Griswold v Connecticut

Length: 2 Pages 589 Words

Griswold v. Connecticut Estelle Griswold began her fight for contraception (birth control) in the 1940’s. She traveled to different slums of the world and realized that these places were largely overpopulated. This sparked an interest in her. She believed that inadequate information about contraception was a major cause of human misery both abroad and even in segments of the Connecticut population. When she returned to New Haven, she joined the Planned Parenthood League and soon became its Executive Director, a position held until 1965. This was when allegations were held against her and Dr. C. Lee Buxton for opening a birth control clinic to dispense condoms and contraception. Both Griswold and Buxton were arrested within a week, but they didn’t fight the arrest. They knew this was the chance to bring justice for the right to privacy. Continue...

More sample essays on Griswold v Connecticut

    Griswold v Connecticut
    Griswold v Connecticut. Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut appealed to the Supreme Court on errors of the state court of Connecticut. .... (1793 7 )

    Roe v Wade
    .... They had based their decision on a previous case that had been decided concerning the right to privacy. That case was Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. .... (3118 12 )

    .... Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut case took in Connecticut on March 29-30, 1965, and it was decided on June 7, 1965. .... (756 3 )

    ROe V Wade
    .... The Supreme Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth .... (429 2 )

    Roe V. Wade Summary
    .... is wide enough to include a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to terminate her pregnancy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by .... (538 2 )

That's why it still stands the same today. The question asked in the Supreme Court was this: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives This was asked to further prove that a Connecticut state law violated a person's right to privacy. Soon after the Supreme Court accepted the case. Griswold's case was based not only by this right, but also by the fact that the Connecticut law was of personal judgement and not of thinking for the health and welfare of those in a situation needing contraception. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore considered to be void. Estelle Griswold started a controversy and made an outrageous statement to the people of Connecticut. This 1965 Supreme Court decision not only overturned an out-of-date obscenity law but also ended up defining a new constitutional right to privacy. This meant that if a person's welfare and life depended on an abortion or a form of contraception, it was illegal. Although the fight against it has continued, the wide use of it has prevented an end. Birth control and condoms are not unfamiliar terms used today. Although the Constitution did not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights created zones that established a right to privacy. I agree with the ruling because it is a personal choice. It brought about the movement for people to personally choose whether or not to use contraception. Griswold's side fought against this and claimed that it was unfair to make such a personal choice for a person or a couple.


Law and Social Change: Roe v. Wade
Moving forward from an earlier decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Justices essentially held that abortion should therefore be legal under the (2709 11 )

The Case Against Abortion
Due Process clause. To be fair, this interpretation was extension of that put forth in Griswold v. Connecticut. There, the Court (1428 6 )

deprived women of their Fourteenth Amendment right to use contraception and was contrary to the holding of the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 474 (4046 16 )

Laurence Tribe and his theory of Statutory Interpretation
Conservatives such as Scalia oppose decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965), and Roe v. Wade, 410 US 119 (1973), which have expanded the (1297 5 )

privacy has been held to encompass: the right to procreate, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US 535 (1972); the right not to procreate, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US (3781 15 )

privacy has been held to encompass: the right to procreate, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US 535 (1972); the right not to procreate, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US (3745 15 )