preview

The Rights Of The State Of Connecticut

Better Essays
Griswold was a Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, she and another gave some instructions about birth control and some other ways of planned parenthood in the state of Connecticut. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. (along with with some other medical treatment) The conclusion is although that the constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy, the numerous zones in the Bill of Rights, do establish a right to privacy. The Connecticut statute conflicts with this right, therefore making it void. At first the case was on the side on Connecticut, until the case was later overturned by…show more content…
"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. Section 54-196 provides: "Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender." The standing of the Connecticut court each found them guilty and they were both fined 100$ each. This is against the claim that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. A plaintiff is actually a person who brings a case against another in a court of law. While a defendant is an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law, both are google definitions. Now it obviously doesn’t take a genius to agree that the plaintiff in this was the party of Griswold. They are the ones who sued the court of Connecticut and brought it to the supreme court. The defendant in this would be Connecticut, as the state is the one accused of a direct violation to the U.S. constitution. The two arguments being made are not exactly comparable. The argument for the plaintiff is that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
Get Access