragile and convoluted reasoning of privacy rights swirling around in ectoplasmic emanations.” Also note Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed. (Mineola, NY: Foundation Press, 1988), p. 775 (Griswold was “the most important substantive due process decision of the modern period”).

89. Paul G. Kauper, “Penumbras, Peripheries, Emanations, Things Fundamental and Things Forgotten: The Griswold Case,” Michigan Law Review 64 (December 1965): 235–258, at 242, 244; Hyman Gross, “The Concept of Privacy,” New York University Law Review 42 (March 1967): 34–54, at 35; Anthony R. Blackshield, “Constitutionalism and Comstockery,” Kansas Law Review 14 (March 1966): 403–452, at 404; Edgar Bodenheimer, “Birth Control Legislation and the United States Supreme Court,” Kansas Law Review 14 (March 1966): 453–460, at 458; Kent Greenawalt, “Criminal Law and Population Control,” Vanderbilt Law Review 24 (April 1971): 465–494, at 478; Thomas Gerety, “Doing Without Privacy,” Ohio State Law Journal 42 (1981): 143–165, at 152. Also see G. Edward White, “The Anti-Judge: William O. Douglas and the Ambiguities of Individuality,” Virginia Law Review 74 (February 1988): 17–86, at 70; David A. J. Richards, Foundations of American Constitutionalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 213, 229, 232–233; Stephen Macedo, Liberal Virtues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 188; and Richard A. Posner, “Legal Reasoning from the Top Down and from the Bottom Up,” University of Chicago Law Review 59 (Winter 1992): 433–450, at 445.

90. See Alfred H. Kelly, “Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair,” Supreme Court Review 1965 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 119–158; and James F. Kelley, “The Uncertain Renaissance of the Ninth Amendment,” University of Chicago Law Review 33 (Summer 1966): 814–836. More favorable commentaries on the Ninth Amendment usage include James D. Carroll, “The Forgotten Amendment,” The Nation 201 (6 September 1965): 121–122; Mitchell Franklin, “The Ninth Amendment as Civil Law Method …,” Tulane Law Review 40 (April 1966): 487–522; Floyd Abrams, “What Are the Rights Guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment?,” American Bar Association Journal 53 (November 1967): 1033–1039; and Charles L. Black, Jr., “The Unfinished Business of the Warren Court,” Washington Law Review 46 (1970): 3–45, esp. at 40–44, Black, Decision According to Law (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), p. 48, and Black, “On Reading and Using the Ninth Amendment,” in Myres S. McDougal and W. Michael Reisman, eds., Power and Policy in Quest of Law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985), pp. 187–197. With regard to Charles Black and the Ninth Amendment, also see William Van Alstyne, “Slouching Toward Bethlehem with the Ninth Amendment,” Yale Law Journal 91 (November 1981): 207–216, and Russell L. Caplan, “Charles Black’s Rediscovery of the Ninth Amendment …” Michigan Law Review 80 (March 1982): 656–663.

Also see in particular Eugene M. Van Loan III’s excellent “Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment,” Boston University Law Review 48 (1968): 1–48, at 48 (“None of the opinions adequately explain the origin and nature of the right of privacy or the factors the Court took into consideration in deciding that it was constitutionally protected”), and William O. Bertelsman, “The Ninth Amendment and Due Process of Law,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 37 (Fall 1968): 777–796, at 784, 787 (“It is the ghost of Lochner which inspires the reluctance to recognize unenumerated rights,” and, in contrast to any Fourteenth Amendment basis, “the ninth amendment approach seems the better one, in the context of modern times, to minimize the dread of ‘Lochner’s’ ghost”).

Also see generally Thomas R. Vickerman, “The Ninth Amendment,” South Dakota Law Review 11 (Winter 1966): 173–179; Gary L. Gardner, “The Ninth Amendment,” Albany Law Review 30 (January 1966): 89–100; Harold H. Boles, Tulane Law Review 40 (February 1966): 418–424; David K. Sutelan, “The Ninth Amendment,” William and Mary Law Review 8 (Fall 1966): 101–120; Luis Kutner, “The Neglected Ninth Amendment,” Marquette Law Review 51 (Fall 1967): 121–142; Wilfred J. Ritz, “The Original Purpose and Present Utility of the Ninth Amendment,” Washington and Lee Law Review 25 (Spring 1968): 1–19; State v. Abellano, 441 P.2d 333 (Hawaii Sup. Ct.), 23 May 1968; Mark A. Koral, “Ninth Amendment Vindication of Unenumerated Fundamental Rights,” Temple Law Quarterly 42 (Fall 1968): 46–59; Gerald Kirven, “Under the Ninth Amendment, What Rights Are the ‘Others Retained by the People’?” South Dakota Law Review 14 (Winter 1969): 80–91; William Eaton, “New Dimensions of Freedom in the Ninth Amendment,” in Frederick M. Wirt and Willis D. Hawley, eds., New Dimensions of Freedom in America (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 266–274; Irvin M. Kent, “Under the Ninth Amendment What Rights Are the ‘Others Retained by the People’?” Federal Bar Journal 29 (Summer 1970): 219–237; George E. Garvey, “Unenumerated Rights—Substantive Due Process, the Ninth Amendment, and John Stuart Mill,” Wisconsin Law Review 1971: 922–938; A. F. Ringold, “The History of the Enactment of the Ninth Amendment and Its Recent Development,” Tulsa Law Journal 8 (Spring 1972): 1–57, esp. at 55–57; Terence J. Moore, “The Ninth Amendment—Its Origin and Meaning,” New England Law Review 7 (Spring 1972): 215–309; Lyman Rhoades and Rodney R. Patula, “The Ninth Amendment: A Survey of Theory and Practice in the Federal Courts Since Griswold v. Connecticut,” Denver Law Journal 50 (1973): 153–176; R. H. Clark, “The Ninth Amendment and Constitutional Privacy,” Toledo Law Review 5 (Fall 1973): 83–110; John Ely, Democracy and Distrust (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 34–41; Raoul Berger, “The Ninth Amendment,” Cornell Law Review 66 (November 1980): 1–26; Bill Gaugush, “The Ninth Amendment in the Federal Courts, 1965–1980: From Desuetude to Fundamentalism?” Denver Law Journal 61 (1983): 25–41; Russell L. Caplan, “The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,” Virginia Law Review 69 (March 1983): 223–268; Simeon C. R. McIntosh, “On Reading the Ninth Amendment,” Howard Law Journal 28 (1985): 913–941; Gerald G. Watson, “The Ninth Amendment: Source of a Substantive Right to Privacy,” John Marshall Law Review 19 (Summer 1986): 959–981; Lawrence E. Mitchell, “The Ninth Amendmennt and the ‘Jurisprudence of Original Intention,’” Georgetown Law Journal 74 (August 1986): 1719–1742; John P. Kaminski, “Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment,” in Jon Kukla, ed., The Bill of Rights (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1987), pp. 141–150; Calvin R. Massey, “Federalism and Fundamental Rights: The Ninth Amendment,” Hastings Law Journal 38 (January 1987): 305–344; Charles J. Cooper, “Limited Government and Individual Liberty: The Ninth Amendment’s Forgotten Lessons,” Journal of Law and Politics 4 (Summer 1987): 63–80; Floyd Abrams, “The Ninth Amendment and the Protection of Unenumerated Rights,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 11 (Winter 1988): 93–96; Geoffrey G. Slaughter, “The Ninth Amendment’s Role in the Evolution of Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence,” Indiana Law Journal 64 (Winter 1988): 97–110; Andrzej Rapaczynski, “The Ninth Amendment and the Unwritten Constitution: The Problems of Constitutional Interpretation,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 64 (1988): 177–210; Randy E. Barnett, “Reconceiving the Ninth Amendment,” Cornell Law Review 74 (November 1988): 1–42; Leonard W. Levy, Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution (New York: Macmillan, 1988), chapter 13; and Thomas B. McAffee, “The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,” Columbia Law Review 90 (June 1990): 1215–1320.

91. Anita L. Allen, “Taking Liberties: Privacy, Private Choice, and Social Contract Theory,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 56 (1987): 461–491, at 478n. Also see David M. O’Brien, Privacy, Law, and Public Policy (New York: Praeger, 1979), p. 180; Christopher Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review (New York: Basic Books, 1986), p. 290; and Ronald J. Fiscus, “Before the Velvet Curtain: The Connecticut Contraceptive Cases as a Study in Constitutional Law and Supreme Court Behavior” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1983), pp. 413–414 (“the Penumbra theory never had a chance, whatever its virtues, of becoming an accepted constitutional doctrine because of the reputation of its author.… By the time Douglas came to write his Griswold opinion, nobody was listening to him on doctrinal matters”).

92. Burr Henly, “‘Penumbra: The Roots of a Legal Metaphor,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 15 (Fall 1987): 81–100; Henry T. Greely, “A Footnote to ‘Penumbra’ in Griswold v. Connecticut,” Constitutional Commentary 6 (Summer 1989): 251–265, esp. at 260; Dorothy J. Glancy, “Douglas’s Right of Privacy: A Response to His Critics,” in Wasby, ed., “He Shall Not Pass This Way Again”, pp. 155–177, esp. at 162; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469; and Glenn H. Reynolds, “Sex, Lies and Jurisprudence: Robert Bork, Griswold and the Philosophy of Original Understanding,” Georgia Law Review 24 (Summer 1990): 1045–1113, at 1064–1065n. Also see R. H. Clark, “Constitutional Sources of the Penumbral Right to Privacy,” Villanova Law Review 19 (June 1974): 833–884; James B. Stoneking, “Penumbras and Privacy: A Study of the Uses of Fictions in Constitutional Decision-Making,” West Virginia Law Review 87 (Summer 1985): 859–877; and New York University Law Review 48 (October 1973): 670–773, at 672–677.

93. Bork, “The Supreme Court Needs a New Philosophy,” Fortune 78 (December 1968): 138–141, 170–177, at 170; Bork, “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems,” Indiana Law Journal 47 (Fall 1971): 1–17, at 8–11. Also see Bruce Ackerman, “Robert Bork’s Grand Inquisition,” Yale Law Journal 99 (April 1990): 1419–1439, at 1424; Bork Interview with Hubbell; and Garrow conversation with Robert B. Stevens.

94. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings on the Nomination of Robert H. Bork to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, 100th Cong., 1st sess., 1987, pp. 114–119, 121, 127–128, 182–183, 241–243, 250, 290, 325, 711–712, 753–754; Text of a 31 March 1982 speech, p. 4, as quoted in Hearings, p. 121; Text of a 5 September 1985 interview, as reprinted in full in Patrick B. McGuigan and Dawn M. Weyrich, Ninth Justice: The Fight for Bork (Washington, DC: Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, 1990), pp. 285–303, at 293.

95. Bork to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., 1 October 1987, 15pp., in Hearings, pp. 3896–3910, at 3903–3904; Bork, The Tempting of America (New York: Free Press, 1989), pp. 95–96, 169, 234, 263.

96. Morgan D. S. Prickett, “The Right of Privacy: A Black View of Griswold v. Connecticut,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 7 (Spring 1980): 777–829, at 823, 824, 825–826; Bruce Fein in Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10 June 1985, pp. 1, 19; Fein, “Griswold v. Connecticut: Wayward Decision-Making in the Supreme Court,” Ohio Northern University Law Review 16 (1989): 551–559, at 554, 555 (“the Court in Griswold could have sustained the accessory convictions without ever pronouncing definitively on the right of marital privacy question”); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888–1986 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 458; Rex Lee quoted in American Bar Association Journal, 1 July 1988, p. 70. Also see Hadley Arkes, First Things (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 352, 354–355; Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), p. 206; Terry Eastland, “Bork Revisited,” Commentary, February 1990, pp. 39–43, at 42–43; and Hugh C. Macgill, “Introduction: Observations on Teaching Griswold,” Connecticut Law Review 23 (Summer 1991): 853–860, at 854, 857, who somewhat oddly declares that “I remain enormously respectful of Douglas’s achievement in Griswold” while nonetheless stating that “the entire Douglas opinion” seems “too ridiculous a piece of work to take seriously.”

97. John H. F. Shattuck, Rights of Privacy (Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co., 1977), p. 105 (published “in conjunction with” the ACLU).

98. Austin Sarat, “Abortion and the Courts: Uncertain Boundaries of Law and Politics,” in Allan P. Sindler, ed., American Politics and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1982), pp. 113–153, at 127.

99. Eva R. Rubin, Abortion, Politics, and the Courts (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), p. 37. Also see Lee Epstein and Joseph F. Kobylka, The Supreme Court and Legal Change (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), p. 157.

100. Cannon F. Allen, “Revising Abortion Policy” (unpublished B.A. thesis, Princeton University, 1984), p. 3.

101. Bruce Ackerman, “Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law,” Yale Law Journal 99 (December 1989): 453–547, at 537; Ackerman, We the People: Foundations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 151. Professor Ackerman also (Foundations, p. 159) terms the Douglas opinion “nothing less than a brilliant interpretive proposal.”

102. Louis Lusky, By What Right? (Charlottesville, VA: Michie Co., 1975), pp. 339–344, at 342.

103. Wallace Mendelson, “Mr. Justice Douglas and Government by the Judiciary,” Journal of Politics 38 (November 1976): 918–937, at 924. Mendelson also termed the Douglas opinion “an unnecessary, indeed reckless, judicial exertion.” Also see Sheldon Goldman’s rejoinder, Journal of Politics 39 (February 1977): 148–158, at 153–154.

104. Also see Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 170–175, at 170; John A. Rohr, “Privacy: Law and Values,” Thought 49 (December 1974): 353–373, at 366; Robert G. Dixon, Jr., “The ‘New’ Substantive Due Process and the Democratic Ethic: A Prolegomenon,” Brigham Young University Law Review 1976: 43–88, at 84; Ken Martyn, “Technological Advances and Roe v. Wade: The Need to Rethink Abortion Law,” UCLA Law Review 29 (June-August 1982): 1194–1215, at 1195; W. A. Parent, “A New Definition of Privacy for the Law,” Law and Philosophy 2 (December 1983): 305–338, at 312; Michael Hedeen, “Constitutional Law—Substantive Due Process …” Southern Illinois University Law Journal 11 (Summer 1987): 1305–1325, at 1307; Blair R. Haarlow, “The Right to Privacy in Constitutional Law: Toward a New Jurisprudence” (unpublished B.A. thesis, Princeton University, 1991), p. 18; and Darien A. McWhirter and Jon D. Bible, Privacy as a Constitutional Right (New York: Quorum Books, 1992), p. 96.

105. Dixon, “The ‘New’ Substantive Due Process,” n. 104 above, at 84; Joel Feinberg, “Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Privacy: Moral Ideals in the Constitution?” Notre Dame Law Review 58 (February 1983): 445–492, at 483; Jeffrey S. Koehlinger, “Substantive Due Process Analysis and the Lockean Liberal Tradition: Rethinking the Modern Privacy Cases,” Indiana Law Journal 65 (Summer 1990): 723–776, at 746.

106. Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy in the Bork Hearings, n. 94 above, p. 151.

107. Jahncke to Vera Weiner, 11 June and 12 July 1965, PPLC 41-B and 44-A; Marion Miller, Executive Committee Minutes, 23 June 1965, PPLC 12-H; Louise Fleck, New Haven Minutes, 24 June and 10 September 1965, PPLC 41-B; New Haven Register, 9 July and 25 August 1965; Griswold, Medical Advisory Committee Minutes, 11 August 1965, PPLC 15-B; Bridgeport Herald, 22 August 1965; PPLC Press Release, 25 August 1965, PPLC 24-Q; Hartford Courant, 26 August 1965, p. 6; New York Herald Tribune, 29 August 1965, p. 27; Cornelia Jahncke, “My Two Terms as President of PPLC,” n.d. [c.12 March 1983], 1pp., PPLC 33-I; Garrow conversations with Cornelia Jahncke and Frances McCoy. On the New York state repeal, see New York Times, 17 June 1965, p. 1, and 10 July 1965, p. 1. On the Massachusetts reform, see New England Journal of Medicine 273 (29 July 1965): 277–278; New York Times, 3 August 1965, p. 13, 8 August 1965, p. 53; Dienes, Law, Politics, and Birth Control, pp. 200–209, 247; and especially Joseph L. Dorsey, “Massachusetts Liberalizes Birth Control Law,” Dartmouth Medical School Quarterly 3 (Summer 1966): 8–12.

108. Marion Miller, Executive Committee Minutes, 8 September 1965, and Board Minutes, 21 September 1965, PPLC 12-H; Hartford Courant, 10 November 1965; Connecticut Parenthood, Winter-Spring 1966; New Haven Register, 26 January 1966, p. 1, 18 June 1966, p. 34; National Observer, 2 May 1966; PPLC News, May 1975. Also see C. Lee Buxton, “Family Planning Clinics in Connecticut,” Connecticut Medicine 32 (February 1968): 122–124.

109. Amelia Roe, New Haven Minutes, 7 October 1965, PPLC 41-B; Hartford Courant, 13 October 1965; New Haven Register, 20 October 1965; Marion Miller, Board Minutes, 26 October 1965, and Executive Committee Minutes, 7 December 1965, PPLC 12-H; Louise Fleck, New Haven Minutes, 13 December 1965 and 10 January 1966, PPLC 41-C; Mabel Jenkins to Vera Weiner, 15 January 1966, PPLC 46-O; Garrow conversations with Cornelia Jahncke and Frances McCoy; Griswold Interview with Cheek, p. 47.

CHAPTER FIVE

1. Guttmacher, Babies by Choice or by Chance (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 11; Guttmacher, “The Genesis of Liberalized Abortion in New York: A Personal Insight,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 23 (Summer 1972): 756–778, at 756–757. Also see Guttmacher, “A Defense of the Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision,” The Humanist 33 (May-June 1973): 6–7, Guttmacher, “Why I Favor Liberalized Abortion,” Reader’s Digest 103 (November 1973): 143–147, and David Dempsey, “Dr. Guttmacher is the Evangelist of Birth Control,” New York Times Magazine, 9 February 1969, pp. 32–33, 79–84. Biographical obituaries of Guttmacher appear in the New York Times, 19 March 1974, p. 38, the Washington Post, 20 March 1974, p. B6, and the New England Journal of Medicine 290 (9 May 1974): 1085.

2. Guttmacher, “The Genesis of Liberalized Abortion,” p. 757–758; Guttmacher, Babies By Choice, pp. 211–213; New York Times, 31 January 1942, p. 30.

3. James C. Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), passim, esp. pp. 202, 230, 237, 242; Mohr, “Patterns of Abortion and the Response of American Physicians, 1790–1930,” in Judith W. Leavitt, ed., Women and Health in America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), pp. 117–123, at 117–118; Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), pp. 11–62; Marvin Olasky, Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992), passim. Also see Shelley Gavigan, “The Criminal Sanction as it Relates to Human Reproduction: The Genesis of the Statutory Prohibition of Abortion, “Journal of Legal History 5 (May 1984): 20–43; “The Abortion Movement and the AMA, 1850–1880,” in Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Conduct (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), pp. 217–244; and Philip A. Rafferty, Roe v. Wade: The Birth of a Constitutional Right (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1992). Only one case involving abortion appears to have reached the U.S. Supreme Court during this era, but the Court’s 6 to 3 decision upholding an 1893 state statute prohibiting a previously convicted felon from being licensed to practice medicine included no actual discussion of abortion. See Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 1002 (1898).

4. Stella Hanau, “The Birth-Control Conference,” The Nation 138 (31 January 1934): 129–130 (citing Taussig’s remarks); [Thomas E. Harris], “A Functional Study of Existing Abortion Laws,” Columbia Law Review 35 (January 1935): 87–97, at 93 (citing Taussig); Frederick J. Taussig, AbortionSpontaneous and InducedMedical and Social Aspects (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1936), esp. p. 338; Time, 16 March 1936, p. 52; Harrison Reeves, “The Birth Control Industry,” American Mercury 39 (November 1936): 295–290, at 288; A. J. Rongy, “Abortion: The $100,000,000 Racket,” American Mercury 40 (February 1937): 145–150; Jack Frost, “Abortion—Need for Legalized Abortion,” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 29 (November-December 1938): 595–598, at 597; James C. Mohr, “The Historical Character of Abortion in the United States Through World War II,” in Paul Sachdev, ed., Perspectives on Abortion (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1985), pp. 3–14, at 12. On Taussig, also see Jonathan B. Imber, Abortion and the Private Practice of Medicine (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 3–12.

5. F. W. Stella Browne, “The Right to Abortion,” in Norman Haire, ed., Sexual Reform Congress [World League for Sexual Reform, 3rd Congress, London, 8–14 September 1929] (London: Kegan Paul, 1930), pp. 178–181; Browne, “The Right to Abortion,” in Browne et al., Abortion (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1935), pp. 11–50, at 29 and 31; Browne, “The Right of Abortion,” Journal of Sex Education 5 (1952): 29–32, at 30, 32. Also see Sheila Rowbotham, A New World For WomenStella Browne: Socialist Feminist (London: Pluto Press, 1977), pp. 27, 64, 105, 110, 113–114; Colin Francome, Abortion Freedom (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984), pp. 64–65, 68.

6. William J. Robinson, The Law Against Abortion (New York: Eugenics Publishing Co., 1933), esp. pp. 6, 13, 115, 117, 119.

7. Abraham J. Rongy, Abortion: Legal or Illegal? (New York: Vanguard Press, 1933), esp. pp. 85, 97–98. Also see Rongy, “Abortion: The $100,000,00 Racket,” pp. 145–150.

8. [Thomas E. Harris], “A Functional Study of Existing Abortion Laws,” Columbia Law Review 35 (January 1935): 87–97, at 95; Jack Frost, “Abortion—Need for Legalized Abortion,” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 29 (November-December 1938): 595–598; B. B. Tolnai, “Abortions and the Law,” The Nation, 15 April 1939, pp. 424–427; Birth Control Review for January 1929, as cited in Jonathan B. Imber, “Sociology and Abortion: Legacies and Strategies,” Contemporary Sociology 8 (November 1979): 826–836; Ernst and Pilpel, “Release From the Comstock Era,” Birth Control Review, December 1939, pp. 24–25; George A. Glenn to Margaret Sanger, 26 December 1938, BCFA to Glenn, 3 January 1939, Sanger to Glenn, 16 January 1939, and Florence Rose to D. Kenneth Rose, 8 February 1939, Calderone Papers Box 10. My thanks to Ellen Chesler for the latter citations. A painstakingly thorough survey of an abortion-related bill considered by the New York legislature in 1944 appears in Cyril C. Means, Jr., “The Law of New York Concerning Abortion and the Status of the Foetus, 1664–1968,” New York Law Forum 14 (Fall 1968): 411–515, at 493–498; also see New York Times, 7 January 1944, p. 19.

