In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court overturned a Connecticut law that made it a crime to use birth control or to advise individuals about their use. According to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, p. 2), “the plaintiffs, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, were convicted for giving married couples information and medical advice on how to prevent conception.” A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for anyone to use drugs or articles to prevent conception. As a result of their appeal, Supreme Court granted the plea based on the Bill of Rights (Fourteenth Amendment), which prevented the states from declaring contraception by married couples illegal.
In the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), a pregnant single woman (Roe) brought an action challenging anti-abortion Laws in Texas. Plaintiff won the case, relying on the Fourteenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the court used the Griswold case as precedent, which was a correct decision by doctrine stare decisis. Both cases are related to the Bill of Rights and specifically to the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants the right to personal privacy. Texas statutes were argued to be unconstitutionally vague and reduced the individual rights granted by the Bill. Texas abortion laws ban obtaining an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.
Similarly, in the case of Griswold, the defendant was found guilty since the Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment, essentially granting abortion rights. Therefore, the Roe case is similar to the Griswold case, making the use of the latter as a precedent justifiable. Griswold’s case was also relevant when arguing the Ninth Amendment, which protects the fundamental rights of a single person or a married couple to have children. Nevertheless, it corresponds to the Roe case, making the precedent application relevant.
The precedent case in Roe v. Wade was crucial in confirming the ninth and fourteenth amendments, thus appealing the case. If the court did not accept the precedent, then the case would likely not be appealed, and the rights regarding anti-abortion laws would not be granted to single women and married couples. Both cases are based on the ninth and fourteenth amendments, which makes the precedent case relevant and applicable. Thus, the court properly applied the doctrine of stare decisis.
References
Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).