The Rights Of The United States

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

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.

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

The Birth Control Movement of 1912 in the United States had a significant impact on Women’s Reproductive Rights. Women in the 1800s would frequently die or have complications during or after childbirth. Even if the woman would have died, they would still have a great amount of children. As the years progressed into the 1900s, the amount of children being born dropped. Because of this, birth control supplements were banned, forcing women to have a child that she was not prepared for or did not want to have in the first place.

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.

The battle for reproductive rights began well over a hundred years ago. At a time when families were producing more children than they could afford to feed, many women were seeking primitive forms of birth control and undergoing abortions. It was in the 1860s that a postal inspector turned politician named Anthony Comstock, in partnership with the Young Men’s Christian Association, set out on a crusade to condemn all forms of birth control and any kind of abortion by claiming they violated “anti-obscenity laws” (Baer). These men eventually succeeded and created the Comstock Laws in 1873 that prohibited all “sales, advertising, or information on birth control” (Baer).

Griswold and Buxton opened the clinic in 1961, in New Haven Connecticut, and were shut down ten days later and fined one-hundred dollars each. They appealed their convictions, stating that the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Essentially, the clinic operated as a medical advice center, where married persons could get counciling, advice, and instruction on contraception devises. For their advice they charged patients according to their ability to pay.

Griswold, a Planned Parenthood executive, was convicted by the state of Connecticut for giving advice to married couples about preventing conception through the use of contraceptives. The state of Connecticut had a law implemented to criminalize that type of counselling. However, Griswold argued that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy. The court ruled in favor of Griswold, 7-2. (Law 2016)

The Appellant, Estelle Griswold, had been counseling married couples at the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, located in New Haven. The counseling aimed to give them medical advice as well as information about different types of contraceptives, such as devices or drugs. Ms. Griswold would meet with married couples and discuss which form of contraception was the right fit for the patient. Due to the fact that these actions broke a Connecticut law that criminalized counseling about birth control, Griswold and one of her colleagues were both found guilty. Nine days after the Planned

The Connecticut state law made it illegal for married people to receive any form of contraceptives or information on contraceptives. The 1879 law stated that "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." It continues to state, "any

In the United States, the people matter. They are free, and can control what happens in government. The people have certain rights that allow them to do things that make them people, for example, thinking, speaking, and acting. The Founders of the US wanted to protect people’s basic rights as much as possible through the constitution. The Constitution explains, in great detail, that the people are sovereign.

Human rights are inherent to being human and essentially a right obtained by any being born in the world. These rights do not discriminate whether one was born in the United States or in Mexico. Essentially, they are what it means to be a human being, not if you are a citizen to a specific country. Lawful permanent residents of the United States prior to 1996 were eligible for public benefits programs suck as the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), all on terms similar to those of native-born citizens (Capps, 2002). Bill Clinton’s administration enacted Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) in which significantly

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

In this day in age, there are many potential threats to our nation and we must protect the American people with tact, and perceptiveness. When handling foreign affairs our main goal is to insure the welfare of our nation. While it may seem at times immoral not to police the world, we’ve tried that approach and it has been extremely unsuccessful. We’ve lost American lives for wars that we haven’t needed to be in. Although upholding the blessings of liberty wherever they may be violated is paramount to the American way of life, it is not as important as the welfare of our nation. By voluntarily getting involved in foreign conflicts we do just that, and put the safety of our nation in jeopardy, both by creating unnecessary enemies, and giving up thousands of young American lives for nothing, but policing the world. As our founding fathers believed, America is ready to take more of an isolationist approach again. This does not mean ignoring currents threats like ISIS, and nuclear capabilities in nations that are a danger by wielding such weaponry, this does not mean ignoring atrocities such as the civil war in Syria, this does not mean neglecting the fact that Russia is a loose canon with a box of matches. What this does mean is assessing the situation with aplomb, and making decisions as a nation that values a majoritarian policy rather that brash decision making that leads to an outcome that will effect our children.