Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Friday, November 27, 2009 at 5:44PM Read the decision here.
Issue. Did Connecticut's laws that prohibited the use of contraception or aid one in using contraception violate the Constitution?
Background. Griswold, a physician, was the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. He gave information, instruction and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. That violated Connecticut law and Griswold, among others, was fined $100 for each violation.
Griswold claimed that the law violated his 14th Amendment rights but the lower courts upheld the conviction. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which overturned the lower courts and found the law to be unconstitutional.
Court's Analysis. The Court examined prior cases where it had found that individuals had a constitutional right to arrange their familial lives - such as sending a child to the school of the parent's choice. Further, these "cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
In other words, other amendments have recognized rights to privacy. The First Amendment freedom of association, the Third Amendment right not to have soldiers stationed in your home, the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination all demonstrate a right to privacy. And, let's not forget the Ninth Amendment which recognizes that people have additional rights than those listed in the first eight amendments.
What more fundamental zone of privacy do individuals have than to arrange their marital and sexual affairs free from governmental interference? (The Court never says sexual.) This Right of Privacy is older than the Bill of Rights and cannot be infringed. Therefore, Connecticut laws banning the use of contraception and punishing those who aid in such use are unconstitutional.
Afterword. This is one of those privacy cases where the decision is correct even though people may differ on the reason (and without having to cite to penumbras and emanations). For me, I believe that a vibrant 9th Amendment where people have the right to arrange their private lives without recrimination as long as it does not harm another or society at large. Birth control causes no harm (I.U.D. aside) and cannot be denied to consenting individuals.