Griswold V. Connecticut: Remarks on Contraception,

Grisworld v. Connecticut set the stage for Roe. v. Wade (1973), "the most controversial decision of the Court's modern era" (Stephens & Scheb, 2003). But its important in its own right, too; for Griswold is described in American Constitutional Law as a "landmarkÐ'...decisionÐ'...that recognized an independent constitutional right of privacy" (Stephens & Scheb, 2003). For this assignment, I'd like to review Griswold's case history, legal reasoning, and the changing state of social thought for this case is founded in and partly responsible for.

Appellant Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Undercover detectives were given a tour of the clinic, who noted that the clinic was dispensing condoms contrary to Connecticut state law. Strikingly, in modern consideration, after three days of business at a new clinic, Griswold and appellant Buxton the League's Medical Director were arrested and fined in November of 1961 for giving medical advice to married persons for the purpose of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965; Stephens & Scheb, 2003). Though the notion may strike a puzzling chord with modern conventions, contraception, when viewed with a historic eye, is very new and, therefore, was very unnatural thing in its time. The case points out the

striking level of governmental involvement in doctor patient relationship at the time and the change in social thought.

The issue of constitutionality raised by the defendants appealing the conviction and fine involved the General Statutes of Connecticut, in particular statutes Ð'§Ð'§53-32 and 54-196 (1938) (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). Despite the defendant's backing claim that the Fourteenth Amendment providing a constitutional right to privacy implicit in the Bill of Rights (Stephens & Scheb, 2003)and the Connecticut statutes were in conflict, appellants Griswold and Buxton were affirmed as guilty accessories both by the Circuit Court and the Court of Errors (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The Connecticut statute not only outlawed counseling another in the use of birth control devices, but also the possession of them (Stephens & Scheb, 2003).

Later, on certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court level (though in separate concurring opinions), Justice Goldberg, Justice Harlan, and Justice White held the Connecticut statute to be unconstitutional because of the substantive privacy rights in the Fourteenth Amendment (Stephens & Scheb, 2003). Justices Stewart and Black dissented from the majority, also in separate opinions. Legal reasoning was split as to whether a doctor could recommend contraceptives, but the Griswold won on a 7 to 2 vote. Incidentally, Justice Black held that no deducible right to privacy exists in the Constitution. A big consideration in the case dealt with the "reasonable relationship" of the state law to a legitimate legislative function, which went un-remarked upon in the Connecticut brief. Connecticut thought they could win their case on the idea that "birth control law was a rational means of promoting the welfare of Connecticut's people". They were wrong because social thought was changing. People disliked the idea of government interference in doctor-patient relationship and the idea of police searching a couple's bedroom for contraceptives. Furthermore, polls began to reveal that public opinion was slowly favoring the availability of contraception.

As a result of the Supreme Court reversal, a protection of personal autonomy and personal relations against governmental interference, Ð''constitutional right to privacy' (Justice Brandeis's "right to be left alone") now equates to a fundamental right of sex and reproduction. The change has been drastic even though is hard to realize in contemporary social thought. Just the idea that this police could search couple's bedroom before 1965 and arrest them for using contraceptives seems absurd now, but it was the case before Griswold. Morality was becoming more individual and more liberal in this era.

The Griswold case decision was sharply criticized in its time. Thus, the realpolitik of the issue rests between the chosen interpretation and the classical conservative principle of the need to protect individuals against their own vices. In fact, even though the decision was bold and liberal