The United States constitution does not impoliticly define a right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut asserted the Bill of Rights contained penumbras that established a right to privacy. The absolutizing of privacy, as per Roe v. Wade, has led to the death of over 55 million unborn children. A loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution was used as the execution device for these souls. A strict interpretationist view of the Constitution could have prevented the absolutization of the right to privacy created by Griswold v. Connecticut and expanded upon by Roe v. Wade that deprived over 55 million souls of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Strict interpretationism and loose constructionism …show more content…
Connecticut. Griswold was the executive director of the Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood. As of 2015, Planned Parenthood performs more than 300,000 abortions per year or one out of every third abortion in the United States, which makes the institution as the largest provider of abortions. Griswold and her colleagues were convicted under a Connecticut law that banned services to couples for the prevention of conception.

The Supreme Court was charged with determining whether the Constitution protected the right of martial privacy against state restrictions on a couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled that collectively the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create a new constitutional right to privacy in martial relations therefore the Connecticut statue is null and void. This decision was made possible by focusing on three tenants of loose constructivism. First, the decision focused on (or contorting) the idea the Constitution contains principles embedded in explicitly mentioned right such as the right to free speech Second, the Warren Court adhered to the living document philosophy suggesting the Constitution is a living organism that adapts to the times. And finally, the Warren court saw itself as playing a part as an instrument …show more content…
A strict constructionist viewed Griswold as producing a made up right to privacy. Nowhere is the Constitution does it emphatically express the right to privacy. Additionally, a strict constructionist would view Griswold as taking steps toward a slippery slope of absolutizing privacy. This fear would later be justified eight years after Griswold in Row v. Wade, discussed later. Van Heemst equates this justified slippery slope to the Supreme Court literally, “making up right upon