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,
During the Supreme Court's trial period they discussed an issue about the right of privacy being constitutional. The Ninth Amendment can pick up and protect issues under marriage. 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). Through this, that banned the use of birth-control devices by married people (Janosik, 1177). Since there is a large variation of individual morals, ethical and religious backgrounds, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It is odd that the Constitution does not include fundamental rights of protection to privacy of marriage. "In the Connecticut court decision, the appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined one hundred dollars each, against the claim that the accessory ordinance as applied, violated several amendments. Adultery, homosexuality and other sexual intimacies are forbidden by the state, but the closeness of married couples is essential for the future to be carried out (Janosik, 1176). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1987. This decision made the Connecticut lawmakers pass a bill repealing the birth control statute. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to specifically state guarantees of rights to all the people. The constitution is changed to conform with new times.
Common topics in this essay:
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,
|
Acceptance Essays
