Michigan Republicans Were Asked About a Landmark Contraception Case. Their Answers Were “Terrifying.”

But first they had to be told what it was.

Protesters at a 2015 demonstration outside the Supreme CourtCharles Dharapak/AP

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

The final question from the audience at Friday night’s debate for the Republican candidates for Michigan attorney general was as straightforward as it gets:

“How do each of you stand on Griswold v. Connecticut?”

Griswold was the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down Connecticut’s ban on the sale of contraception. The landmark decision, a rare opinion to invoke the Third Amendment, articulated a “right to privacy” that would go on to be cited in Roe v. Wade. With the Supreme Court poised to strike down or at least thoroughly gut Roe, it was notable to see a conservative activist ask three men who oppose it, and who are aspiring to be the chief law enforcement officer of a state that still has an abortion ban on its books, what they think of the famous contraception case.

But that assumed that all the candidates even knew what Griswold was. No one immediately answered, but Tom Leonard, a former state speaker of the house who lost in 2018 to the current incumbent, Democrat Dana Nessell, eventually spoke up—to ask for clarification.

“Remind me,” said Leonard, who was endorsed in December by Right to Life of Michigan.

Griswold v. Connecticut—do you know the case?” a moderator asked.

“Which—give me a quick—” Leonard said.

The voter explained what it was.

“Yeah, okay, I just, and I wanted clarification,” Leonard said. “This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because it was an issue that trampled states’ rights and it was an issue that should have been left up to the states.”

Next up was Ryan Berman, a current state rep, who could be seen pulling out a mobile device while Leonard was speaking. 

“Yeah, you know what, I wasn’t familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut, but I’m an advanced legal researcher so I pulled it up real quick to look what it’s about,” he said. “And it says the court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. Again, I would have to look more into it and the reasoning behind it, but I’m all about states’ rights and limiting federal judicial activism.”

“I didn’t know we could have our phones up here,” said Matthew DePerno, the final candidate, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump because of his role in spreading conspiracies about voting machines. 

“Listen, all these cases that deal—Griswold, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs— these are all state right issues. I think that’s what we’re gonna see with the US Supreme Court. They’re gonna come down on the side that these liberty issues—number one, the wide expanse that was given on Roe v. Wade and this litany—are unworkable. The Supreme Court has to deal with that, has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a state right issue on all of these things—as it should be!”

Afterwards, Nessel called the candidates’ answers “terrifying”:

WE'RE TAKING A SHORT BREAK…

from the big banner at the top of our pages asking for the donations that make Mother Jones' nonprofit journalism possible. But we still have upwards of $300,000 to raise by June 30, whether we get there is going to come down to the wire, and we can't afford to come up short.

If you value the reporting you get from Mother Jones and you can right now, please join your fellow readers who pitch in from time to time to keep our democracy-advancing, justice-seeking journalism charging hard (and to help us avoid a real budget crunch as June 30 approaches and our fiscal year ends).

payment methods

WE'RE TAKING A SHORT BREAK…

from the big banner at the top of our pages asking for the donations that make Mother Jones' nonprofit journalism possible. But we still have upwards of $300,000 to raise by June 30, whether we get there is going to come down to the wire, and we can't afford to come up short.

If you value the reporting you get from Mother Jones and you can right now, please join your fellow readers who pitch in from time to time to keep our democracy-advancing, justice-seeking journalism charging hard (and to help us avoid a real budget crunch as June 30 approaches and our fiscal year ends).

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate