Difference between revisions of "Griswold v. Connecticut"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(moved cat, removed liberal bias)
Line 1: Line 1:
''Griswold v. Connecticut'' ('''381 U.S. 479''') was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case involving the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute (law) prohibiting the use of [[contraception]] by any means other than the [[rhythm method]] or [[abstinence]]. ''Griswold'' is considered an important [[precedent]] in United States [[constitutional law]] and is considered to have created a "right to privacy" not present in the constitution.  This precedent has been used as the foundation for the highly controversial ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' line of decisions which declared state laws prohibiting [[abortion]] to be [[unconstitutional]], and the [[Lawrence v. Texas]] decision which decriminalized [[homosexual behavior]].  
+
''Griswold v. Connecticut'' ('''381 U.S. 479''') was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case involving the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute (law) prohibiting the use of [[contraception]] by unnatural means, such as artificial birth control. ''Griswold'' is considered an important, if unfortunate, [[precedent]] in United States [[constitutional law]] and is considered to have created a "right to privacy" not present in the [[U.S. Constitution]].  This precedent was later used as the foundation for the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' line of decisions which declared state laws prohibiting [[abortion]] to be [[unconstitutional]], and the [[Lawrence v. Texas]] decision which decriminalized [[homosexual behavior]].  
  
[[Appellant]] Griswold was the Executive Director of the [[Planned Parenthood]] League of Connecticut. [[Appellant]] Buxton was a licensed physician and a professor at the [[Yale]] Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven. Both had been arrested for violating a Connecticut law which made it a crime punishable by a $50.00 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment to use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception" <ref> 381 U.S. 479, 480 </ref> and which extended the same penalty to anyone "who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" <ref> ibid </ref> to do so. Griswold and Buxton had been convicted of prescribing contraceptives to married couples in violation of the Connecticut law.
+
[[Appellant]] Griswold was the Executive Director of the [[Planned Parenthood]] League of Connecticut. [[Appellant]] Buxton was a licensed physician and a professor at the [[Yale]] Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven. Both had been arrested for violating a Connecticut law which made it a crime punishable by a $50.00 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment to use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"<ref>381 U.S. 479, 480 </ref> and which extended the same penalty to anyone "who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" <ref> ibid </ref> to do so. Griswold and Buxton had been convicted of prescribing contraceptives to married couples in violation of the Connecticut law.
  
 
The [[opinion of the court]] was delivered by [[Justice]] [[Douglas]], and, after finding that the appellants had [[standing]] to invoke the [[constitutional rights]] of the married people they had provided contraception to, went on to find that the Connecticut law violated the [[penumbra]] (shadow) emanating from the [[First Amendment]], [[Third Amendment]], [[Fourth Amendment]] and [[Fifth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which created a "[[zone of privacy]]" around the married couples Griswold and Buxton had assisted. This reasoning explicitly relied in part on the Supreme Court's previous decision in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] ('''367 U.S. 643'''), a case involving [[search warrant]] issues, and ''Griswold'' is often considered by lawyers to be a [[legal progeny]] of ''Mapp'', in the same way that ''Roe'' is a progeny of ''Griswold''.
 
The [[opinion of the court]] was delivered by [[Justice]] [[Douglas]], and, after finding that the appellants had [[standing]] to invoke the [[constitutional rights]] of the married people they had provided contraception to, went on to find that the Connecticut law violated the [[penumbra]] (shadow) emanating from the [[First Amendment]], [[Third Amendment]], [[Fourth Amendment]] and [[Fifth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which created a "[[zone of privacy]]" around the married couples Griswold and Buxton had assisted. This reasoning explicitly relied in part on the Supreme Court's previous decision in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] ('''367 U.S. 643'''), a case involving [[search warrant]] issues, and ''Griswold'' is often considered by lawyers to be a [[legal progeny]] of ''Mapp'', in the same way that ''Roe'' is a progeny of ''Griswold''.
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
 
All information from the official reports of ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' ('''381 U.S. 479''') and ''Mapp v. Ohio'' ('''367 U.S. 643''').
 
 
 
[[category:law]]
 
[[category:law]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
+
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Revision as of 15:41, 25 August 2007

Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479) was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute (law) prohibiting the use of contraception by unnatural means, such as artificial birth control. Griswold is considered an important, if unfortunate, precedent in United States constitutional law and is considered to have created a "right to privacy" not present in the U.S. Constitution. This precedent was later used as the foundation for the Roe v. Wade line of decisions which declared state laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional, and the Lawrence v. Texas decision which decriminalized homosexual behavior.

Appellant Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Appellant Buxton was a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven. Both had been arrested for violating a Connecticut law which made it a crime punishable by a $50.00 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment to use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"[1] and which extended the same penalty to anyone "who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" [2] to do so. Griswold and Buxton had been convicted of prescribing contraceptives to married couples in violation of the Connecticut law.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Douglas, and, after finding that the appellants had standing to invoke the constitutional rights of the married people they had provided contraception to, went on to find that the Connecticut law violated the penumbra (shadow) emanating from the First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which created a "zone of privacy" around the married couples Griswold and Buxton had assisted. This reasoning explicitly relied in part on the Supreme Court's previous decision in Mapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 643), a case involving search warrant issues, and Griswold is often considered by lawyers to be a legal progeny of Mapp, in the same way that Roe is a progeny of Griswold.

Justices Black and Stewart dissented.

References

  1. 381 U.S. 479, 480
  2. ibid