Griswold Vs Connecticut Case Analysis

Carthart: Women Retain Their Right to Choose”, in the Supreme Court Case, Stenberg verses Carthart, declared that; “Nebraska statute banning partial birth abortions was unconstitutional.” The article also mentions that women need personal privacy and the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment gave women the rights to their own personal freedom (Berkowitz 2001). As learned in class, the First Amendment of the United States gave people the right to express their speech, religion, press, and assembly freely. The Fourth Amendment gave the right for people to search your house but only with a warrant. The Fourteenth Amendment dealt with equal protection rights.

This case challenged the rights of marital privacy within the home. In 1961, Griswold and her partner, Dr. Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. A law enacted in 1879 made it illegal to use anything to prevent contraception in the state. That’s right, nothing could be used to prevent pregnancy. Consequently due to their actions, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined to pay $100. Griswold appealed her conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the state was in breach of multiple amendments including the fourteenth, first, and of course, the third amendment. The argument based on the third amendment was that the home is and should be a private place. No one is to know what happens in the home, or in the bedroom for that matter. The only way to prove that the women who visited the clinic were actually using birth control would be storm their homes. In the end, it was found that Connecticut's actions were unconstitutional and this court case paved the way for future cases such as the famous Roe vs Wade

Eisenstadt v. Baird was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. It ruled in favor of unmarried couples using birth control. Griswold v. Connecticut provided the right for secrecy under the marital bedroom only, but not birth control on unmarried couples. The ruling was based it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument was simple. The law which the defendants were penalized was a Massachusetts law of “Crimes Against Chastity”. Because it did not prosecuted marry couples due to buying, possessing, or using birth controls, it was discriminatory this law persecuted unmarried couples for it. Also it was ruled one of the defendants was exercising his freedom of speech, when distributing birth control. Therefore he could not be punished. Judge Brennan wrote in his opinion

After the passage of the 19th amendment women advocated for birth control, equal rights to job opportunities, sex education, fairer wages, and education. Women worked tirelessly to advocate for policy changes that would allow them to be in control of their bodies. Their efforts led to the American Medical Association prescribing birth control as a normal medical option, the federal courts undermined the contraception provision of the Comstock Law of 1873, the FDA approved the birth control pill, and abortion became legalized. With the passage of birth control, women had the opportunity to discuss with their partners when they want to have children and the legalization of abortion gave them the choice about what to do with their baby. This was empowering for women because it allowed them to be in control of their lives, versus not having

During the years leading up to and after 1973, there were numerous events and situations that occurred. Before 1965, the idea of right to privacy was barely used, but Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) changed that. “The case involved a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). A doctor and a family-planner were arrested for distributing the use of contraceptives for couples in need. They were eventually brought to court by the state and were convicted. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and was later decided that everyone is entitled to their “right to privacy.” This set the precedent for Roe v. Wade because without Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision might be completely different than what it is now. A court case called Rust v. Sullivan was related to abortion. It specified that “family planning services receiving federal funds could not provide women any counseling regard abortion” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). This decision created public scrutiny as the decision would violate the First Amendment. President Clinton eventually lifted the ban on abortion counseling as it

Griswold v. Connecticut was argued on March 28-29, 1965 and the decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 7, 1965. It was questioned whether or not the Constitution protected the rights of marital privacy (limits government intrusion into private family matters) against restrictions for a couple to receive counseling on using contraceptives. Mrs. Griswold had given counseling to a married couple that had wanted to use birth control and it was against Connecticut law to do so. The Supreme Court’s ruling was that married couples have the right to privacy and the law was declared unconstitutional as it violated the right of privacy. Married couples have the right to private privacy.

Because of the Comstock Law of 1873, the mailing of information regarding contraception or devices to perform contraceptive techniques was prohibited. This was a major obstacle for Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. As a result of the 1936 court case U.S. v. One Package, the mailing of contraceptive-related materials among physicians was legalized (Planned Parenthood). This turning point signified that contraceptives were finally beginning to be regarded as an important area of medicine. The mailing of contraceptive material to married couples and single adults was not legalized until 1965 and 1972 respectively (Contraception History). The government continued to liberalize its other policies regarding contraception as a result of Sanger’s influence.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griswold, and her claim that the state contraceptive law was unconstitutional.

"Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned." says the law of Connecticut.

The statutes were being challenged on the due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment regarding the Freedom of Speech. At the time of this case it was illegal to sale or prescribe contraceptives for the prevention of pregnancy, but not for the prevention of disease.

Some of the ways that the Supreme Court address the issue of privacy is within the home. Along with the 1st, 3rdm 4th, 5th, 9th Amendments that give citizens right to privacy. In Griswold v Connecticut the Majority opinion written by Justice Douglas talks about penumbral rights in the shadow of the constitution. In the 1st the right to assembly, 3rd the right to refuse quartering soldiers within the home, the 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th amendment protects citizens by allowing them to not self-incriminate. With the Griswold v Connecticut case the Court ruled that a couple had the right to privacy when using contraceptives. Justice Goldberg concurred in the case on the Fundamental Rights theory.

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court finally recognized a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. The authors state, “The case involved a Connecticut law that made it illegal for married couples to use contraceptives, or birth control. (Contraceptives prevent a woman from getting pregnant when she has sexual intercourse.) Nothing in the Constitution specifically says married couples have a right to use birth control. The court, however, said the law interfered with “the right of privacy in marriage.” In other words, privacy for married couples in America allows them to decide whether to use contraceptive devices” (Brannen, Hanes, and Shaw 68).

not obtained the status of illegality yet. He then said therefore when the Ninth Amendment was drafted abortion included itself within the unenumerated rights the Ninth Amendment provided. Weddington also delicately referenced the Court’s divided opinion in Griswold V. Connecticut, noting that the justices themselves seemed uncertain “as to the specific constitutional framework of the right which they held to exist.” While the Court in that decision had upheld Griswold’s right to distribute birth control information and devices, the various opinions from the justices cited a range of amendments as the foundations for the rights they were upholding. The entire matter of a personal right to privacy, Weddington implied, did in fact exist in

The Carey v Population Services International (1977) decision is one that evolutionized American beliefs about contraception use, specifically in New York, in a period called the Sexual Revolution. Another sex education revolution involving the distribution of such resources had started decades earlier, during the Progressive Era; the distribution of contraceptives and information about these resources and sex education to the public was seen as obscure. Muckraker Margaret Sanger fought for this cause, especially for a woman’s right to bear children and the prevention that may or may not be involved. Sanger and women’s rights advocates paved a path that opened this discussion for minors. Carey v Population Services International is a very small

In 1936 Margaret Sanger helped bring the case of "United States v. One Package" to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.[161] The decision in that case allowed physicians to legally mail birth control devices and information; however, it applied only to New York, Connecticut, and Vermont; birth control did not become legal for married couples throughout the United States until the 1965 Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, and did not become legal for unmarried couples throughout the United States until the 1972 Supreme Court decision Eisenstadt v. Baird.[161][199][200][201] In 1937 The American Medical Association officially recognized birth control as an integral part of medical practice and education, and North Carolina became the first state to recognize birth control as a public health measure and to provide contraceptive services to indigent mothers through its public health