9. Jane Ward, “What Everyone Should Know About Abortion,” American Mercury 53 (August 1941): 194–200; National Committee on Maternal Health, The Abortion Problem (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1944); [Henry J. Langston?], “Abortion and the Law,” Southern Medicine & Surgery 104 (July 1942): 408–409. For a suggestive study of actual law enforcement practices, see Leslie J. Reagan, “‘About to Meet Her Maker’: Women, Doctors, Dying Declarations, and the State’s Investigation of Abortion, Chicago, 1867–1940,” Journal of American History 77 (March 1991): 1240–1264; for a discussion of some similar New York County (Manhattan) data covering 1925 to 1950, see Jerome E. Bates and Edward S. Zawadzki, Criminal Abortion (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1964), pp. 61–62.

10. Lloyd A. Bulloch, “Criminal Law—Abortion—Legal or Illegal,” Southern California Law Review 23 (July 1950): 523–529; Russell S. Fisher, “Criminal Abortion,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 42 (July-August 1951): 242–249; Myer S. Tulkoff, “Legal and Social Control of Abortion,” Kentucky Law Journal 40 (May 1952): 410–416; Jerome Bates, “The Abortion Mill: An Institutional Analysis,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 45 (July-August 1954): 157–169.

11. Calderone Interview with Reed, pp. 15–16; Schur, “The Abortion Racket,” The Nation, 5 March 1955, pp. 199–201; Garrow conversation with Edwin M. Schur. Also see Schur, “Abortion and the Social System,” Social Problems 3 (October 1955): 94–99, and Morton Sontheimer, “Abortion in America Today,” Woman’s Home Companion, October 1955.

12. “One Doctor’s Choice,” Time, 12 March 1956, pp. 46–48. Also see Olasky, Abortion Rites, pp. 275–278.

13. Glanville Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), pp. 230–232; Note, “The Law of Criminal Abortion: An Analysis of Proposed Reforms,” Indiana Law Journal 32 (Winter 1957): 193–205, at 205. Also see Don H. Mills, “A Medicolegal Analysis of Abortion Statutes,” Southern California Law Review 31 (Winter 1958): 181–199.

14. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States (New York: Hoeber-Harper, 1958), esp. pp. 181–184; Time, 2 June 1958, p. 70.

15. James R. Newman, “A Conference on Abortion as a Disease of Societies,” Scientific American 200 (January 1959): 149–154; C. Lee Buxton, Book Review, Eugenics Quarterly 5 (December 1958): 230–231; Fowler V. Harper, Book Review, Yale Law Journal 68 (December 1958): 395–398.

16. Minutes, ACLU Due Process Committee, 19 December 1956 and 15 October 1958, ACLU 1956 Vol. 2 and ACLU 1967 Vol. 19. On Kenyon, see her New York Times obituary, 14 February 1972, p. 32, and Susan M. Hartmann, “Dorothy Kenyon,” in Notable American Women, pp. 395–397.

17. New York Times and New York Herald Tribune, 9 November 1958; Guttmacher, “The Genesis of Liberalized Abortion in New York,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 23 (Summer 1972): 756–778, at 760–761; Michael S. Burnhill, “Humane Abortion Services: A Revolution in Human Rights …” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 42 (September-October 1975): 431–38, at 431–432. Guttmacher had also made extensive news with a 1947 survey of doctors’ attitudes toward birth control. See Newsweek, 24 February 1947, p. 58; Guttmacher, “Conception Control and the Medical Profession,” Human Fertility 12 (March 1947): 1–20; Guttmacher, “Planned Parenthood’s Three Decades,” The Churchman, 15 March 1947, pp. 15–16; New York Times, 21 October 1951, p. 74.

18. David Lowe, Abortion and the Law (New York: Pocket Books, 1966), pp. 77–80; Guttmacher, “Changing Attitudes and Practices Concerning Abortion,” Maryland State Medical Journal 20 (December 1971): 59–63, at 61; Guttmacher, “The Genesis of Liberalized Abortion in New York,” p. 762; Guttmacher, “A Defense of the Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision,” The Humanist 33 (May-June 1973): 6–7; New York Times, 22 May 1959, p. 15; John T. Noonan, Jr., A Private Choice: Abortion in America in the Seventies (New York: Free Press, 1979), p. 35. Also similarly see Joseph W. Dellapenna, “The History of Abortion: Technology, Morality, and Law,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 40 (Spring 1979): 359–428, at 409.

19. Herbert L. Packer and Ralph J. Gampell, “Therapeutic Abortion: A Problem in Law and Medicine,” Stanford Law Review 11 (May 1959): 417–455, esp. at 417, 447, 449, 451. See also Harvey L. Zipf, “Recent Abortion Law Reforms (or Much Ado About Nothing), “Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 60 (March 1969): 3–23, at 9 (terming the Packer and Gampell article “Possibly the most significant impetus to legal reform” at that time); Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, p. 130, and the 16 November 1981 testimony of Herma Hill Kay in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitutional Amendments Relating to AbortionTestimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 1st sess., 1981, pp. 770–771.

20. Guttmacher, “The Law That Doctors Often Break,” Redbook, August 1959, pp. 25, 95–98, at 95, 98; New York Times, 28 July 1959, p. 29; Guttmacher, Babies by Choice or by Chance, esp. pp. 116, 197–199, 215. Also see Guttmacher, “The Law That Doctors Often Break,” Reader’s Digest 76 (January 1960): 51–54.

21. Tydings to Guttmacher, 1 September 1959, and Guttmacher to Tydings, 17 September 1959, Guttmacher Papers; Garrow conversation with Joseph D. Tydings.

22. Garrow conversations with Zad Leavy; Leavy, “Criminal Abortion: Facing the Facts,” Los Angeles Bar Journal 34 (October 1959): 355–360, 373–383, at 360; Kummer, “Don’t Shy Away From Therapeutic Abortion!” Medical Economics 37 (11 April 1960): 165–171; New York Times, 17 June 1960; New York Post, 17 June 1960, p. 30; Kummer and Leavy, “Criminal Abortion—A Consideration of Ways to Reduce Incidence,” California Medicine 95 (September 1961): 170–175, at 171, 174, 175. Also see Leavy and Kummer, “Criminal Abortion: Human Hardship and Unyielding Laws,” Southern California Law Review 35 (Winter 1962): 123–148.

23. Calderone, “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Public Health 50 (July 1960): 948–954, at 949, 951 (a paper originally presented on 19 October 1959); Ernst to Calderone, 4 April 1960, Ernst Box 592; Calderone to Guttmacher, “Pilot Abortion Service,” 8 December 1960, Schlesinger 179–2–8.

24. New York Herald Tribune, 16 October 1960; [Marguerite Clark], “The Abortion Racket—What Should Be Done?” Newsweek, 15 August 1960, pp. 50–52.

25. Harvey M. Adelstein, “The Abortion Law,” Western Reserve Law Review 12 (December 1960): 74–89; Leonard Dubin, “The Antiquated Abortion Laws,” Temple Law Quarterly 34 (Winter 1961): 146–151; Quay, “Justifiable Abortion—Medical and Legal Foundations,” Georgetown Law Journal 49 (Winter 1960): 173–256 and (Spring 1961): 395–538, at 174, 230, 233–234, 397–399.

26. “Abortion Laws Should Be Revised,” Christian Century, 11 January 1961, p. 37; New York Times, 24 February 1961, pp. 1, 16.

27. Lawrence Lader, Abortion (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), pp. 111–116; Manchester Union-Leader, 8 March 1961, pp. 1, 7; America, 25 March 1961, p. 811.

28. Sagar C. Jain and Steven Hughes, California Abortion Act 1967: A Study in Legislative Process (Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, 1969), p. 17; Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, pp. 69–71; Bates and Zawadzki, Criminal Abortion, p. 137.

29. John Bartlow Martin, “Abortion,” Saturday Evening Post, 20 May 1961, pp. 19–21, 72–74, 27 May 1961, pp. 20–21, 49–56, and 3 June 1961, pp. 25, 91–92. A year later a legal commentator offered a succinct analysis: “Abortion is in fact illegal because it is dangerous, is dangerous because it is performed by the unskilled, and is performed by the unskilled because it is illegal.” Graham Hughes, “Morals and the Criminal Law,” Yale Law Journal 71 (March 1962): 662–683, at 680.

30. George R. Metcalf to Guttmacher, 18 April 1961, Guttmacher to Metcalf, 13 September 1961, Gerald Blank to Guttmacher, 30 October 1961, Guttmacher to G. L. “Tim” Timanus, 28 March 1962, and Guttmacher to Irene Garrow, 17 April 1963, Guttmacher Papers; Guttmacher, “The Legal and Moral Status of Therapeutic Abortion,” Progress in Gynecology 4 (1963): 279–300, at 286–287.

31. Maginnis to Guttmacher, 28 March 1962, Guttmacher to Maginnis, 9 April 1962, Guttmacher Papers; Maginnis Interview with Cheek, esp. pp. 72, 79; “Chronological Events of Citizens Committee for Humane Abortion Laws,” 2pp., n.d. [c.October 1964]; Louise Butler, “The Society for Humane Abortion” (unpublished paper, 21 May 1965), 41pp., SHA Box 1, Schlesinger; Susan Berman, “The Abortion Crusader,” San Francisco 12 (July 1970): 16–18, 38.

32. Dr. X as Told to Lucy Freeman, The Abortionist (New York: Grove Press, 1962); Margaret W. Moore, Abortion: Murder or Mercy? (Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, 1962); New York Times, 30 April 1962, p. 55, 25 May 1962, pp. 1, 30; America, 5 May 1962, pp. 193–194; “Abortion Laws,” WMCA Radio Editorial, 9–10 June 1962, Ernst Box 592; Time, 13 July 1962, pp. 52–53; Newsweek, 30 July 1962, pp. 22–23. Also see Henrie v. Griffith, 395 P.2d 809 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1964).

33. Ernst in The Abortionist, pp. 10–11; Ernst to Calderone, 16 April and 28 August 1962, Ernst Boxes 593 and 528; Ernst to Guttmacher, 23 April 1962, Guttmacher Papers; Ernst letter, New York Times, 4 May 1962; Ernst, “There Is Desperate Need of Medical Wisdom to Deal With the Problem of ‘Abortion,’” New Medical Materia 4 (July 1962): 21–23; Guttmacher to Joseph M. Harris, 17 July 1962, Guttmacher Papers. Also see Ernst, A Love Affair With the Law (New York: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 122, 132. Ernst regularly cited Bours v. United States, 229 F. 960 (7th Cir. 1915), to support his contentions; also see Commonwealth v. Wheeler, 315 Mass. 394 (1944).

