Griswold v Connecticut
Griswold v. Connecticut appealed to the Supreme Court on errors of the state court of Connecticut. This case deals with the right to prescribe the use of birth control to a married female. This action is found unconstitutional under the state laws, but this law invades a person's rights under the constitution. Here the problem evolves and must be decided upon in the courts.The appellant Griswold is an Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (Janosik, 1035). Appellant Buxton is a licensed physician and a professor at Yale Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its center in New Haven. This center was opened for ten days in November of 1961, until the appellants were arrested (Rice, 187). The appellants were tried in the state court and decided that the state laws contradicted several rights in the constitution. The two Connecticut laws state: "Any person who uses any drug, medical 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 both be fined and imprisoned (Rice, 187)." "Any person who resist, abets, counsels, causes,
hires, or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender (Rice, 188)." Third Amendment - Quartering of Soldiers During the Supreme Court's trial period they discussed an issue about the right of privacy being constitutional. There are no laws that put constitutional provisions forbidding any law to neglect the right of privacy. Respectively, in the constitution there are specific constitutional provisions which are designed to safeguard certain privacies at various times and places (Janosik, 1177). What provision makes the Connecticut law invalid under the Constitution? The Supreme Court determined it was the right of privacy given in the fundamental guarantees of the Constitution to American citizens (Janosik, 998b). This decision made the Connecticut lawmakers pass a bill repealing the birth control statute. The Supreme Court does not specify state to what extent the constitutional right of privacy should extend to (Janosik, 1766). Fourth Amendment - Searches and Seizure Chase, Harold W. "Griswold v. Connecticut." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Vol. 7. Minnesota: West Group, 1998. Janosik, Robert J. "Griswold v. Connecticut." Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System. Vol. III and I. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1987. Rice, Arnold S. The Warren Court, 1954-1969: "Griswold v. Connecticut." Vol. 8. Connecticut: Grolier Educational Corp., 1995. The Connecticut anti-contraceptive law forbids all married couples the right to use birth control devices, regardless if their use is dictated by family planning, health, or even of life itself. The law even prohibits the right from doctors to help their patients in their best interest (Rice, 191).
Some common words found in the essay are:
Fourteenth Amendment, Supreme Court, Ninth Amendment, Director League, Constitution American, Supreme Court's, Elastic Clause, Fifth Fourteenth, Process Clause, Amendments Connecticut, birth control, supreme court, rice 188, griswold connecticut, due process, connecticut law, fundamental rights, rights constitution, rice 188 connecticut, ninth amendment, 188 connecticut, birth control married, equal protection laws, prescribe birth control, ninth amendment rights,
Approximate Word count = 1793
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
