{"id":1071,"date":"2024-12-11T03:08:17","date_gmt":"2024-12-11T03:08:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=1071"},"modified":"2024-12-11T03:10:43","modified_gmt":"2024-12-11T03:10:43","slug":"carter-full-digital-humanities-project","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/chapter\/carter-full-digital-humanities-project\/","title":{"rendered":"CARTER Full Digital Humanities Project"},"content":{"raw":"<p style=\"text-align: center\"><strong><em>Griswold v Connecticut<\/em><\/strong><strong> impact on <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n<strong>Table of Contents:<\/strong>\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li><strong>Introduction<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Historiography<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Gendered Protest<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Impact<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<strong>Introduction:<\/strong>\r\n\r\nCurrently in the United States of America, women\u2019s reproductive rights are under constant threat.\u00a0 On June 24, 2022, an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court overturned <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> after almost 50 years of being the law of the land [1]. \u00a0<em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> granted women the right to an abortion under the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [2]. This restriction on women\u2019s bodily autonomy has resulted in many states passing strict abortion bans with little to no restrictions. These laws have and will continue to put women\u2019s lives at risk if not changes.\r\n\r\nLiving in a post-<em>Roe <\/em>nation, it is more important than ever to examine how individuals fought to gain access to bodily autonomy.\u00a0 For years, many feminists advocated both through social and political, like that of Estelle T. Griswold. This narrative will explore the landmark case <em>Griswold v. Connecticut <\/em>served as a form of protest in turn, expanding reproductive health care and laid the precedent for <em>Roe v. Wade.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<iframe src=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/maps\/d\/embed?mid=18VXi43LaGSsroiiOk5NyP5cvdNc5eNM&amp;ehbc=2E312F\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\"><\/iframe>\r\n\r\n[3][4][5][6]\r\n\r\n<strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Histography:<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThere have been articles written on how <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em> laid precedent for Roe v. Wade and how different components of social ideation influenced public opinion on abortion.\r\n\r\nDavid Bollier is and author and activist who wrote \u201cCrusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court\u201d.\u00a0 This document outlines specific Supreme Court cases that have impacted Connecticut, bus also American citizens.\u00a0 It highlights how one case can alter public perception and change generations\u2019 point of view on social issues.\u00a0 This article details the layered aspects of <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em>: the laws at the time, the key players, and public ideation. [7]\r\n\r\n<strong>Gendered Protest<\/strong>: <strong><em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em><\/strong><strong>: <\/strong>\r\n\r\n[embed]https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-admin\/admin-ajax.php?action=h5p_embed&amp;id=41[\/embed]\r\n\r\n<strong>[4] [5] [6]<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn 1961, Estelle T. Griswold, in an act of protest of the Comstock law began \u201cdispensing contraceptives to married couples.\u201d[8]. This law in particular, prevented women form being ale to receive birth control.\u00a0 This made it difficult for women to be able to plan their families.\u00a0 Although illegal, many affluent women were able to get the birth control pill from private doctors.\u00a0 This discriminated against \u201cUneducated and impoverished women, in particular, (who) often did not know how to obtain birth control\u201d [9].\r\n\r\nOn July 7, 1965, the Supreme court ruled in favor of Griswold and in turn, \u201cstruck down Connecticut's 86-year-old Comstock law. By a vote of 7 to 2\u201d [10]. After appealing her case to the Supreme Court, they \u201capplied the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate Bill of Rights protections to the states.\u201d [11] (Bill of Rights Institute). This helped pave the way for protection of women\u2019s reproductive health by establishing \u201cprivacy right of married couples\u201d [12]. This case was specifically used as precedent in <em>Roe v Wade .<\/em>\r\n\r\nEstelle T. Griswold\u2019s brave act of protest was specifically a gendered issue.\u00a0 Not only did she hold a position of power in Planned Parenthood, but she also actively broke the law in efforts to support women\u2019s reproductive health care.\u00a0 Griswold beveled that the country suffered from \u201cperils of overpopulation - and convinced her that better family planning was the answer\u201d [13]. She was able to open a clinic and help countless women and families.\u00a0 Her impact is being remembered as the person who \u201cinaugurated a new body of constitutional law protecting individual privacy\u201d [14].\r\n\r\n<iframe src=\"https:\/\/cdn.knightlab.com\/libs\/timeline3\/latest\/embed\/index.html?source=1Ll1TLaQqllvYs45-AdfhQJMk9NamhrpuXC4YnNdCWXc&amp;font=Default&amp;lang=en&amp;initial_zoom=2&amp;height=650\" width=\"100%\" height=\"650\" frameborder=\"0\"><\/iframe>\r\n\r\n[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]\r\n\r\n<strong>Impact:<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAfter <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em>, the precedent of right to privacy under the 14th amendment, it was used as precedent in the following cases:\r\n\r\n<strong><em>Eisenstadt v. Baird:<\/em><\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn 1972, the Supreme court ruled in favor of William Braid, who gave contraceptives to a nineteen year old, unmarried women. At the time, this violated Massachusetts law.\u00a0 He was charged with \u201ctwo crimes, one for showing the contraceptives, and a second for distributing them.\u201d [23].\u00a0 Braid argued that only allowing married individuals to have access to contraception was discriminatory.\u00a0 This case built off of <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em>, once again naming the due process clause in the 14th amendment.\u00a0 This case further expanded reproductive rights for unmarried women, given more precedent to Roe v. Wade.\r\n\r\n<strong><em>Roe v Wade<\/em><\/strong><strong>: <\/strong>\r\n\r\nIn 1970, a single Texas pregnant women, Jane Roe, sued the Texas attorney general believing that the \u201cTexas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face\u201d [12]. Texas, at the time, only allowed abortions if the life of the mother was at risk.\u00a0 On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court decided that \u201cA person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d [24].\r\n\r\n<strong>Conclusion:<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIt was women like Estelle T. Griswold who fought for reproductive rights, that paved the way for Roe v. Wade.\u00a0 At the time, even speaking about contraception though a public agency was illegal, and she knew it wasn\u2019t right.\u00a0 Her act of protest of giving access to essential health care to married couples not only helped many families, but also eventually led to the right to privacy which in turn, laid precedent for Roe.\r\n\r\n<strong>\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<strong>Citations:<\/strong>\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>Williams &amp; Georgian. \u201cSupreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, Doing Away with Half-Century of Precedent.\u201d NBCNews.com, June 25, 2022. https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/supreme-court\/supreme-court-wipes-away-constitutional-guarantee-abortion-rights-over-rcna18718.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ross, Nathaniel. \u201cEisenstadt v. Baird (1972).\u201d Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/embryo.asu.edu\/pages\/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bill of Rights Institute. \u201cGriswold v. Connecticut (1965).\u201d Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/billofrightsinstitute.org\/e-lessons\/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Connecticut Judicial Branch. \u201cThe Right to Privacy.\u201d Law Library Services - CT Judicial Branch. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/www.jud.ct.gov\/lawlib\/history\/privacy.htm#:~:text=Griswold%20then%20paved%20the%20way,not%20to%20terminate%20her%20pregnancy.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ibid<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ibid<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ibid<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bill of Rights Institute. \u201cGriswold v. Connecticut (1965).\u201d Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/billofrightsinstitute.org\/e-lessons\/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ibid<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Xing, Enze, Rieham Owda, Charisse Loder, and Kathleen Collins. \u201cAbortion Rights Are Health Care Rights.\u201d JCI insight, June 8, 2023. https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC10393219\/.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ibid<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bill of Rights Institute. \u201cGriswold v. Connecticut (1965).\u201d Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/billofrightsinstitute.org\/e-lessons\/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Johnson, Sydney. \u201cThe San Franciscans Who Pioneered Safe and Legal Abortions.\u201d San Francisco Examiner, October 27, 2022. https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/archives\/the-san-franciscans-who-pioneered-safe-and-legal-abortions\/article_4aed5427-93f5-5fef-b396-24579e575c42.html.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Dukakis, Andrea. \u201c50 Years Ago, Colorado Passed Nation\u2019s First State Law Liberalizing Abortion.\u201d Colorado Public Radio, April 28, 2017. https:\/\/www.cpr.org\/show-segment\/50-years-ago-colorado-passed-nations-first-state-law-liberalizing-abortion\/.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Kennedy, Lesley. \u201cReproductive Rights in the US: Timeline.\u201d History.com. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/www.history.com\/news\/reproductive-rights-timeline.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ross, Nathaniel. \u201cEisenstadt v. Baird (1972).\u201d Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/embryo.asu.edu\/pages\/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ibid<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ross, Nathaniel. \u201cEisenstadt v. Baird (1972).\u201d Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/embryo.asu.edu\/pages\/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ibid<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>","rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center\"><strong><em>Griswold v Connecticut<\/em><\/strong><strong> impact on <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Table of Contents:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Introduction<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Historiography<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Gendered Protest<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Impact<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong>Introduction:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Currently in the United States of America, women\u2019s reproductive rights are under constant threat.