34. Sherri Finkbine, “The Baby We Didn’t Dare to Have,” Redbook, January 1963, pp. 50, 99–104; Finkbine, “The Lesser of Two Evils,” 9 January 1966, San Francisco, CA, Schlesinger Library 289–1–21 (Transcript paginated as 92 to 105); Dallas Times-Herald, 15 February 1981, pp. H1, H9; Washington Post, 27 April 1987; New York Times, 26 July 1962, p. 25, 27 July 1962, p. 12; Chicago Tribune, 27 July 1962, p. 4; Time, 3 August 1962, p. 30; Newsweek, 6 August 1962, p. 52. An edited version of Finkbine’s January 1966 speech appears under its same title in Alan F. Guttmacher, ed., The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press, 1967), pp. 15–25. Additional retrospective Finkbine profiles include New York Journal-American, 9 July 1964, pp. 1, 2; Washington Post, 10 December 1968, pp. D1, D4; Detroit News, 8 August 1971, pp. C1, C15; Newsweek, 17 March 1975, p. 14; and New York Times, 4 June 1975, p. 49. The Detroit one also ran in a variety of other papers, including the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin (22 August) and the Arizona Star (12 September).

35. Finkbine, “The Baby We Didn’t Dare to Have,” pp. 99, 102 (with Finkbine characterizing herself as “impulsive, intense and high-strung”); Chicago Tribune, 28 July 1962, p. 2, 31 July 1962, pp. 1, 4, 1 August 1962, p. 3; New York Times, 30 July 1962, p. 21, 31 July 1962, p. 9, 1 August 1962, p. 19, 2 August 1962, p. 12; Yale McFate, “Memorandum of Opinion,” Good Samaritan Hospital et al. v. Attorney General, Maricopa County Superior Court, #140504, 30 July 1962, 4pp., Lader Box 1; Los Angeles Times, 31 July 1962, pp. 1, 13, 1 August 1962, pp. 1, 16, 4 August 1962, pp. 1, 15; Washington Post, 31 July 1962, p. 3, 3 August 1962, p. A4; Cheifetz to Lawrence Lader, 12 June 1964, Lader Box 1.

36. Chicago Tribune, 4 August 1962, p. 5, 5 August 1962, pp. 1, 2; Newsweek, 13 August 1962, p. 54; New York Times, 5 August 1962, p. 64, 7 August 1962, p. 15, 8 August 1962, p. 19, 10 August 1962, p. 6, 13 August 1962, p. 16, 19 August 1962, p. 69, 20 August 1962, p. 9. Also see New York Post, 20 August 1962; New York Journal-American, 4 September 1962, pp. 1, 13.

37. Celeste Condit, Decoding Abortion Rhetoric (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), pp. 28–31, at 29; Charles C. Dahlberg, “Abortion,” in Ralph Slovenko, ed., Sexual Behavior and the Law (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1965), pp. 379–393, at 380; Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, pp. 62–65, 79–80; Marvin N. and Susan N. Olasky, “The Crossover in Newspaper Coverage of Abortion from Murder to Liberation,” Journalism Quarterly 63 (Spring 1986): 31–37, at 31–32. Also see Marvin Olasky, The Press and Abortion, 1838–1988 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988), pp. 92–98; Olasky, Abortion Rites, pp. 278–282; and Willard D. Lorensen, “Abortion and the Crime-Sin Spectrum,” West Virginia Law Review 70 (December 1967): 20–39, at 24–25 (“The present-day abortion law reform movement is largely a product of the ripple of national attention that followed in the wake of the Finkbine case”).

38. Judith L. Rapoport, “American Abortion Applicants in Sweden,” Archives of General Psychiatry 13 (July 1965): 24–33, at 24 and 31 (“most women” applicants “expressed the opinion … that they had the right to achieve or to renounce motherhood”); John L. Moore, Jr., “Therapeutic Abortion,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 51 (September 1962): 460–461; Philip R. Overton. “Abortion and Texas Law,” Texas State Journal of Medicine 58 (September 1962): 765; “2 Doctors Debate Legalizing Abortion,” Dallas Morning News, 21 September 1962; John C. Knott, “Statement on Abortion,” 18 September 1962, 1pp., Archives of the Archdiocese of Hartford.

39. Hazel G. Erskine, “The Polls: The Population Explosion, Birth Control, and Sex Education,” Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (Fall 1966): 490–501, at 498; Gallup Poll, Volume 3, p. 1784.

40. Dorothy Ames to Ernst, 25 October 1962, Ernst to Ames, 29 October 1962, and Ames to Ernst, 1 November 1962, Ernst Box 592. On Ernst’s 12 December 1962 talk on “Medicine or Law—At Whose Door Rests the Responsibility for Correcting the Legal Restrictions for Medical Abortion?” to a dinner meeting of two sections of the Westchester Academy of Medicine, see the various news clippings from the White Plains Reporter Dispatch, the Mount Vernon Daily Argus, and other papers in Ernst Boxes 528 and 592.

41. [California] Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure, Abortion Hearing, 17–18 December 1962, San Diego, 278pp., at pp. 82, 116, and 254; Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act, pp. 17–22; Kummer, ed., Abortion: Legal and Illegal [23 November 1963] (Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Printers, 1967), p. 19; Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, pp. 70–76; Maginnis Interview with Cheek, p. 89; Linda Beck to Guttmacher, 9 January 1963, Maginnis to Guttmacher, 13 February 1963, Guttmacher to Maginnis and to Beck, 6 March 1963, Maginnis, CCHAL Newsletter #2, 12 March 1963, and Maginnis to Guttmacher, 27 March 1963, Guttmacher Papers; Beilenson Interviews with Edginton and Garrow.

42. Finkbine, “The Baby We Didn’t Dare to Have,” p. 104; Bridgeport Post, 27 January 1963; James Ridgeway, “One Million Abortions,” The New Republic 148 (9 February 1963): 14–17; Mary Calderone to J. David Wyles, 13 March 1963, Guttmacher Papers; Columbia Spectator, 14 March 1963; Hall, “Thalidomide and Our Abortion Laws,” Columbia Forum 6 (Winter 1963): 10–13, at 11 and 13; Garrow conversation with Robert E. Hall; Ernst to Erik Wensberg, 21 March 1963, Ernst to Guttmacher, 29 April 1963, Ernst to Hall, 3 May 1963, Guttmacher Papers; Ernst to Hall, 13 May 1963, and Hall to Ernst, 20 May 1963, Ernst Box 729; Ernst to Pilpel, 9 and 19 April 1963, Ernst Box 592; Campbell Interview with Reed, p. 81; Irene Garrow to Guttmacher, 3 April 1963, and Guttmacher to Garrow, 17 April 1963, Guttmacher Papers.

43. New York Times, 19 May 1963, p. 81; Edmund W. Overstreet to Anthony C. Beilenson, 6 June 1963, and Overstreet to Lawrence Lader, 27 May 1964, Lader Box 2; Lester Kinsolving, “What About Therapeutic Abortion?,” Christian Century, 13 May 1964, pp. 632–635; Howard Hammond, “Therapeutic Abortion: Ten Years’ Experience With Hospital Committee Control,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 89 (1 June 1964): 349–355 [September 1963 paper followed by comments from Keith P. Russell and Edmund W. Overstreet]; Leavy in Kummer, ed., Abortion: Legal and Illegal [23 November 1963], p. 34; William J. Kenealy, “Law and Morals,” Catholic Lawyer 9 (Summer 1963): 200–210, 264, at 209; Maginnis to Ernst, 15 July 1963, Ernst Box 593. Also see Leavy and Kummer, “Criminal Abortion: A Failure of Law,” American Bar Association Journal 50 (January 1964): 52–55.

44. Philip D. Merwin to Pilpel, 18 July 1963, Pilpel to Guttmacher, 23 July and 28 October 1963, Guttmacher Papers; Guttmacher, “Induced Abortion,” New York State Journal of Medicine 63 (15 August 1963): 2334–2335; Guttmacher, “The Legal and Moral Status of Therapeutic Abortion,” Progress in Gynecology 4 (1963): 279–300, at 298–299.

45. Donald J. Kenney, “Thalidomide—Catalyst to Abortion Reform,” Arizona Law Review 5 (Fall 1963): 105–111; Marvin M. Moore, “Antiquated Abortion Laws,” Washington and Lee Law Review 20 (Fall 1963): 250–259; Monroe Trout, “Therapeutic Abortion Laws Need Therapy,” Temple Law Quarterly 37 (Winter 1964): 172–189; Ralph J. Gampell, “Legal Status of Therapeutic Abortion and Sterilization in the United States,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 7 (March 1964): 22–36; Peter S. Raible, “Abortion,” 20 October 1963, University Unitarian Church, Seattle, 8pp., YWCA-UW Papers II-12; Kummer, Abortion: Legal and Illegal [23 November 1963], pp. 20–22, 26–27. Also see Snell Putney, “Reason and Abortion,” The Campus Voice #15 (21 October 1963): 2–4; but see Muriel Davidson, “The Deadly Favor,” Ladies’ Home Journal, November 1963, pp. 53–57.

46. Hardin, Population, Evolution, and Birth Control, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1969), p. 278; Hardin, “The Case for Legalized Abortion” [1 October 1963], in Hardin, Stalking the Wild Taboo (Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973), pp. 10–26, at 11 and 22.

47. Guttmacher to Hardin, 30 December 1963, Hardin to Guttmacher, 2 January 1964, Guttmacher Papers.

48. Pilpel, “Abortion,” 20 March 1964, 10pp., Lader Box 2, at 3, 5, and 10; “Symposium on ‘The Social Problem of Abortion’” [20 March 1964], Bulletin of the Sloane Hospital for Women 11 (Fall 1965): 65–79, at 66 and 72; Guttmacher to Jeanne Brown, 10 April 1964, Guttmacher Papers; White Plains Reporter-Dispatch, 24 April 1964; Garrow conversation with Robert E. Hall; Daniel H. Bloom letter in New York Times, 13 May 1964; Sylvia Bloom to Guttmacher, n.d. [c.15 September 1964], Guttmacher Papers. Also see Mary Calderone, “Abortion: Disease of Society,” Sexology, April 1964, pp. 604–606; and E. Mike Miller and Donald E. Wintrode, “A New Approach to Old Crimes: The Model Penal Code,” Notre Dame Lawyer 39 (April 1964): 310–334, at 312 (“abortion is no longer thought of with such animosity as it was in the past”).

49. Hardin, “Abortion and Human Dignity,” 29 April 1964, 5pp., which also appears in Guttmacher, ed., The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press, 1967), pp. 69–86; Hardin, Stalking the Wild Taboo, p. 27.

50. Guttmacher, “Voluntary Agencies,” in Minoru Muramatsu and Paul A. Harper, eds., Population Dynamics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965), pp. 119–127 and 171–175, at 175 [May 1964].

51. Lader to Ernst, 14 May 1964, Ernst to Alice Rossi and to Caleb Foote, 12 May 1964, Foote to Ernst, 19 May 1964, Ernst Box 592; Hardin to Lader, 17 April 1964, Lader to Hardin, 11 May 1964, Lader to Raible, 12 May 1964, Raible to Lader, 22 May 1964, Hardin to Lader, 23 May 1964, Lader to Hardin, 27 May 1964, Lader to Jerry Kummer, 13 July 1964, and Kummer to Lader, 15 July 1964, Lader Boxes 1 and 2.

