preview

The Case Of Griswold V. Connecticut

Good Essays
Tandy Hood
U.S. Government
Professor Neher
11/19/15

Griswold v. Connecticut

The first Supreme Court case that I listened to was one brought forth in front of the Warren Court in 1965. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut is a very significant case regarding contraceptive use, counsel and advice with married couples. The case later played a great reference in the Constitutional rights for abortion. The Griswold v. Connecticut case went in front of the Supreme Court in March and was passed a few months later in June by a vote of 7-2 in favor of Griswold.
Griswold was the Executive Director of a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Connecticut. The State of Connecticut charged her and her Medical Director, Dr. Buxton, for giving advice and medical
…show more content…
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.
At the beginning of the oral argument the appellant’s lawyer, Thomas I. Emerson was asked if the case was an equal opportunity case. He verbally stumbled and was delayed with his response to the Judges. The Judges asked several times why it was not being argued as an equal opportunity case due to the distinction that only married women received treatment and counsel from the Planned Parenthood Clinic. His only response was that was not the issue of this case.
Emerson stated the history of the case in order to paint his picture to the Judges. Mrs. Griswold did not have a medical license, but was allowed to work under the umbrella of the clinic’s Medical Director, Dr. Buxton. The clinic was only open for ten days when the two appellants were arrested and charged for the counsel and distribution of contraceptives to married women, at which time the clinic was forced to close. Three of the married women that received treatment and counsel provided by the clinic were fined and later testified against
Get Access