Griswold V Connecticut

Griswold v Connecticut 1

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