The Rights Of The State Of Connecticut

For starters let us look at this situation from a political standpoint in favor of pro-choice advocates. In the infamous case of Roe v. Wade, Jane Roe’s two lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, “sought to challenge the legality of Texas’s antiabortion law” (Roe v. Wade). In any level of government,

In the news article “Abortion: Every Woman’s Rights” Sharon Smith wrote an article about women’s rights to get abortions prior to the hearing of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey court case, “which threatened to severely restrict women access to abortion” (Smith). Women wanted reproductive control over their lives and felt that they were not equal to men no matter what advances they got at work and how high their level of education was. The women’s right movement wanted women to have the choice of abortion for all women, the rich and the poor. In the US, thirty- seven states did not provide

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

In 1973, Norma McCovery who is also known as Jane Roe brought a case to the Supreme Court. She and her defense team claimed that the 1859 Texas abortion law violated women’s constitutional right to have an abortion. Before reaching the Supreme Court, this case, which was a class-action suit, was argued in a Dallas Fifth Circuit Court on May 23, 1970. The judges in Dallas ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy which is found in both the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment, so this case was then sent to the U.S. Supreme Court (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that prohibited the use and education of contraceptives to both married and unmarried women, men, etc. Since this law was said to be seldom enforced, a Planned Parenthood in New Haven, Connecticut decided to take the risk. The executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, and a doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, Dr. C. Lee Buxton, were arrested, found guilty, and fined $100 each (equivalent to about $750 U.S. today) for counseling a married couple about contraceptives and prescribing birth control to the wife. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, where the Connecticut court upheld their conviction. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of the

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

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.

In the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Casey fought against the state of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Abortion Control act. The restrictions required the woman to give a written informed consent, seek parental consent if she was a minor, and notify her husband if she married. With the same violation of the fourteenth amendment as the Roe v. Wade case, the courts saw favour to Casey. While the majority of the restrictions were supported by the courts, the requirement of the husband’s notification was not. The result of this case added support of the decision of Roe

On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the

Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Buxton, a licensed physician serving as Medical Director for the League, brought this case forward. They were arrested on the charge of giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married couples on preventing contraception. At the League, they would examine the wife then prescribe what they thought was the best contraceptive device or material. At the time of these actions, Connecticut had two statutes (§§ 53-52 and 54-196) that state the following: “any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days” and “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 principle offender.”

Estelle Griswold is the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut; C. Lee Buxton is a licensed physician and current professor at Yale Medical School. He served as the Medical Director at the League’s location in New Haven during the time of the incident. Griswold and Buxton counseled a married couple on various ways to prevent conception. They performed an examination on the wife and prescribed the best method of contraception for her. Griswold and Buxton usually charged fees for their services, though some couples received free assistance. The League officials were arrested in November 1961 for violating Connecticut’s ban on contraceptives.

Blackmun argued that the right to privacy, as defined in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, included “the abortion decision.” In the ninth amendment, Blackmun argued, was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” However, despite this argument of a woman’s right to end her pregnancy being cover under the “right to privacy” as established in Griswold,

In 1992, Roe v. Wade was upheld in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. However, the Supreme Court had become significantly more conservative in that time, and this ruling favored the states‘ rights to establish tighter abortion restrictions. In Pennsylvania, women were only permitted first trimester abortions if they had been given information about the fetus’s gestational state and the dangers of having the procedure. A married women was also required to inform her husband prior to having the abortion, and minors had to seek approval from at least one parent unless given a legal bypass. On top of these restrictions, there was also a mandatory 24-hour waiting period (McBride, “Casey v. Planned Parenthood”).

Abortion did not immediately engrave itself onto public agenda; it had help. The legal debate over the use of birth control proved to be the catalyst needed to propel abortion to the Supreme Court and into the ranks of public policy. The birth control movement was significant to Roe v. Wade because it served as a key in which to unlock the gates of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts decision to hear Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that challenged the Connecticut statute prohibiting anyone to “use any drug, article, or instrument to prevent conception or to give assistance or counsel in its use (p.39)”, is arguably the most significant factor in the Court’s