52. Lader to Pilpel, 23 June 1964, Pilpel, untitled paper prepared for presentation at ACLU Conference, Boulder, CO, 21–24 June 1964, p. 2, Lader to Pat Maginnis, 27 May 1964, and Maginnis to Lader, 11 July 1964, Lader Box 2; San Francisco Chronicle, 21 July 1964, p. 2; Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act, pp. 22–23; Buxton to Lader, 21 July 1964, Lader Box 1; Houston Chronicle, 14–19 June 1964; Bates and Zawadzki, Criminal Abortion, pp. 3, 140; Sylvia Bloom to Alan Guttmacher, n.d. [c.15 September 1964], Guttmacher Papers. At the July hearing, Garrett Hardin reiterated his earlier comments, telling the committee that “my personal viewpoint is that abortion should be on demand, that it is simply a part of normal medicine and there should be no restrictions on it whatever.… the fact she doesn’t want it should be enough of an indication that abortion should be allowed.” [California] Assembly Interim Committee on Criminal Procedure, The Humane Abortion Act, 20 July 1964, San Francisco, 130pp., at pp. 25–26.

53. Sylvia Bloom to Alan Guttmacher, n.d. [c.15 September 1964] and 8 October 1964, “Committee for a Humane Abortion Law,” 7 November 1964, Guttmacher Papers; Garrow conversation with Robert E. Hall; AHA Press Release, 18 February 1965, Ruth Smith Papers Box 1.

54. New York Post, 25 November 1964, p. 26; New York Herald Tribune, 25 November 1964; “Testimony of Harriet F. Pilpel,” 24 November 1964, p. 20; “Therapeutic Abortion,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 41 (April 1965): 406–409 [7 December 1964]; New York Times, 14 December 1964, p. 48; Time, 25 December 1964, p. 53; Hall to Lader, 1 December 1964, Lader to Hall, 17 and 29 December 1964, Lader Box 2; Smith to Lonny Myers, 2 October 1967, ARAI I-7; Garrow conversation with Robert E. Hall. Also see Pilpel, “Sex vs. the Law: A Study in Hypocrisy,” Harper’s 230 (January 1965): 35–40, which speaks of “a fundamental human right of privacy.”

55. “Association for Humane Abortion Organized,” Ethical Culture Today 1 (February 1965): 1 and 4; AHA Press Release, 18 February 1965, Ruth Smith Papers Box 1; Soll Goodman to Ernst, 28 January and 4 February 1965, Ernst to Goodman, 10 February 1965, Ernst Box 592; AHA News Vol. 1, #1, n.d. [c.13 March 1965]; New York Times, 31 January 1965, p. 73; Modern Medicine, 15 February 1965, pp. 22, 26; Medical World News, 5 March 1965, pp. 38–39; Hall, “New York Abortion Law Survey,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 93 (15 December 1965): 1182–1183 (“Education of the laity and even of the legal profession will be time consuming. Meanwhile it devolves upon the obstetricians, who are most familiar with the problem and its need for solution, to define the former and promote the latter”). Also see Hall, “Therapeutic Abortion, Sterilization, and Contraception,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 91 (15 February 1965): 518–532.

56. “A New Abortion Law,” New York Times, 13 February 1965, p. 26; New York Times, 27 February 1965, p. 24 (Byrn), 4 March 1965, p. 30, 16 April 1965, p. 28 (Means), 30 April 1965, p. 34; AHA Press Release, 18 February 1965, Ruth Smith Papers, Box 1; AHA News Vol. 1, #1, n.d. [c.13 March 1965]; Lader to Maginnis, 23 February 1965, Lader Box 1; Lee R. Dice, “When Abortion Is Justified,” The Nation 200 (22 February 1965): 189–191; Sutton to Guttmacher, 4 March 1965, Guttmacher Papers; New York World-Telegram & Sun, 19 March 1965, p. 11; Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act, p. 24; Michael S. Sands, “The Therapeutic Abortion Act,” UCLA Law Review 13 (January 1966): 285–312, esp. 307–312; Alan F. Charles to Lader, 29 January 1965, Lader Box 2. The best-known and most significant previous reversal of an M.D.’s conviction was in People v. Ballard, 335 P.2d 204 (2d Dist. Ct. App. 1959). Also see Edwin M. Schur, Crimes Without Victims (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 57–58; and Sybil Meloy, “Pre-Implantation Fertility Control and the Abortion Laws,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 41 (Fall 1964): 183–206; but see John G. Herbert, “Is Legalized Abortion the Solution to Criminal Abortion?,” University of Colorado Law Review 37 (Winter 1965): 283–292.

57. Duncan Simmons to Guttmacher, 9 March 1965, Guttmacher Papers; Dallas Morning News, 20 March 1965; David Lowe, Abortion and the Law (New York: Pocket Books, 1966), esp. pp. 37–38, 57–58, 80–88, 90, 114–116; “The Cruel Abortion Law,” New York Times, 7 April 1965, p. 42, also see 2 June 1965, p. 44. A low-visibility reform bill that was never acted upon (S.B. 349) also was introduced in the Ohio legislature, as was one in Wisconsin. David Lowe produced the CBS documentary, and his paperback book is based directly on it.

58. Lader, “The Scandal of Abortion Laws,” New York Times Magazine, 25 April 1965, pp. 32ff; William Kopit and Pilpel, “Abortion and the New York Penal Laws,” 20 April 1965, ACLU 1966 Vol. 12, pp. 4–5; Means to Ruth P. Smith, 11 April 1965, Lader Box 2; Means to Smith, 18 April 1965, Guttmacher Papers; Means to John Pemberton, 21 April 1965, ACLU 1965 Vol. 7; Means to Lader, 6 May 1965, Means to Jack Star, 21 May 1965, Lader Box 2. On the impact of Lader’s article, also see America, 15 May 1965, p. 703; and Alan Reitman to ASA, 2 June 1965, ACLU 1965 Vol. 7.

59. Los Angeles Times, 13 May 1965, 14 May 1965, p. II-1; Life, 4 June 1965, pp. 24–31; Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, pp. 81–82; New York Times, 22 June 1965, p. 42; Allan J. Rosenberg and Emmanuel Silver, “Suicide, Psychiatrists and Therapeutic Abortion,” California Medicine 102 (June 1965): 407–411, at 410–411. Also see America, 19 June 1965, pp. 877–881, and 16 October 1965, pp. 436–438; and both Kenneth R. Niswander, “Medical Abortion Practices in the United States,” and Harold Rosen, “Psychiatric Implications of Abortion: A Case Study in Social Hypocrisy,” Western Reserve Law Review 17 (December 1965): 403-23 and 435–464.

60. Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act, pp. 27–29; San Francisco Chronicle, 20 May 1965; Louise Butler, “The Society for Humane Abortion” (unpublished paper, 21 May 1965), SHA Papers Box 1; SHA Newsletter Vol. 1, #1 (9 May 1965), #2 (August 1965), #3 (September 1965), #4 (October-November 1965), #5 (December 1965); Maginnis and Lana Clarke Phelan Interviews with Cheek; San Jose Mercury-News, 29 August 1965, p. 32.

61. Washington Post, 30 August 1965, p. B3; “Mrs. X,” “One Woman’s Abortion,” The Atlantic 216 (August 1965): 66–68; Time, 17 September 1965, p. 82; Walter Goodman, “Abortion and Sterilization: The Search for Answers,” Redbook, October 1965, pp. 70–71, 147–150; Jack Star, “The Growing Tragedy of Illegal Abortion,” Look, 19 October 1965, pp. 149–160; Byrn, “The Abortion Question,” Catholic Lawyer 11 (Autumn 1965): 316–322, at 322; Drinan, “The Inviolability of the Right to Be Born,” Western Reserve Law Review 17 (December 1965): 465–479, at 475. Also see “Should Abortion Be Legal?” Civil Liberties in New York, October 1965, pp. 1, 6, and Riverdale Press, 4 and 11 November 1965; but see A. C. Mietus and Norbert J. Mietus, “Criminal Abortion,” American Bar Association Journal 51 (October 1965): 924–928.

62. New York Times, 26 October 1965, p. 37, 2 December 1965, p. 24, 8 December 1965, p. 46; “Abortion and the Law,” Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association 21 (March 1966): 232; Atlanta Constitution, 6 December 1965; Kummer and Leavy, “Therapeutic Abortion Law Confusion,” Journal of the American Medical Association 195 (10 January 1966): 140–144; B. James George, Jr., “Current Abortion Laws: Proposals and Movements for Reform,” and Kenneth J. Ryan, “Humane Abortion Laws and the Health Needs of Society,” Western Reserve Law Review 17 (December 1965): 371–402 and 424–434; Marvin M. Moore, “Unrealistic Abortion Laws,” Criminal Law Bulletin 1 (December 1965): 3–13; James S. Bukes and William C. Hewson, “The Legal Status of Therapeutic Abortion,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 27 (March 1966): 669–682; Savage to Philip Overton, 6 December 1965, Savage Papers; Charles R. Ross to Guttmacher, 26 October 1965, Guttmacher Papers. Apropos of the Times’s figure, a subsequent study estimated that the nationwide 1965 abortion death toll actually came to 235. Hyman Rodman et al., The Abortion Question (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), p. 46. Early in 1965 the Times had reported a 1964 New York City illegal abortion death toll totaling seventy-nine, assertedly the lowest on record. 11 January 1965, p. 42. A subsequent review of 223 abortion deaths recorded in one state between August 1957 and December 1965 is Leon P. Fox, “Abortion Deaths in California,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 98 (1 July 1967): 645–653.

63. Erskine, “The Polls,” p. 499; New York Herald Tribune, 7 March 1966, pp. 17, 19; New York Times, 24 April 1966, p. 83; Rossi, “Abortion Laws and Their Victims,” Transaction 3 (September-October 1966): 7–12; Rossi, “Public Views on Abortion,” in Guttmacher, ed., The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, pp. 26–53; America, 12 February 1966, p. 219. Also note the results of an otherwise undocumented 18 January 1966 CBS News “National Health Quiz” which asked simply “Would you favor relaxation of existing abortion laws?” and reported that 43 percent of whoever the respondents were said yes, and 39 percent no. See Anthony C. Beilenson, “The Therapeutic Abortion Act,” Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 41 (May 1966): 316–319, 344–346, at 319. On ASA, see Ruth P. Smith, “Executive Director’s Report,” 27 October 1965, “Headquarters Report,” 19 November 1965, and “Report of the Executive Director,” 30 March 1966, Smith Papers, Box 1.

64. Russell B. Shaw, Abortion and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Family Life Bureau, NCWC, February 1966), esp. p. 9; Buckley, “The Catholic Church and Abortion,” National Review, 5 April 1966, p. 308; Richard P. Byrne, “A Critical Look at Legalized Abortion,” Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 41 (May 1966): 320–323, 347–354; Wall Street Journal, 15 February 1966, pp. 1, 18; Atlanta Constitution, 27 April 1966, pp. 1, 9; Chicago Tribune Magazine, 13 February 1966, pp. 18ff; Phelan, “Abortion Laws: The Cruel Fraud,” and Transcript, “Twentieth Century Women and Archaic Abortion Laws,” 9 January 1966, SHA Papers II-22, esp. pp. 133–134, 139, 149; SHA Newsletter Vol. 2 #1 (February-March 1966), #2 (April-May 1966). Three standard volumes survey the development of Roman Catholic doctrine concerning abortion: Roger J. Huser, The Crime of Abortion in Canon Law (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1942); John Connery, Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1977); Susan Teft Nicholson, Abortion and the Roman Catholic Church (Knoxville, TN: Religious Ethics, 1978). Also see John T. Noonan, Jr., “Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History,” Natural Law Forum 12 (1967): 85–131, Hans Lotstra, Abortion: The Catholic Debate in America (New York: Irvington Publishers, 1985), and Patricia B. Jung and Thomas A. Shannon, eds., Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate (New York: Crossroad, 1988).

