Griswold And Connecticut Essay Research Paper Griswold

Griswold And Connecticut Essay, Research Paper

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, hires, or commands another to

commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal

offender (Rice, 188).. 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. The

Connecticut statues forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of birth

control to married persons which is guaranteed through the Bill of Rights in the

Constitution for American citizens (Rice, 188). The appellants are guaranteed

fundamental rights through the Constitution to prescribe birth control to

married people if they are involved in a legal relationship. Certainly, the

companion in crime should not have worries that he or she will be charged with

assisting in birth control, which is not constitutionally a crime (Janosik,

170-171). This is created by several basic constitutional guarantees. It is the

invasion of his right to personal security, personal liberty, and private

property; therefore, the state laws cannot stand and invade the area of his

protected freedoms (Dye, 506). The Supreme Court.s decision was divided seven

to two. The majority found it unconstitutional due to intruding on the rights of

privacy to marriage. Even though the rights of privacy is not specifically

stated in the Bill of Rights, it is a concept of liberty which is stated in the

First Amendment (Chase, 334). The appellants are also protected with the Due

Process Clause (a law that is a basic principle in the American legal system

that requires fairness in the government.s dealing with people). The Fifth and

Fourteenth amendments protect certain fundamental rights without state or

federal government intervention (Chase, 335). The entire purpose of the

Constitution is to specifically state guarantees of rights to all the people. It

is odd that the Constitution does not include fundamental rights of protection

to privacy of marriage. The Ninth Amendment can pick up and protect issues under

marriage. It also recognizes and protects from abridgment by the government, and

it provides the right of liberty (Rice, 188). The Connecticut birth-control law

trespasses on personal liberty, but the state doesn.t show that the law serves

any single interest which is forcing, or mandatory to succeed in tolerating the

state policy. The state expresses an opinion that there is some relation between

the ordinance and what is a proper subject of the state.s concern. Its purpose

was to discourage extra-marital relationships (Janosik, 1171). Through this,

that banned the use of birth-control devices by married people (Janosik, 1177).

It helps prevent the use of the drug in extra-marital relations. The state

wanted to protect marital faithfulness, but it could have stated the law more

specifically so that it did not force upon the privacy of all married couples

(Rice, 191). 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). The marriage relation is a sacred part of the

American culture: therefore, the state must allow marital privacy in every age.

It must acknowledge a marriage and the personal inherit of it. Connecticut

cannot constitutionally abbreviate the basic right, which is protected by the

Fourteenth Amendment from the intervention by the states (Rice, 188). The

Connecticut anti-contraceptive law forbids all married couples the right to use

birth control devices, regardless if their use is dictated by family plannin

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать