Griswold v. Connecticut appealed to the Supreme Court on errors of the state
court of Connecticut. This case deals with the right to prescribe the use of
birth control to a married female. This action is found unconstitutional under
the state laws, but this law invades a person’s rights under the constitution.
Here the problem evolves and must be decided upon in the courts. The appellant
Griswold is an Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of
Connecticut (Janosik, 1035). Appellant Buxton is a licensed physician and a
professor at Yale Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League
at its center in New Haven. This center was opened for ten days in November of
1961, until the appellants were arrested (Rice, 187). The appellants were tried
in the state court and decided that the state laws contradicted several rights
in the constitution. The two Connecticut laws state: “Any person who uses any
drug, medical 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 both be fined and imprisoned (Rice, 187).”
“Any person who resist, abets, counsels, causes, hires, or commands another to
commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal
offender (Rice, 188).” In the Connecticut court decision, the appellants were
found guilty as accessories and fined one hundred dollars each, against the
claim that the accessory ordinance as applied, violated several amendments. The
Connecticut statues forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of birth
control to married persons which is guaranteed through the Bill of Rights in the
Constitution for American citizens (Rice, 188). The appellants are guaranteed
fundamental rights through the Constitution to prescribe birth control to
married people if they are involved in a legal relationship. Certainly, the
companion in crime should not have worries that he or she will be charged with
assisting in birth control, which is not constitutionally a crime (Janosik,
170-171). This is created by several basic constitutional guarantees. It is the
invasion of his right to personal security, personal liberty, and private
property; therefore, the state laws cannot stand and invade the area of his
protected freedoms (Dye, 506). The Supreme Court’s decision was divided seven
to two. The majority found it unconstitutional due to intruding on the rights of
privacy to marriage. Even though the rights of privacy is not specifically
stated in the Bill of Rights, it is a concept of liberty which is stated in the
First Amendment (Chase, 334). The appellants are also protected with the Due
Process Clause (a law that is a basic principle in the American legal system
that requires fairness in the government’s dealing with people). The Fifth and
Fourteenth amendments protect certain fundamental rights without state or
federal government intervention (Chase, 335). The entire purpose of the
Constitution is to specifically state guarantees of rights to all the people. It
is odd that the Constitution does not include fundamental rights of protection
to privacy of marriage. The Ninth Amendment can pick up and protect issues under
marriage. It also recognizes and protects from abridgment by the government, and
it provides the right of liberty (Rice, 188). The Connecticut birth-control law
trespasses on personal liberty, but the state doesn’t show that the law serves
any single interest which is forcing, or mandatory to succeed in tolerating the
state policy. The state expresses an opinion that there is some relation between
the ordinance and what is a proper subject of the state’s concern. Its purpose
was to discourage extra-marital relationships (Janosik, 1171). Through this,
that banned the use of birth-control devices by married people (Janosik, 1177).
It helps prevent the use of the drug in extra-marital relations. The state
wanted to protect marital faithfulness, but it could have stated the law more
specifically so that it did not force upon the privacy of all married couples
(Rice, 191). Adultery, homosexuality and other sexual intimacies are forbidden
by the state, but the closeness of married couples is essential for the future
to be carried out (Janosik, 1176). The marriage relation is a sacred part of the
American culture: therefore, the state must allow marital privacy in every age.