65. New York Times, 3 March 1966, p. 24, 7 March 1966, pp. 26, 28, 8 March 1966, p. 28, 16 March 1965, p. 28, 23 March 1966, p. 46 (Pilpel); “Testimony of Harriet F. Pilpel,” 7 March 1966, Lucas Box 28; “Minutes of the Proceedings of a Public Hearing of the Assembly Health Committee on Abortion,” 7 March 1966, 141pp., ACLU 1966 Vol. 12, esp. pp. 20 and 100; New York Post, 13 March 1966, p. 31; ASA News, Spring 1966. Also see Pilpel, “Birth Control, Abortion and Sterilization—The Dynamics of Intervention by Judicial, Administrative, Professional and Lay Action,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 36 (March 1966): 207–208; Pilpel, “The Abortion Crisis—Danger and Opportunity” (unpublished paper, August 1966), 8pp., ARAI 10–6, p. 6 (“The basic theory of the Connecticut birth control decision suggests that if the abortion laws are strictly and literally interpreted, they too, may well be unconstitutional”); Pilpel, “Birth Control and a New Birth of Freedom,” Ohio State Law Journal 27 (Fall 1966): 679–690; and Civil Liberties in New York 18 (April 1970): 2–3. Pilpel’s August 1966 paper subsequently appeared as “The Abortion Crisis” in Guttmacher, ed., The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, pp. 97–113.

66. ASA Board Minutes, 18 January, 1 March, and 20 April 1966, Lader Box 13; New York Times, 31 March 1966, p. 13; Ralph M. Crowley and Robert W. Laidlaw, “Psychiatric Opinion Regarding Abortion,” American Journal of Psychiatry 124 (October 1967): 559–562; H. Benjamin Munson, “Abortion in Modern Times: Thoughts and Comments,” South Dakota Journal of Medicine 19 (April 1966): 23–25, 28–30, and Munson, “Let’s Legalize Abortions,” United Church Herald, February 1967, pp. 25–27; Dallas Morning News, 16 April 1966; Houston Chronicle, 17 April 1966, 24 April 1966, p. II-4; Dallas Times Herald, 18 April 1966; Houston Post, 21 April and 22 and 29 May 1966; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 21 June 1966, 22 June 1966, pp. VI-4, 5, 23 June 1966; C. Lincoln Williston to Savage, 10 May 1966, and Joe T. Nelson to Lowell B. Baker, 7 April 1967, Savage Papers. Also see AMA News, 23 May 1966, p. 9; New York Times, 6 May 1966, p. 31, 20 July 1966, p. 83; Ruth and Edward Brecher, New York Times Magazine, 29 May 1966, pp. 6–7ff; and especially Kenneth R. Niswander et al., “Changing Attitudes Toward Therapeutic Abortion,” Journal of the American Medical Association 196 (27 June 1966): 124–127.

67. Alfred L. Severson to Roemer, to Kinsolving, and to Keith P. Russell, 30 March 1966, Dorothy C. Stolz to Severson, 1 April 1966, Roemer to Kinsolving, 4 April 1966, Stolz to Kinsolving, 5 April 1966, Severson to Kinsolving, 5 April 1966, Kinsolving to Severson, 18 April 1966 (II), Stolz to CCTA Board, 19 May 1966, Kinsolving to Stolz, 23 May 1966, CCTA Board Minutes, 1 June 1966, CCTA Boxes 7 and 1; Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act, p. 36; Roemer to Egeberg and Russell, 18 January 1969, CCTA Box 4; Garrow conversations with Ruth Roemer and Keith P. Russell; Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, pp. 84–85.

68. Lawrence Sherwin and Edmund W. Overstreet, “Therapeutic Abortion: Attitudes and Practices of California Physicians,” California Medicine 105 (November 1966): 337–339; Joseph L. Shalant, “Abortion Laws and Why the Court Must Act” (unpublished paper, 25 April 1966), 94pp., ACLU 1966 Vol. 11; Newsweek, 6 June 1966, p. 58; New York Times, 19 June 1966, p. 88; “The Better Way: The Campaign to Make Legal Abortion Easier,” Good Housekeeping 164 (March 1967): 191–193; Gerald M. Feigen letter, Playboy, May 1967, pp. 149–150; CCTA Board Minutes, 1 June 1966, CCTA Box 7; Ruth P. Smith to Severson, 17 June 1966, Smith Box 1; Kinsolving to CCTA Board, 25 July 1966, CCTA Box 1; San Francisco Chronicle, 26 July 1966, 19 August 1966; Roemer to Sunnen, 1 August 1966, CCTA Box 7; New York Times, 24 September 1966, p. 19; San Francisco Examiner, 26, 27, and 28 September 1966; SHA Newsletter Vol. 3 #1 (January-February 1967); Leavy to Joseph L. Carr, 9 September 1966, CCTA Box 1; “Policy Statement on Abortion,” ACLU of Southern California, 21 September 1966, ACLU 1967 Vol. 5; Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act, pp. 37–39; Maginnis Interview with Cheek, pp. 105–125; Garrow conversations with Keith P. Russell, Ruth Roemer, and Zad Leavy; Leavy, “The Legalization of Therapeutic Abortion,” Emko Newsletter, April 1973, pp. 1–3; Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, pp. 86–87. Also see Lader, Abortion, pp. 172–173, 175.

69. Stolz, “Progress Report,” 28 September and 26 October 1966, CCTA Box 7; ASA News, November-December 1966; Savage, “Report of the Special Committee to Study Abortion Laws in Texas,” 1 October 1966, William G. Reid to C. Lincoln Williston, 10 November 1966, Peggy J. Whalley to Savage, 14 December 1966, Williston to Savage, 28 December 1966, Savage Papers; Houston Post, 9 November 1966; Blumenthal to Lader, 19 September 1966, John V. P. Lassoe to William Genne, 12 September 1966, Blumenthal and Charles M. Kinsolving, Jr., to Hall, 25 October 1966, Lader to Blumenthal and Kinsolving, 2 November 1966, Lader to Blumenthal, Hall and Kinsolving, 11 November 1966, Lader Box 4; William B. Ober, “We Should Legalize Abortion,” Saturday Evening Post, 8 October 1966, pp. 14, 20; Ober to John Holloman, 3 November 1966, “Bill” [Ober] to Lader, 8 November 1966, Lader Box 7. On Ober, see his New York Times obituary, 1 May 1993, p. 31. Also see CCTA Board Minutes, and Kinsolving, “Progress Report,” 28 September 1966, and Roemer to Robert Lamb, 30 September 1966, CCTA Boxes 7 and 1; D. Frank Kaltreider, “Changing Attitudes Toward Abortion, Sterilization, and Contraception,” Texas Medicine 62 (August 1966): 40–45; and ASA Board Minutes, 19 September 1966, Lader Box 13. Previous New York assembly sponsor Percy Sutton had left the legislature to become Manhattan Borough President.

70. “The Right to Abortion,” The Nation 203 (17 October 1966): 373–374; Newsweek, 14 November 1966, p. 92; New York Times, 25 October 1966, p. 29, 4 December 1966, p. 81. Also see San Francisco Chronicle, 11 October 1966, pp. 1, 16; Hall, “Abortion in American Hospitals,” American Journal of Public Health 57 (November 1967): 1933–1936; Hall, “Present Abortion Practices in Hospitals of New York State,” New York Medicine 23 (March 1967): 124–126; H. Martin Huddleston, “The Law of Therapeutic Abortion: A Social Commentary on Proposed Reform,” Journal of Public Law 1966: 386–400; and particularly Thomas S. Szasz, “The Ethics of Abortion,” The Humanist 26 (September-October 1966): 147–148, who offered a unique argument for repeal and against reform. Calling abortion “no more a medical problem than the use of the electric chair makes capital punishment a problem of electrical engineering,” Szasz asserted that if a fetus was a human person, “it is no more reasonable to condone killing the fetus because it threatens the woman’s mental health, than it is to condone killing her husband or mother-in-law because they threaten her mental health.” “The proper remedy,” he concluded, “must be sought not in medically and psychiatrically ‘liberal’ abortion laws, but in the repeal of all such laws.” Also see both Alice S. Rossi, “Public Views on Abortion,” and Pat Maginnis, “Elective Abortion as a Woman’s Right,” in Guttmacher, ed., The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, pp. 26–53 and 131–144. Rossi stated (p. 31) that “no woman should bear any child she does not want” and Maginnis (p. 137) criticized reform bills for failing to acknowledge “the individual woman as capable of exercising self determination.” Maginnis and her colleague Rowena Gurner were also subsequently arrested in February 1967 in Redwood City for distributing abortion information, and again the charges were eventually dismissed.

On ASA, see ASA Board Minutes, 22 November 1966, Lader Box 13 and Smith Box 1; Hall to Guttmacher, 23 November 1966, Guttmacher Papers; Robert L. Goldberg to Hall, and Louis M. Hellman to Smith, 6 December 1966, Smith to ASA Board, 9 January 1967, Smith Box 1, and Smith to Lonny Myers, 27 March 1967, ARAI 8–7.

71. “A Report,” Citizens for the Extension of Birth Control Services, 24 August 1962, Myers 1–10; Myers to Marjorie Pinschmidt, 29 October 1965, ARAI 2–11; Myers to Robert Hartman, 26 October 1966, Myers to Jeanne Spurlock, 22 November 1966, Myers to “Dear Fellow Citizen,” February-March 1967, ARAI 2–1 and 1–7 and Lader Box 4; Chicago Sun-Times, 9 February 1969, pp. F1, F16; Myers Interview with Chester; Garrow conversations with Myers and with Shaw; Staggenborg, The Pro-Choice Movement, pp. 16–17.

72. Leavy and Kay, “Brief as Amici Curiae for Doctors Gail V. Anderson et al.,” Shively v. Board of Medical Examiners, Cal. Sup. Ct. #7756, 28 November 1966, 39pp., ACLU 1967 Vol. 19, esp. pp. 17, 23–27; Leavy and Kummer, “Abortion and the Population Crisis: Therapeutic Abortion and the Law; Some New Approaches,” Ohio State Law Journal 27 (Fall 1966): 647–678, at 672–674; Leavy and Kay, “First Errata Sheet to Brief as Amici Curiae …” Shively and Smith v. Stewart, #7756, 18pp., 2 December 1966; Leavy to Pilpel, 23 December 1966, CCTA Box 10; Keith Russell to Kinsolving, 18 November 1966, and Kinsolving to Ruth Roemer, 30 December 1966, CCTA Box 1; CCTA Newsletter, January 1967.

73. New York Times, 13 December 1966, p. 52, 22 December 1966, p. 35, 3 January 1967, p. 36, 7 January 1967, p. 26, 11 January 1967, p. 54, 13 January 1967, p. 22, 18 January 1967, p. 29, 30 January 1967, pp. 1, 40, 31 January 1967, p. 25; Pilpel, “Testimony,” 3 February 1967, ACLU 1967 Vol. 5, pp. 8–9; New York Times, 4 February 1967, p. 24, 9 February 1967, p. 24, 10 February 1967, p. 39, 11 February 1967, p. 18, 12 February 1967, pp. 61, E5, 13 February 1967, pp. 1, 50, 14 February 1967, pp. 32, 42, 18 February 1967, pp. 1, 28 (Marya Mannes), and 30, 20 February 1967, pp. 1, 24, 21 February 1967, p. 46, 23 February 1967, pp. 1, 41, 25 February 1967, pp. 1, 30; Medical World News, 24 February 1967, pp. 58–64; “Abortion and the Law,” JAMA 199 (16 January 1967): 179–180. Also see Larry P. Pletcher, “New York State Abortion Reform, 1967: A Case Study” (unpublished B.A. thesis, Princeton University, 1968), esp. p. 55; and Mark S. Reingold, “Abortion Law Reform in New York: A Study of Religious, Moral, Medical and Legal Conflict,” Albany Law Review 31 (June 1967): 290–309, for an explication of the Blumenthal bill’s provisions. See as well Marya Mannes, “A Woman Views Abortion,” in Guttmacher, ed., The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, pp. 54–60, esp. p. 59 (“the right to control what takes place within our own body”).

