Griswold vs Conneticut

Griswold v. Connecticut
Estelle Griswold was a former office worker and a certified medical physician. After several years of traveling abroad she returned to her home state of Connecticut. While searching for a job she came across an executive director position at Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, but having little experience she took the job anyways and was willing to learn about contraception. She than began a movement to supply Connecticut women with information on birth control. This essay will clarify the history of rights under Connecticut?s state law, which turned the Griswold v. Connecticut case, an influential case for many different reasons.
Until 1965, The United States Supreme court dodged cases that had involvement with reproductive rights which then most of the cases would be dismissed due to the lack of standing until Griswold?s case that came along. The case from Connecticut?s outdated and unforced laws against the usage of contraceptives like birth control. After taking her position Connecticut?s planned parenthood organization, Griswold met two men would help in to campaign to battle with the state?s anticontraception law. The two gentlemen were Dr. C. Lee Buxton and Fowler V. Harper. Together, the three of them would fight for the legalization of birth control. Griswold, Buxton and Harper felt that a ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right privacy. ?Their efforts would also prove instrumental in revolutionizing American law by bringing the so-called right of privacy under the protective umbrella of the U.S. Constitution.?(Johnson, I) Estelle Griswold?s fight for legalization would be faced with a challenge of Connecticut?s 1879 statute that made it a crime to use contraceptives. ?Although several other states in the 1950?s maintained restrictions on the manufacture and advertising of contraceptives, Connecticut?s statute forbidding the ?use? and ?abetting? in the use of contraceptives was the most restrictive in the country.?(Johnson, I)
The constitution doesn?t protect a general right to privacy, but within the Bill of Rights there were zones created that established privacy. The Amendments that were used to justify a right to privacy were the ninth and fourteenth Amendment. The argument of the ninth and fourteenth Amendment related to this case is to ensure the civil and political liberties of the people and to make sure the government is not infringing on them. Another argument could be ?the privacy that is lurking between the lines or behind the words of the Bill of Rights that point to the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.?(Johnson, 54) The First Amendment vows that one?s idea is simply one?s own and would not be dictated by governmental power. The Third and Fourth Amendments are quite similar because people feared a violation of their private space, which concerned the writers of the Declaration of Independence as it repeated itself in the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable search and seizures. Finally coming to the Fifth Amendment, it may offer some protection for personal privacy because it manages individual right not to give evidence that could be used against them.
Therefore there were several legal ramifications for the decision to uphold a right to privacy was first that the Supreme Court not only overturned Connecticut?s out of date state law, but it also ended up establishing a new constitutional right to privacy as written right in the constitution. The decision had also brought the movement for people to freely yet personally choose whether or not to use contraception. The second ramification of the decision was that Buxton and Griswold hinted that the Planned Parenthood League was planning on reopening the clinic within six weeks. Thirdly, several months after the decision was announced, The Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut ran its first birth control counseling sessions since 1961. Lastly, within one year Connecticut had opened two birth control clinics in two of Connecticut?s cities. ?Two and half years after the Supreme Court decision in Griswold, according to responses to questionnaires prepared by Buxton, there were six PPLCC birth control clinics operating in the state.? (Johnson, 182)
In conclusion, Estelle Griswold was the center of a controversy and made outrageous, but valid points to the people of Connecticut. She fought for what she believed in and by the ruling of the Supreme Court she wasn?t the only one who felt that way either. The decision in Griswold v. Connecticut was in the confines of the constitution because the ruling had affected many outcomes in cases over the