Griswold v. Connecticut

1
Griswold v. Connecticut
By Sarah
2
This case is about the right to privacy with
birth control versus the Connecticut state rights.
3
HISTORY OF THE CASE

• Birth control in the 1900s was represented as a
  way for women to achieve emancipation from the
  physical and economic burden of having too many
  or unwanted children.

• Estelle Griswold was running a Planned
  Parenthood Center (birth control clinic) this
  was strictly illegal in Connecticut.

• The law was from the 1879 Comstock Laws

• The Comstock Laws were federal and state laws
  that prohibited the distribution of items that
  Comstock considered obscene and immoral. For
  example contraceptive devices and pornography.

4
HISTORY CONTINUED

• The clinic was clean and well run and staffed
  with experienced doctors and nurses who provided
  the services to low-income, married women.

• The 10 days that the clinic was open there were
  42 patients seen and 75 more patients applied for
  appointments.

• On November 10th, Judge J. Robert Lacey of the
  Sixth Circuit Court of Connecticut issued arrest
  warrants for the executive director, Griswold,
  and the medical director, Dr. Charles Lee Buxton.

5
HISTORY CONTINUED

• This law was not popular and in the 1930s, and
  most of Connecticuts citizens favored legal
  birth control but it was supported by powerful
  political forces.

• There were twenty-three attempts to reform or
  repeal the law. However, before this case was
  decided by the United States Supreme Court, no
  one had been able to overturn the law.

• Two months before the case, the Supreme Court
  had dismissed a case challenging the
  constitutionality of the same Connecticut law.

6
HISTORY CONTINUED
The laws that were violated were the 53-32 and
the 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut.
53-32 states Any person who uses a 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.
54-196 states 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.
7
MAJORITY OPINION

• Mr. Justice Goldberg and Mr. Justice Brennan
  delivered the final concurring opinion of the
  court.

BRENNAN

• Both Justices agreed that the birth control law
  unconstitutionally intruded upon the right of
  marital privacy. Also, the concept of liberty
  protects those personal rights that are
  fundamental and not confined to the specific
  terms of the Bill of Rights.

GOLDBERG
8
MAJORITY OPINION CONTINUED

• Mr. Justice Harlan also concurred. It seemed
  that the cause was stated in the Due Process
  Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, unless it was
  found to violate a right that was assured by the
  Bill of Rights. The reasons it violates the law
  are stated in the case of Poe v. Ullman.

HARLAN

• Mr. Justice White concurred with the judgment
  with his point of view that the law as its
  applied to married couples, deprives them of
  liberty without the due process of law, as it is
  used in the Fourteenth Amendment. He reverses
  these convictions under Connecticuts law.

WHITE
9
MINORITY OPINION

• Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Stewart
  delivered the dissenting opinion of the court.
  Neither Justices based their view that the
  Connecticut law is constitutional on the belief
  that the law is wise or its policy is a good one.

STEWART

• Mr. Stewart believes that, It is an uncommonly
  silly law that has been in effect since 1879 and
  it is unenforceable except in the context of this
  case.

• Mr. Stewart also believes that, The use of
  contraceptives in the relationship of marriage
  should be left to personal and private choice,
  based upon each individuals moral, ethical, and
  religious beliefs.

10
MINORITY OPINION CONTINUED

• Mr. Justice Black thinks that, The professional
  counsel about methods of birth control should be
  available to all, so each individuals choice can
  be meaningfully made.

BLACK

• Both dissenting Justices agree that they cannot
  hold this case in the fact that it violates the
  United States Constitution.

• They also believe that this case, going along
  with the Connecticut law, is unwise.

11
OUTCOME OF THE CASE

• The appellants in this case were found guilty
  and were fined 100 each, against the claim that
  the accessory law violated the Fourteenth
  Amendment.

• The final decision of the Court ended with a
  positive reaction.

• The New York Times said it was a mile-stone and
  it focused the criticism on the dissenters.

• The largest supporter of the case was the
  Catholic Church and they accepted it without
  criticism.

• Years later the Planned Parenthood Federation of
  America honored Estelle Griswold with the highest
  award available in recognition of her service.

12
OUTCOME OF THE CASE CONTINUED

• The fight to legalize birth control for married
  couples was over. The constitutional right to
  privacy was in its infancy.

• Griswold v. Connecticut, which finally knocked
  down the old Connecticut law, is a historic case
  that altered American constitutional history.

• The case is remembered as the case that created
  a constitutional right of privacy.

• If it was not for this case, the Roe v. Wade
  case which later legalized abortion, would not
  have been successful because it relied on this
  right of privacy.

• This case demonstrated that the Court was
  willing to go beyond the strict adherence to the
  language of the Constitution to protect rights.

13
MY OPINION OF THE CASE

• I feel that the law was unenforceable since
  private doctors would still be prescribing the
  birth control illegally. This was favoring the
  upper class people because there were
  well-informed and could access the drug easily if
  they could afford it.

• The clinic was helping the less fortunate and
  people with less money. If the couple felt that
  they needed this type of treatment, then they are
  old enough to make their own decisions.

• The law is unconstitutional and it did invade
  the right to privacy. If a married couple feels
  that they need birth control I think it should be
  their decision and there should not be a law
  ruling against that.

14
(No Transcript)