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.
That"tms 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"tms ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives This was asked to further prove that a Connecticut state law violated a person"tms right to privacy. Soon after the Supreme Court accepted the case. Griswold"tms 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 This 1965 Supreme Court decision not only overturned an out-of-date obscenity law but also ended up defining a new constitutional right to privacy.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"tms 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"tms side fought against this and claimed that it was unfair to make such a personal choice for a person or a couple.