The Ethics Of The Law

942 Words Dec 12th, 2014 4 Pages
I am in the dissenting opinion of this case. I agree with all of my fellow opinions that this law in question is absurd. I do not however agree that the evil qualities seen in the law makes it unconstitutional. I feel that this law is offensive just as Goldberg, Harlan, and White do. Dr. Buxton and Ms. Griswold merely expressed their opinions on contraceptives and practices and instructing how to use them. I feel that by doing this they were exercising their rights under the first and fourteenth amendment, which includes the freedom of speech. Cf. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1. However, while their freedom of speech is one thing, suits concerning physical activities are something completely different. The doctor, Dr. Buxton, and the director at Planned Parenthood, Ms. Griswold, both advised women on what contraceptive to use and also supplied it to them. Based on this information they were in violation of the Connecticut law that was previously stated. Just because these two exchanged speech with the people that they supplied these goods does not mean that they should be pardoned merely by the first amendment. Although these Amendment freedoms should be used to protect us all, they cannot be stretched to the point where they protect a person who violated the Connecticut law. The Court is claiming that under the Bill of rights and the constitution there is a “right of privacy”, and in this circumstance a “right to marital…

More about The Ethics Of The Law

Open Document