\u00a0 On June 24, 2022, an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court overturned <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> after almost 50 years of being the law of the land [1]. \u00a0<em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> granted women the right to an abortion under the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [2]. This restriction on women\u2019s bodily autonomy has resulted in many states passing strict abortion bans with little to no restrictions. These laws have and will continue to put women\u2019s lives at risk if not changes.<\/p>\n<p>Living in a post-<em>Roe <\/em>nation, it is more important than ever to examine how individuals fought to gain access to bodily autonomy.\u00a0 For years, many feminists advocated both through social and political, like that of Estelle T. Griswold. This narrative will explore the landmark case <em>Griswold v. Connecticut <\/em>served as a form of protest in turn, expanding reproductive health care and laid the precedent for <em>Roe v. Wade.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/maps\/d\/embed?mid=18VXi43LaGSsroiiOk5NyP5cvdNc5eNM&amp;ehbc=2E312F\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>[3][4][5][6]<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Histography:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>There have been articles written on how <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em> laid precedent for Roe v. Wade and how different components of social ideation influenced public opinion on abortion.<\/p>\n<p>David Bollier is and author and activist who wrote \u201cCrusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court\u201d.\u00a0 This document outlines specific Supreme Court cases that have impacted Connecticut, bus also American citizens.\u00a0 It highlights how one case can alter public perception and change generations\u2019 point of view on social issues.\u00a0 This article details the layered aspects of <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em>: the laws at the time, the key players, and public ideation. [7]<\/p>\n<p><strong>Gendered Protest<\/strong>: <strong><em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em><\/strong><strong>: <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-admin\/admin-ajax.php?action=h5p_embed&#38;id=41\">https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-admin\/admin-ajax.php?action=h5p_embed&amp;id=41<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>[4] [5] [6]<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 1961, Estelle T. Griswold, in an act of protest of the Comstock law began \u201cdispensing contraceptives to married couples.\u201d[8]. This law in particular, prevented women form being ale to receive birth control.\u00a0 This made it difficult for women to be able to plan their families.\u00a0 Although illegal, many affluent women were able to get the birth control pill from private doctors.\u00a0 This discriminated against \u201cUneducated and impoverished women, in particular, (who) often did not know how to obtain birth control\u201d [9].<\/p>\n<p>On July 7, 1965, the Supreme court ruled in favor of Griswold and in turn, \u201cstruck down Connecticut&#8217;s 86-year-old Comstock law. By a vote of 7 to 2\u201d [10]. After appealing her case to the Supreme Court, they \u201capplied the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate Bill of Rights protections to the states.\u201d [11] (Bill of Rights Institute). This helped pave the way for protection of women\u2019s reproductive health by establishing \u201cprivacy right of married couples\u201d [12]. This case was specifically used as precedent in <em>Roe v Wade .<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Estelle T. Griswold\u2019s brave act of protest was specifically a gendered issue.\u00a0 Not only did she hold a position of power in Planned Parenthood, but she also actively broke the law in efforts to support women\u2019s reproductive health care.\u00a0 Griswold beveled that the country suffered from \u201cperils of overpopulation &#8211; and convinced her that better family planning was the answer\u201d [13]. She was able to open a clinic and help countless women and families.\u00a0 Her impact is being remembered as the person who \u201cinaugurated a new body of constitutional law protecting individual privacy\u201d [14].<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.knightlab.com\/libs\/timeline3\/latest\/embed\/index.html?source=1Ll1TLaQqllvYs45-AdfhQJMk9NamhrpuXC4YnNdCWXc&amp;font=Default&amp;lang=en&amp;initial_zoom=2&amp;height=650\" width=\"100%\" height=\"650\" frameborder=\"0\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]<\/p>\n<p><strong>Impact:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>After <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em>, the precedent of right to privacy under the 14th amendment, it was used as precedent in the following cases:<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Eisenstadt v. Baird:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 1972, the Supreme court ruled in favor of William Braid, who gave contraceptives to a nineteen year old, unmarried women. At the time, this violated Massachusetts law.\u00a0 He was charged with \u201ctwo crimes, one for showing the contraceptives, and a second for distributing them.\u201d [23].\u00a0 Braid argued that only allowing married individuals to have access to contraception was discriminatory.