74. Christian Century, 1 February 1967, p. 132; Moody, “Man’s Vengeance on Woman: Some Reflections on Abortion Laws,” Renewal, February 1967, pp. 8–9; Time, 10 February 1967, p. 47; Commonweal, 24 February 1967, pp. 582–583; Byrn, “Abortion in Perspective,” Duquesne University Law Review 5 (1966–67): 125–141; Byrn, “Abortion—A Legal View,” Commonweal, 17 March 1967, pp. 679–681, at 680; Drinan, “Strategy on Abortion,” America, 4 February 1967, pp. 177–179; Hall, “The Medico-Legal Aspects of Abortion,” Criminologica 4 (February 1967): 7–10, at 8. See as well John C. Bennett, “The Abortion Debate,” Christianity & Crisis, 20 March 1967, pp. 47–48; Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., “An Analysis and Criticism of the Model Penal Code Provisions on the Law of Abortion,” Western Reserve Law Review 18 (January 1967): 540–564; David Granfield, “Law and Morals,” Criminologica 4 (February 1967): 11–19; Richard J. Neuhaus, “The Dangerous Assumptions,” Commonweal, 30 June 1967, pp. 408–413; also see Hall to ASA Board, 16 January 1967, Guttmacher Papers.

On the ACLU discussions, see Joel Gora to Alan Reitman, 2 and 19 October 1966, ACLU 1967 Vol. 19, Reitman to Thomas Browning, 5 January 1967, “The Office” to Board Members, “Due Process Committee Recommendation on Abortion,” 8 February 1967, ACLU Board Minutes, 14 February 1967, pp. 3–7, Edward J. Ennis to Due Process Committee, 20 February 1967, Kenyon to “Dear Fellow Board Member,” 21 February 1967, Ennis to “Dear Fellow Board Member,” 24 February 1967, ACLU 1967 Vol. 5; Lois G. Forer to Kenyon, 27 February 1967, Kenyon to Forer, 6 March 1967, Kenyon Boxes 45 and 44; Kenyon, “Women of the U.S.A., Awake!,” N.Y. ADA Bulletin, March 1967, p. 3; also see George Soll to Ennis, 3 March 1967, Ennis to Soll, 6 March 1967, ACLU Due Process Committee Minutes, 8 March 1967, ACLU 1967 Vols. 19 and 5; Kenyon to Pilpel, 13 and 26 April 1967, Pilpel to Kenyon, 18 April 1967, and Kenyon to Reitman, 19 April 1967, Kenyon Boxes 44 and 45.

75. Long Island Press, 5 and 14 May 1965, 8 and 22 September 1965, 6 November 1965; New York Times, 10 June 1965, p. 30; New York Daily News, 14 May 1965; New York Herald Tribune, 16 May and 3 October 1965; People v. Baird, 262 N.Y.S.2d 947 (Nassau County Dist. Ct. 1965); New York Post, 23 September 1965, p. 46; New York Times, 13 August 1966, p. 14; State v. Baird, 50 NJ. 376, 235 A.2d 673 (1967); “Students Picket Planned Parenthood,” Delphian [Adelphi University], 26 October 1966, pp. 1, 13; Newsday, 20 February 1967; Village Voice, 18 August 1966, pp. 1, 18–19, 23 February 1967; National Observer, 12 December 1966, pp. 1, 12; Sepia, July 1967, pp. 31–36; Garrow conversations with Bill Baird and Larry Lader.

76. Connecticut General Assembly, Joint Legislative Hearings Transcript, Judiciary Committees, 21 February 1967, Connecticut State Library, esp. pp. 73, 80; New York Times, 22 February 1967, p. 29. On the subsequent measure, H.B. 4767, see Judiciary Committees Hearing Transcript, 21 March 1967, esp. pp. 548–553; Garrow conversation with Donald J. Cantor.

77. Daniel J. O’Neil, Church Lobbying in a Western State: A Case Study on Abortion Legislation (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1970), esp. pp. 22–26, 35–37, 41–43, 58.

78. Sagar C. Jain and Laurel F. Gooch, Georgia Abortion Act, 1968: A Study in Legislative Process (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina School of Public Health, 1972), pp. 12-17, 27–31; Atlanta Journal, 24 January 1967, 8 and 20 February 1967, 2, 14, and 15 March 1967; Atlanta Constitution, 6 February 1967, 8 February 1967, p. 1, 14 March 1967, p. 16, 15 March 1967; New York Times, 12 February 1967, p. 64; Georgia Bulletin, 2 March 1967; Joseph L. Girardeau, “The Abortion Law,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 56 (August 1967): 340; Garrow interview with W. Newton Long.

79. New York Times, 27 February 1967, pp. 1, 21–23, 28, 28 February 1967, p. 26, 6 March 1967, p. 28, 8 March 1967, pp. 1, 37, 44, 9 March 1967, p. 41, 12 March 1967, pp. 81, E2, 13 March 1967, p. 40; Life, 3 March 1967, p. 4; Guttmacher to Rockefeller, 15 March 1967, Guttmacher Papers; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 11, 24–26, 44; Lassoe to Organizations Interested in Abortion Law Reform, 27 March and 16 May 1967, Lader Box 4; Lader to Cyril Means et al., “Legal Meeting on Test Case,” n.d. [c.mid-March 1967], 2pp., Means to Lader, 14 April 1967, Pilpel to Means, 18 April 1967, Lader to Pilpel, 22 April 1967, Means to Pilpel, 26 April 1967, Lader Box 7; Blumenthal to Richard D. Lamm, 5 May 1967, Lamm Papers; Garrow conversations with Lawrence Lader, Milan Vuitch, Robert E. Hall, John V. P. Lassoe, and Jimmye Kimmey. Also see Newsweek, 20 March 1967, pp. 71–73; Morris Ernst to Lader, 15 and 31 March 1967, Lader Box 7. Relative to Means, also see the pessimistic comments of B. J. George, Jr., in Illinois Medical Journal 131 (May 1967): 666–700, at 699–700 (“liberalization will not be achieved through new judicial decisions, but only through new legislation that will be passed when the popular pressures for reform become strong enough”). In another indication of ASA’s relative moderation, executive director Jimmye Kimmey three months earlier had written to Chicago’s Lonny Myers that “The question of abortion on demand is one that I still am not clear about.” 21 December 1966, ARAI 10–15.

80. On Indiana, see Robert Force, “Legal Problems of Abortion Law Reform,” Administrative Law Review 19 (July 1967): 364–382, esp. at 364. On North Dakota, see Faye D. Ginsburg, Contested Lives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 65, 147–150. On Hawaii, see Patricia G. Steinhoff and Milton Diamond, Abortion Politics: The Hawaii Experience (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1977), pp. 8–10. On New Jersey, see Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 227 A.2d 689, 693 (6 March 1967); New York Times, 8 March 1967, p. 37, 14 March 1967, p. 49.

81. “Legalize Abortion Now,” and Baird, “Abortions: The Necessity for Legalization,” B.U. News, 8 March 1967, p. 9; Mungo, Beyond the Revolution (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1990), p. 138; Garrow conversations with William R. Baird.

82. Boston Herald, 7 April 1967, pp. 1, 4; Boston Record American, 7 April 1967, pp. 1, 2, 32, 6 June 1967, p. 4; Boston Globe, 7 April 1967, 8 April 1967, p. 24, 26 April 1967, 7 May 1967, p. 22, 8 May 1967, pp. 1, 16, 10 May 1967, p. 13, 9 November 1969, 4 April 1982, pp. B1, B2; New York Times, 7 April 1967, p. 14; B.U. News, 12 April 1967, p. 1, 3 May 1967, p. 7, 10 May 1967, p. 1; Collegiate Cauldron, 13 April 1967, p. 1; Boston Traveler, 8 May 1967, pp. 1, 11; [Massachusetts] Planned Parenthood News, May 1967, p. 2; Hazel Sagoff to Katherine Howard, 29 June 1967, Baird Papers; Gene Marine and Art Goldberg, “That’ll Be a Big Step Forward, Won’t It?,” Ramparts, July 1967, pp. 45–49, at 48; Art Goldberg, “The Perils of the Pill,” Ramparts, May 1969, pp. 45–48; Baird and Robert Mamis, “The Rights of Woman,” Boston Magazine, August 1969; Campbell Interview with Reed, pp. 68–69; Garrow conversations with William R. Baird.

83. Cal Queal, “How Colorado Changed Its Abortion Law,” Denver Post Empire Magazine, 18 June 1967, pp. 38–45; Robert I. Sanders and Carlton R. Stoiber, “Colorado’s New Abortion Law,” University of Colorado Law Review 40 (Winter 1968): 297–314; Olga Curtis, “The Paradox of Colorado’s Abortion Law,” Denver Post Empire Magazine, 18 January 1970, pp. 30–31; Rose Bacon, “How Liberalized Abortion Became Law in One State,” Ave Maria, 22 July 1967, pp. 16–18; Douglas G. McConnell, “The Coming of an Idea: Abortion Reform in Colorado” (unpublished paper, Eagleton Institute, 6 May 1968), 67pp., Lader Box 4; Lamm to Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., 28 April 1969, Lamm Papers; Lamm et al., “The Legislative Process in Changing Therapeutic Abortion Laws: The Colorado Experience,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 39 (July 1969): 684–690, esp. at 685; Lamm, “Abortion—A Case Study in Legislative Reform” (unpublished paper, 1970), 21pp., Lader Box 6; Conrad M. Riley to Richard Frank, 22 July 1969, ARAI 1–12; Lamm Interview with Garrow. Also see “Report Submitted by Ruth A. Steel,” 15 February 1969, 4pp., ARAI 12–7; Susan Barnes’s remarks in “Abortion,” American Journal of Nursing 70 (September 1970): 1919–1925; and Patricia Donovan’s profile of Lamm in Family Planning/Population Reporter 3 (December 1974): 120–121.

