Griswold v. Connecticut: Right to Privacy
Jenna Siehien
Liberty High School
2A
The right to privacy for Americans, especially for married couples, was not an easy journey. Until the late 1960?s the right to privacy did not exist constitutionally. Due to the right to privacy not being clearly stated in the Constitution, it called for evaluation and interpretation of multiple amendments in order to reach that goal but first, an issue had to come up that questioned the right to privacy. In 1965 when two people were tried for something that they believe invaded the right to privacy and infringed on the 14th amendment (due process clause), they took the case right on up to the Supreme …show more content…
Lee Buxton, a licensed physician, were tried for violating the state?s law. They were caught giving information, instruction, and other advice to married couples about birth control in order to prevent conception (Chicago-Kent Law, 2015). The actual law established by Connecticut in 1879 stated that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days? (McBride, 2006). The law also stated that, "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender? (McBride, 2006). Griswold and Buxton were arrested and fined $100 each for going against this law. Both believed that this law was not in line with the U.S. Constitution and that it needed to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court (McBride, …show more content…
Connecticut was taken before the Warren Court of the U.S. Supreme Court in March of 1965, with Griswold and Buxton as the appellants in the case. The Constitutional question being asked was, ?Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?? The justices together evaluated the Constitution focusing on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments and on June 7, 1965, it was overall concluded, with a 7-2 majority opinion for Griswold, that these amendments together did create a general ?right to privacy? and it was found that Connecticut?s statue was indeed unconstitutional (Chicago-Kent Law, 2015). Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion of the court, concluded that the Constitution does grant the right to privacy through the penumbras established by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments. Justice Goldberg wrote the concurring opinion joined by Justice Harlan and Justice White. They believed that the relevant statue violated the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. The dissenting opinion came from Mr. Justice Black joined by Mr. Justice Stewart who both believed that the citizens of Connecticut should be aware of their rights under the ninth and tenth Amendments in order to convince their state representatives to repeal the law if it does not abide with their community standards ("Griswold v. Connecticut (B)," 2015) and (?Griswold v.