It must acknowledge a marriage and the personal inherit of it. Connecticut
cannot constitutionally abbreviate the basic right, which is protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment from the intervention by the states (Rice, 188). The
Connecticut anti-contraceptive law forbids all married couples the right to use
birth control devices, regardless if their use is dictated by family planning,
health, or even of life itself. The law even prohibits the right from doctors to
help their patients in their best interest (Rice, 191). As in all cases
everything has two sides. The second side, the dissenting opinion, states there
is liberty, but it is limited to an extent (Rice, 188). They also feel that the
Connecticut statute is unconstitutional on the belief that the law is a good
policy to behold. The persons that are for the state law do believe that doctors
have the right to perform a physical examination to adult females, but advising
them on the type of contraceptive that would be satisfactory for their benefit
is against the law (Janosik, 1170). They feel that stretching the First
Amendment through the Elastic Clause to protect the rights of the defendants is
wrong (Chase, 399). Since the right of privacy in a marriage relationship is not
specifically stated in the constitution then the defendants do not have any
standing. The minority opinions also feel that the word privacy is too broad,
and it could be shortened and easily interpreted. Their feeling of privacy is
important, but the government has all rights to invade it as long as it does not
cross into a specific constitutional guarantee. Therefore, they do not agree
with the court’s decision and reasons it prevails for stating the Connecticut
law unconstitutional (Janosik, 1170). During the Supreme Court’s trial period
they discussed an issue about the right of privacy being constitutional. There
are no laws that put constitutional provisions forbidding any law to neglect the
right of privacy. Respectively, in the constitution there are specific
constitutional provisions which are designed to safeguard certain privacies at
various times and places (Janosik, 1177). Being one of three branches in our
American government system, the Supreme Court, has the power to override federal
and state laws. Yes, this does take away the power from Congress and the states
to make laws they find beneficial (Dye, 497-498). The Supreme Court has used the
Ninth Amendment (which state rights retained by the people) and the Fourteenth
Amendment (citizenship, equal protection of the laws by the states, and due
process of the states) to do away with the laws that violate the fundamental
principles of privacy. At this point in the court system there is no defined way
the court can use to determine each case from being constitutional or
unconstitutional (Chase, 399). The constitution is changed to conform with new
times. It is the court’s duty to take charge and make those changes. The
framers of the constitution knew the need for change and provided for it. It is
changed by amendments through proposals and ratification processes. Many experts
believe the Constitution should be treated as a living, breathing document (Dye,
86)! Anyone who feels that a marriage relationship should be beyond the reach of
a state law forbidding the use of contraceptives also believes that the state
law is unconstitutional too (Rice, 189). In 1965, it was viewed by a poll
showing that forty-six percent of the people in this country thought birth
control should be taught in the schools. The Supreme Court used this proportion
to rely on in declaring that the Connecticut law infringed on their fundamental
rights. When this law was found inappropriate, it went against what the majority
in Connecticut expressed through their representatives (Janosik, 998). In the
course of the Supreme Court’s opinion it refers to six amendments of the
constitution:  First Amendment – Freedom of Religion, Speech,
Assembly, Press and Petition  Third Amendment – Quartering of Soldiers
 Fourth Amendment – Searches and Seizure  Fifth Amendment –
Grand Juries, Self-Incrimination, Double Jeopardy, Due Process and Eminent
Domain  Ninth Amendment – Rights Retain by the People 
Fourteenth Amendment – Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection of the
Laws These determined why the Connecticut laws were unconstitutional. However,
the Court does not specifically say which of these Amendments it thinks the
Connecticut laws infringe on (Rice, 190). What provision makes the Connecticut
law invalid under the Constitution? The Supreme Court determined it was the
right of privacy given in the fundamental guarantees of the Constitution to
American citizens (Janosik, 998b). This decision made the Connecticut lawmakers
pass a bill repealing the birth control statute. The Supreme Court does not
specify state to what extent the constitutional right of privacy should extend
to (Janosik, 1766). Since 1879, Connecticut has had a law, which prevented the
use of any type of contraceptives. I believe the use of contraceptives in a
marital relationship should be a personal and private choice. Every person has
the right of privacy to choose what benefits him or her most. Since there is a
large variation of individual morals, ethical and religious backgrounds,
everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The methods of contraceptives should
be readily available to all adults, so that an individual or private choice can
be made. The Supreme Court ruling was an excellent decision on letting
contraceptives become a private choice in an honest marital situation.

BibliographyChase, Harold W. “Griswold v. Connecticut.” West’s Encyclopedia of
American Law. Vol. 7. Minnesota: West Group, 1998. Dye, Thomas R. Politics in
America. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997. Janosik, Robert J. “Griswold v.
Connecticut.” Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System. Vol. III and I.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1987. Rice, Arnold S. The Warren Court,
1954-1969: “Griswold v. Connecticut.” Vol. 8. Connecticut: Grolier
Educational Corp., 1995.