Tyranikkquia Oliver

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), [1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".U.S.479 [1]landmark caseSupreme Court of the United StatesConstitutionright to privacyConnecticutcontraceptives Should people be allowed access to drugs or devices designed to stop contraception, and thus be able to engage in sex without having to worry as much about pregnancy? There have been many laws in the United States which prohibited the manufacture, distribution, transportation, or advertisement of such drugs and devices. Those laws were challenged and the most successful line or argument stated that such laws interfered with a sphere of privacy which belonged to the individual.

Connecticut prohibited the use of drugs or instruments to prevent conception, and the giving of assistance or counsel in their use. The laws in question had been enacted in 1879 (and originally written by P.T. Barnum, of circus fame): Any person who uses any drug, medicinal 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 be both fined and imprisoned. The Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use.

Court Decision The Supreme Court ruled that the "statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights." According to Justice Douglas, who wrote the majority opinion, the rights people have are more than what can be read in the literal language of the Constitutional text. Citing a number of earlier cases, he emphasized how the Court had established a justified precedent for protecting the marital and family relationships from government interference without strong justification. In this case, the Court failed to find any justification for this kind of interference in such relationships. The State failed to demonstrate that couples did not possess a right to make private decisions as to when and how many children they would have.

My opinion about this case is majority opinion in the Griswold decision provided the legal rationale and philosophical foundation for the Court ’ s subsequent decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) which legalized abortion in all fifty states, invalidated various state laws, and generated an intense nationwide debate which continues today.