Roe v. Wade was not the first point in history abortion was discussed. Prior to the court case, many states, and eventually the Supreme Court, ruled on the constitutionality of state laws which preluded Roe v. Wade. In 1879, a Connecticut law was enacted stating that any one person who attempted through medical means to prevent conception of a child should “be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned no less than sixty days” (“Griswold v. Connecticut…”). This meant that any form of contraceptive (i.e. birth control, condoms, and abortion) was illegal in the eyes of the Connecticut state court. In 1939, the Waterbury Maternal Health Center in Waterbury, Connecticut was raided by police for their practice which helped “married women who could not afford private medical care” (Dudziak). The predominately Catholic city saw “‘that the clinic was operating in wanton disregard, not only of the laws of God, but of the State of Connecticut also’” (Dudziak). On June 12, 1939 police arrested Doctor Roger B. Nelson, Doctor William B. Goodrich, and medical director, Clara McTernan, filed charges, and permanently shut down the clinic (Dudziak). However, Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton sought to reinstall an abortion center and on November 1, 1961, the two opened a new clinic in New Haven, Connecticut which attended to ten new patients (Garrow). While doing so, Griswold and Buxton violated the 1879 law which declared it illegal to distribute contraceptives. The two were found guilty and fined $100, but later appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut claiming the Constitution gave them the right to provide contraception to any person who wanted it (“Griswold v.
…show more content…
Connecticut…”). When the Griswold v. Connecticut case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 1965, a seven to two decision determined that the Connecticut law was invalid and “discouraged marital sex for reasons other than procreation by criminalizing birth control counseling or the provision of contraceptives” (Markels). Because of this case, any married couples who wanted to use birth control were protected by their right to privacy provided in the Fourteenth Amendment (“Roe v. Wade:…”). Five years later, in 1970, the court case Eisenstadt v. Baird disputed whether the result of Griswold v. Connecticut should also be extended to any single woman. Violating a Massachusetts law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons and the distribution by those who were not authorized. William Baird, a lecturer at Boston University, gave “Emko Vaginal Foam to a woman following his Boston University lecture on birth control and over-population” (“EISENSTADT v. BAIRD”). According to court documents, in 1971 Baird applied for a writ of habeas corpus (an authorization which allowed a criminally convicted person to move from state court to federal court) and was first denied at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the belief that “someone who is neither an authorized distributor or a married person” does not have the “standing to seek a writ of habeas corpus after being convicted under a law that prohibits distribution of contraceptives” (“Eisenstadt v. Baird…”) (“Writ of Habeas…”). However, after an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Baird was vacated since it was determined that the Massachusetts law violated unmarried couples Fourteenth Amendment (“Eisenstadt v. Baird…”). On March 22, 1972, in a six to one decision, the Supreme Court ruled “that the law’s distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the ‘rational basis test’ of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause” (“EISENSTADT v. BAIRD…”). Thus, the Eisenstadt v. Baird court case further extended the Griswold v. Connecticut decision. Even though both cases were precursors for Roe v. Wade, the controversy over abortion did not end in 1973 with the conclusion to the Roe v. Wade court case. Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act, passed in 1982, required women who wanted an abortion to oblige to three steps: firstly, women must be informed about abortions 24-hours before the procedure was conducted; secondly, minors (those under sixteen years of age) must have parental consent “except in cases of ‘hardship;’” thirdly, a woman must inform her husband before the abortion was conducted (McBride). In 1992, the Casey v. Planned Parenthood Southeastern
Connecticut…”). When the Griswold v. Connecticut case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 1965, a seven to two decision determined that the Connecticut law was invalid and “discouraged marital sex for reasons other than procreation by criminalizing birth control counseling or the provision of contraceptives” (Markels). Because of this case, any married couples who wanted to use birth control were protected by their right to privacy provided in the Fourteenth Amendment (“Roe v. Wade:…”). Five years later, in 1970, the court case Eisenstadt v. Baird disputed whether the result of Griswold v. Connecticut should also be extended to any single woman. Violating a Massachusetts law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons and the distribution by those who were not authorized. William Baird, a lecturer at Boston University, gave “Emko Vaginal Foam to a woman following his Boston University lecture on birth control and over-population” (“EISENSTADT v. BAIRD”). According to court documents, in 1971 Baird applied for a writ of habeas corpus (an authorization which allowed a criminally convicted person to move from state court to federal court) and was first denied at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the belief that “someone who is neither an authorized distributor or a married person” does not have the “standing to seek a writ of habeas corpus after being convicted under a law that prohibits distribution of contraceptives” (“Eisenstadt v. Baird…”) (“Writ of Habeas…”). However, after an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Baird was vacated since it was determined that the Massachusetts law violated unmarried couples Fourteenth Amendment (“Eisenstadt v. Baird…”). On March 22, 1972, in a six to one decision, the Supreme Court ruled “that the law’s distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the ‘rational basis test’ of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause” (“EISENSTADT v. BAIRD…”). Thus, the Eisenstadt v. Baird court case further extended the Griswold v. Connecticut decision. Even though both cases were precursors for Roe v. Wade, the controversy over abortion did not end in 1973 with the conclusion to the Roe v. Wade court case. Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act, passed in 1982, required women who wanted an abortion to oblige to three steps: firstly, women must be informed about abortions 24-hours before the procedure was conducted; secondly, minors (those under sixteen years of age) must have parental consent “except in cases of ‘hardship;’” thirdly, a woman must inform her husband before the abortion was conducted (McBride). In 1992, the Casey v. Planned Parenthood Southeastern