84. Denver Post, 23 February 1967, 1 March 1967, p. 32, 10 March 1967, pp. 1, 3, 17 March 1967, p. 35, 24 March 1967, p. 15; John Bermingham, “Legislative Experience and Tactics,” in Warren M. Hern and Bonnie Andrikopoulos, eds., Abortion in the Seventies (New York: National Abortion Federation, 1977), pp. 221–222; Lamm et al., “The Legislative Process,” pp. 687–689; McConnell, “The Coming of an Idea”; Lamm, “Abortion—A Case Study,” p. 9; Jack Star, “Report from Colorado …” Look, 11 July 1967, pp. 67–69; Sanders and Stoiber, “Colorado’s New Abortion Law”; Bacon, “How Liberalized Abortion Became Law”; Lamm Interview with Garrow. Also see Lamm to D. J. Kwitek, 28 February 1967, Lamm to Father John F. Slattery, 1 March 1967, Dorothy E. Walsh to Lamm, 5 March 1967, Daniel Goldbeger to Lamm, Slattery to Lamm, and Lamm to Barbara Rutherford, 7 March 1967, Lamm to Slattery, and Catherine Maloney to Lamm, 10 March 1967, Jack Knudsen to Lamm, and Lamm to Art and Morley Ballantine, 15 March 1967, Lamm Papers; Lamm to Larry Lader, 17 May 1967 and 28 August 1970, Ruth Steel to Lader, 23 January 1968, Lader Boxes 4 and 6; and Steven Levine, “Report on Survey of Colorado Legislators Regarding the Abortion Law of l967” (unpublished paper, n.d.), 5pp., Lucas Box 2.

85. Denver Post, 29 March 1967, 3 April 1967, p. 15, 4 April 1967, pp. 1, 3, 5 April 1967, 6 April 1967, 7 April 1967, pp. 1, 14, 9 April 1967, 11 April 1967, 12 April 1967, p. B2, 13 April 1967, p. 26, 17 April 1967, p. 14; Bermingham, “Legislative Experience and Tactics,” pp. 221–222; New York Times, 9 April 1967, p. 34, 26 April 1967, pp. 49, 53, 29 April 1967, p. 34, 30 April 1967, pp. 60, E6; Lamm to Love, “Arguments in Favor of Revision of Abortion Laws,” 15 April 1967, 3pp., Lamm Papers; Saturday Evening Post, 3 June 1967, p. 96; Sam W. Downing et al., “Abortion Under the New Colorado Law,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2 (May 1969): 256–264, at 258; Olga Curtis, “The Paradox of Colorado’s Abortion Law,” Denver Post Empire Magazine, 18 January 1970, pp. 30–31; Lamm to Lader, 2 May 1967, Lader Box 6; Marks in Jack Star, “Report from Colorado …” Look, 11 July 1967, pp. 67–69; Lamm Interview with Garrow.

86. Modern Medicine, 24 April 1967, pp. 12–16, 22–32, and New York Times, 30 April 1967, p. 82; Dallas Morning News, 6 January 1967, pp. A1, A11, 8 January 1967, 14 January 1967, p. C8, 22 February 1967, p. A6, 26 February 1967, pp. A28, A31, 21 March 1967, p. D20, 6 May 1967, p. A12; Savage, “Minutes of the Special Committee to Study Abortion Laws in Texas,” 20 January 1967, and Savage to Keith P. Russell, 23 January 1967, Savage Papers; 1967 Texas Senate Journal, pp. 281 and 485 (21 February and 21 March); Dallas Times-Herald, 21 February 1967, p. B26, 25 February 1967, pp. 29, 31, 21 March 1967, p. A4, 6 May 1967, 7 May 1967, pp. 31, 33; Parkhouse Press Release and “Dear Editor” letter, 21 February 1967, Legislative Reference Division, Texas State Library; Texas Committee for the Modernization of Therapeutic Abortion Laws, “The Case for Humane Abortion,” undated pamphlet, Whitehill Papers; Houston Post, 26 February 1967, p. 5; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 21 March 1967; Houston Chronicle, 21 March 1967. On Parkhouse’s planned retirement from the legislature, see Dallas Morning News, 30 May 1967; for his obituaries see the Austin American-Statesman, 25 August 1967, and the Dallas Times Herald, 24 August 1967, pp. 1, 18.

87. Sagar C. Jain and Steven W. Sinding, North Carolina Abortion Law 1967 (Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, 1968), passim; “Remarks of Representative Art Jones,” [15 July 1967], Chapel Hill, NC, 6pp., Lader Box 4; Jones to Lee Gidding, 20 February 1970, NARAL Box 5; Kuralt to Lader, 24 August 1970, Lader Box 4; [Raleigh] News & Observer, 5 May 1967, p. 1, 9 May 1967, p. 6; New York Times, 6 May 1967, p. 25, 9 May 1967, p. 36. Also see H. Hugh Stevens, Jr., “Criminal Law—Abortion—The New North Carolina Abortion Statute,” North Carolina Law Review 46 (April 1968): 585–599.

88. Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act 1967, pp. 41–89; Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, pp. 89–93, Zad Leavy to Carol Katz et al., 28 March 1967, ACLU 1967 Vol. 19; New York Times, 29 April 1967, p. 14, 7 June 1967, p. 35, 14 June 1967, p. 19, 16 June 1967, p. 24; Leavy and Alan F. Charles, “California’s New Therapeutic Abortion Act,” UCLA Law Review 15 (November 1967): 1–31; Brian Pendleton, “The California Therapeutic Abortion Act,” Hastings Law Journal 19 (November 1967): 242–255, esp. at 246; Beilenson Interviews with Edginton and Garrow. Also see California Medicine 106 (April 1967): 318–319; New York Times, 13 April 1967, p. 15; and Patricia Donovan’s profile of Beilenson in Family Planning/Population Law Reporter 2 (April 1973): 34–36; see as well Norbert J. Mietus, The Therapeutic Abortion ActA Statement in Opposition (Sacramento, CA, mimeograph), 104pp., April 1967.

89. Jain and Hughes, California Abortion Act 1967, pp. 71, 87; Leavy and Charles, “The Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967,” Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 43 (January 1968): 111–114, 133–137, at 112; Garrow conversations with Ruth Roemer, Zad Leavy, and Keith P. Russell.

90. Leland Rayson, “Abortion Law Reform in Illinois?,” Student Lawyer Journal, December 1968, pp. 18–23; Chicago Daily News, 1 March 1967, pp. 29–30; “Medical Implications of the Current Abortion Law in Illinois,” Illinois Medical Journal 131 (May 1967): 666–700; Issue [ICMCA Newsletter] #1 (1 May 1967), #2 (July 1967), #3 (November 1967); Don Shaw to Howard Moody, 4 August 1967, ARAI 1–15; Myers, “Abortion Is a Private Matter,” Focus/Midwest 5 (#38), n.d. [c.Fall 1967], pp. 38–40; Garrow conversations with Lonny Myers and Don Shaw.

91. On Minnesota, see St. Paul Pioneer Press, 14 January 1967, p. C8, and Minneapolis Tribune, 7 March 1967, p. 4; also see Minnesota Medicine 50 (January 1967): 55–59 and 119–126. On Michigan, where the state Senate Judiciary Committee held a 28 August 1967 hearing on SB 568, see Daniel G. Wylie, “Abortion Reform in Michigan,” Wayne Law Review 14 (1968): 1006–1029; on Iowa, see James C. Mohr, “Iowa’s Abortion Battles of the Late 1960s and Early 1970s,” Annals of Iowa 50 (Summer 1989): 63–89, at 70–71. On Ohio, see the 1 February and 26 May 1967 issues of the Ohio Committee for Abortion Law Reform’s (OCALR) OCALR Newsletter, ARAI 4–31, and Sherman Goldberg, “An Analysis of the Proposed Changes to the Ohio Abortion Statute,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 37 (Spring 1968): 340–360; on Republican state senator Robert L. Prange’s Missouri bill, see St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 25 May 1967, p. C1. On Alabama, see Birmingham Post-Herald, 29 June 1967, p. 5, 25 August 1967, p. 2; and Birmingham News, 24 July 1967, p. 17.

92. On Nevada, see James T. Richardson and Sandie W. Fox, “Religious Affiliation as a Predictor of Voting Behavior in Abortion Reform Legislation,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11 (December 1972): 347–359; on Maryland, see the remarks of Delegate Allen B. Spector in “Abortion and the Law,” Current Medical Digest, September 1969, pp. 751–775, at 756. On Oklahoma, see the references in Modern Hospital, August 1967, pp. 90–94, and Medical Economics, 21 August 1967, pp. 21–35; on Maine, see New York Times, 16 June 1967, p. 24. On Florida, see Walter W. Sackett, Jr., to Guttmacher, 18 April 1967, Guttmacher Papers, and New York Times, 29 April 1967, p. 14, and 8 June 1967, p. 26.

93. New York Times, 21 May 1967, p. 82, 24 June 1967, p. 31; Kenyon and George Soll to ACLU Board, 9 June 1967, 5pp. (“the right to control one’s own body is a right so fundamental as to be tantamount to the right to freedom itself”), “Memo on Abortion,” 26 May 1967, 12pp., Due Process Committee to ACLU Board, “Further Recommendations,” and Legal Department to ACLU Board, “The Constitutionality of Abortion Laws,” 12 June 1967, ACLU Board Minutes, 15 June 1967, Algernon Black to Alan Reitman, 19 June 1967, Reitman to Robert E. Hall, 14 July 1967, ACLU 1967 Vol. 5; New York Times, 19 June 1967, pp. 23, 34, 22 June 1967, pp. 41, 78; Wall Street Journal, 19 June 1967, p. 9; Time, 30 June 1967, p. 44; AMA News, 3 July 1967, and 11 September 1967, p. 4; “AMA Policy on Therapeutic Abortion,” JAMA 201 (14 August 1967): 544; Raymond Tatalovich and Byron W. Daynes, The Politics of Abortion (New York: Praeger, 1981), p. 53. Also generally see Ronald M. Green, “Abortion and Promise-Keeping,” Christianity & Crisis, 15 May 1967, pp. 109–113; Robert Coles, “Who’s to Be Born?” New Republic, 10 June 1967, pp. 10–12; Phil Kerby, “Abortion: Laws and Attitudes,” The Nation, 12 June 1967, pp. 754–756; Louis B. Schwartz, “Abortion and 19th Century Laws,” Trial, June/July 1967, pp. 41, 45; Herman Schwartz, “The Parent or the Fetus?—A Survey of Abortion Law Reform,” The Humanist, July-August 1967, pp. 123–126; J. Robert Willson, “Abortion—A Medical Responsibility?,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 30 (August 1967): 294–303; and Georgia Law Review 1 (Summer 1967): 693–706.

94. New York Times, 22 May 1967, pp. 1, 36; Village Voice, 25 May 1967, p. 3; Moody and Arlene Carmen, Abortion Counseling and Social Change (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1973), esp. pp. 19–36; Lader, Abortion II, pp. 42–47; Carmen Interview with Chesler, esp. p. 6; Celeste M. Condit, Decoding Abortion Rhetoric (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), p. 60; Garrow conversations with Larry Lader and Milan Vuitch. Also see New York Times, 8 August 1973; Moody, “Abortion Revisited,” Christianity & Crisis, 21 July 1975, pp. 166–168; and Washington Post, 26 April 1989, pp. D1, D15-D16.

95. Lader to Lassoe, 30 May 1967, [Lassoe], “Ad Hoc Committee on Organization” to Interested Organizations, “Recommendations for Future Operations,” 7 June 1967, Lader Box 4; Micki Wolter to Lader, 15 May 1967, Pilpel to Wayne Decker, 31 May 1967, Lader to Pilpel, 27 June 1967, Lader to Pilpel and Ephraim London, “Abortion Test Case,” 17 July 1967, Lader Box 7; Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1979), pp. 29–31; Garrow conversations with Larry Lader and John Lassoe. On Nathanson’s initial introduction to Lader by Ober on June 2, also see Joe Klein, “Born Again,” New York Magazine, 7 January 1985, pp. 40–45, and Washington Post, 24 March 1985, pp. B1, B5-B7.