\u00a0 This case built off of <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em>, once again naming the due process clause in the 14th amendment.\u00a0 This case further expanded reproductive rights for unmarried women, given more precedent to Roe v. Wade.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Roe v Wade<\/em><\/strong><strong>: <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In 1970, a single Texas pregnant women, Jane Roe, sued the Texas attorney general believing that the \u201cTexas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face\u201d [12]. Texas, at the time, only allowed abortions if the life of the mother was at risk.\u00a0 On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court decided that \u201cA person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d [24].<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>It was women like Estelle T. Griswold who fought for reproductive rights, that paved the way for Roe v. Wade.\u00a0 At the time, even speaking about contraception though a public agency was illegal, and she knew it wasn\u2019t right.\u00a0 Her act of protest of giving access to essential health care to married couples not only helped many families, but also eventually led to the right to privacy which in turn, laid precedent for Roe.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Citations:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Williams &amp; Georgian. \u201cSupreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, Doing Away with Half-Century of Precedent.\u201d NBCNews.com, June 25, 2022. https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/supreme-court\/supreme-court-wipes-away-constitutional-guarantee-abortion-rights-over-rcna18718.<\/li>\n<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\n<li>Ross, Nathaniel. \u201cEisenstadt v. Baird (1972).\u201d Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/embryo.asu.edu\/pages\/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.<\/li>\n<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\n<li>Bill of Rights Institute. \u201cGriswold v. Connecticut (1965).\u201d Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/billofrightsinstitute.org\/e-lessons\/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.<\/li>\n<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\n<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\n<li>Connecticut Judicial Branch. \u201cThe Right to Privacy.\u201d Law Library Services &#8211; CT Judicial Branch. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/www.jud.ct.gov\/lawlib\/history\/privacy.htm#:~:text=Griswold%20then%20paved%20the%20way,not%20to%20terminate%20her%20pregnancy.<\/li>\n<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<li>Bill of Rights Institute. \u201cGriswold v. Connecticut (1965).\u201d Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/billofrightsinstitute.org\/e-lessons\/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.<\/li>\n<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<li>Xing, Enze, Rieham Owda, Charisse Loder, and Kathleen Collins. \u201cAbortion Rights Are Health Care Rights.\u201d JCI insight, June 8, 2023. https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC10393219\/.<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<li>Bill of Rights Institute. \u201cGriswold v. Connecticut (1965).\u201d Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/billofrightsinstitute.org\/e-lessons\/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.<\/li>\n<li>Johnson, Sydney. \u201cThe San Franciscans Who Pioneered Safe and Legal Abortions.\u201d San Francisco Examiner, October 27, 2022. https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/archives\/the-san-franciscans-who-pioneered-safe-and-legal-abortions\/article_4aed5427-93f5-5fef-b396-24579e575c42.html.<\/li>\n<li>Dukakis, Andrea. \u201c50 Years Ago, Colorado Passed Nation\u2019s First State Law Liberalizing Abortion.\u201d Colorado Public Radio, April 28, 2017. https:\/\/www.cpr.org\/show-segment\/50-years-ago-colorado-passed-nations-first-state-law-liberalizing-abortion\/.<\/li>\n<li>Kennedy, Lesley. \u201cReproductive Rights in the US: Timeline.\u201d History.com. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/www.history.com\/news\/reproductive-rights-timeline.<\/li>\n<li>Ross, Nathaniel. \u201cEisenstadt v. Baird (1972).\u201d Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/embryo.asu.edu\/pages\/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.<\/li>\n<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\n<li>Bollier, David. <em>Crusaders and Criminals, Victims &amp; Visionaries Historic Encounter between Connecticut Citizens and the United States Supreme Court<\/em>. Office of the Attorney General, 1986.<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<li>Ross, Nathaniel. \u201cEisenstadt v. Baird (1972).\u201d Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Accessed December 10, 2024. https:\/\/embryo.asu.edu\/pages\/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.<\/li>\n<li>Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)<\/li>\n<li>Ibid<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"author":486,"menu_order":26,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-1071","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1071","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/486"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1071\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1074,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1071\/revisions\/1074"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1071\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=1071"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=1071"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/ppgsed24\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=1071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}