This article analyzes Robert Bork's philosophy of original understanding jurisprudence in the context of the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, and concludes that Bork's theory does not perform as advertised and in fact -- contrary to Bork's representations -- actually supports the outcome reached by the Supreme Court in the Griswold case. It nonetheless concludes that original understanding interpretation has something to offer, if not as much as Bork claims.