Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is an important case in the United States about access to contraception. This case involves the "Comstock law" of Connecticut which prohibits anyone from using "any drug, drug article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." The Court is of the opinion that the law is unconstitutional, and that "the obvious effect of [the law of Connecticut...] is to reject disadvantaged citizens [...] access to medical aid and current information in connection with appropriate methods of birth control. "In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court overturned the law on the grounds that it violated" the right to marital privacy ", establishing the basis for the right to privacy in connection with intimate practices. These and other cases see privacy rights as the right to "protect [ion] from government intrusion."
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas writes for the majority that the rights can be found in "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the clause of self-incrimination. Fifth Amendment. Douglas writes, "Are we going to allow police to search for marriage sanctuaries for signs of contraceptive use? This idea is disgusting about the privacy of marital relations." Judge Arthur Goldberg wrote a concrete opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to support the Supreme Court decision. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concrete opinion in which they argue that privacy is protected by the process clause required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Video Griswold v. Connecticut
​​â € <â €
Griswold v. Connecticut originated as a prosecutor under the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The law prohibits the use of "any drugs, drug articles, or instruments for the purpose of preventing conception (...)". The offender may be "(...) fined no less than fifty dollars or incarcerated no less than sixty days or more than a year or both fined and imprisoned." In the 1950s, Massachusetts and Connecticut were two countries that still had legislation, though almost never enacted.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, doctors in the United States greatly avoided the publication of any material related to birth control, even when they often recommend or at least give advice on it to married patients. Then in 1914, Margaret Sanger openly challenged the public consensus against contraception. He influenced the Connecticut Birth Control League (CBCL) and helped develop the eventual concept of the Planned Parenthood clinic.
The first Planned Parenthood Clinic in Connecticut opened in 1935 in Hartford. It provides services to women who do not have access to gynecologists, including information on artificial contraception and other methods for planning their family's growth. Several clinics opened in Connecticut in later years, including the Waterbury clinic which caused legal disputes. In 1939, the clinic was forced to enforce the 1879 anti-contraceptive law on poor female patients. This caught the attention of CBCL leaders, who commented on the importance of birth control for the cases in which the patient's life depended on it.
During the 1940s, several cases emerged from the provision of contraception by the Waterbury clinic, leading to legal challenges to the constitutionality of Comstock law, but this failed on a technical basis. In Tileston v. Ullman (1943), a physician and mother challenged the law on the grounds that a contraceptive ban may, in certain sexual situations, threaten the patient's life and well-being. The US Supreme Court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff has no right to prosecute on behalf of his patients. Yale School of Medicine, gynecologist C. Lee Buxton and his patients brought a second challenge to the law at Poe v. Ullman (1961). The Supreme Court again refused the appeal, arguing that the case was not mature: the plaintiff was not prosecuted or threatened with prosecution, so there was no real controversy for the Court to resolve it.
Polemics around Poe cause an appeal at Griswold v. Connecticut, principally based on dissent from Judge John Marshall Harlan II at Poe , one of the most cited opposition in the history of the Supreme Court.
(T) the full range of freedoms guaranteed by the Process Clause As can not be found or limited by the precise provision of special warranties elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'freedom' is not a series of isolated dots penetrated in terms of taking property; freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to store and carry weapons; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; etc. This is a rational continuum which, in general, encompasses the freedom of all arbitrary arbitrary and ultimate restraint. - Judge John Marshall Harlan II, dissent in Poe v. Ullman .
He argues, in particular, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than reject it. After that, he showed his support for a broad interpretation of the legal process clause. On the basis of this interpretation, Harlan concludes that the Connecticut law violates the Constitution.
After Poe was inherited in June 1961, Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) decided to challenge the law again. Estelle T. Griswold served on PPLC as Executive Director from 1954 to 1965. Fighting through legal battles against restrictions on birth control in Connecticut, Griswold and PPLC made an early attempt to financially support women who wanted contraception by bus to cities in New York and Rhode. Island. Executive Director of PPLC Estelle Griswold and Dr. Buxton (PPLC medical volunteer), opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, "thereby directly challenging state law." The clinic was opened on November 1, 1961, and on the same day received the first ten patients and dozens of requests for the appointment of a married woman who wanted advice and prescriptions for birth control. Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, convicted, and fined $ 100 each. The conviction was upheld by the Circuit Court Appeals Division, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Maps Griswold v. Connecticut
Court decisions about privacy relationships
Griswold appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Connecticut law was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads that "no state will make or enforce any law that will destroy the privileges or immunities of citizens state of the United States, nor shall any State remove any person from soul, liberty, or property, without due process of law... or deny any person equal protection of the law, "(Amendment 14 Section 1). With a 7-2 majority, on June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court concluded that the Connecticut law was unconstitutional.
Judge William O. Douglas, writing for the majority of courts, recognizes the right to privacy, though not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, found in "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as oneself. clauses of the Fifth Amendment, or the clause of freedom of association of the First Amendment. The right to privacy is seen as a right to "protect [ion] from government intrusion." Judge Arthur Goldberg wrote a concrete opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to support the Supreme Court ruling, arguing that privacy rights are retained by the people. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II also wrote concrete opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the process clause required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Judge Hugo Black and Potter Stewart wrote a different opinion. Justice Black argues that the right to privacy can not be found in the Constitution. Further, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court justices. Judge Stewart called the Connecticut law "a silly ridiculous law" but argued that it remains constitutional.
The court's final decision is then used in other cases relating to sexual practices and other personal decisions that are often considered private, to American citizens.
Preferred for the next case
Subsequent decisions by the US Supreme Court extend Griswold's principles beyond the particulars.
Right to control birth for unmarried couples, 1972
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended the ownership to unmarried couples, while the "privacy rights" in Griswold are said to apply only to marital relationships. The argument at Eisenstadt is that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment Protection Amendment Clause to deny an unmarried spouse the right to use contraception when a married couple has that right (under Griswold i>). Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan writes that Massachusetts can not enforce laws against married couples because Griswold v. Connecticut , so the law works "irrational discrimination" if it is not extended to unmarried couples as well.
Right to abortion for any woman, 1973
The reasons and languages ​​of both Griswold and Eisenstadt are quoted in the same opinion by Associate Justice Potter Stewart in support of Roe v. Wade , 410 US 113 (1973). The decision at Roe violates Texas law that criminalizes helping a woman in having an abortion. The Court ruled that this law constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Process Clause. Abortion is legal for any woman for any reason, until the first trimester, with possible restrictions for the health of the mother in the second trimester (the midpoint of which is the estimated time of fetal survival). In the third trimester of pregnancy, abortion is potentially illegal with the exception of maternal health, defined by the widespread court at Doe v. Bolton .
Contraception rights for teens at least 16 years old, 1977
Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
Hak untuk hubungan homoseksual, 2003
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) violates Texas sodomy laws that prohibit some form of intimate sexual contact between same-sex members. Without stating the standard of review in majority opinion, the court rejected Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), states that "the law of Texas does not involve legitimate state interests that justify its interference in individuals and individuals." rational basic review. The majority opinion of Judge Kennedy, which is based on the interests of freedom protected by the process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, states that the Texas anti-sodomy laws touch "on the most personal human behavior, sexual behavior, and in the most personal place, home," and seeks to "control the personal relationships that... are in the freedom of the person to vote unpunished." Thus, the Court declares that adults are entitled to participate in consensual sexual behavior. While opinions at Lawrence are framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy describes the "privacy rights" found in Griswold as "the most relevant starting point" in the evolution of the concept contained within Lawrence.
Right to same-sex marriage, 2015
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments