Introduction
The Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) was a key U.S. Supreme Court Case, best known for reaffirming the individual ‘right to privacy’ and disallowed state bans on the use of contraceptives. It was a landmark decision that tremendously shifted the social attitudes in the country and has since become a precented for further expansion of civil liberties. The purpose of this paper is to examine the circumstances leading up to the legal issue, how the issue became a court case and its progression through various levels of the judicial system, and finally, the outcomes identified in the Supreme Court and its aftermath.
In March 1873, Congress passed the Comstock Act which made contraceptives illegal and disallowed their transportation and sale across state lines. It is around this time; states passed their own local laws banning the use of contraceptives. However, by 1950s, only two states of Massachusetts and Connecticut had enacted legal statutes enforcing the Comstock laws. Throughout the early 20th century, family planning and birth control began to gain support through grassroots activism. The first Planned Parenthood clinics began to open as early as 1935, including in Connecticut (Petlakh, 2019). Contraception was a subject that was known about by all adults but remained relatively taboo, and physicians sought to avoid public discussions of it. However, activism continued, and many groups were involved in legal attempts to abolish the law. Clinics in Connecticut that guided and advised patients on the use of contraceptives were closed, with doctors and administrators arrested. Despite gradual social approval and liberalization around the country, Connecticut remained one of the few states that continued to enforce the 1873 law.
Leading up to the Case
The state of Connecticut had a law stemming from 1879 which criminalized any use, sale, or encouragement to use birth control and contraceptives, including “any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another” such as physicians. The punishment was a fine of a minimum of $40 and jail sentence of 60 days (Petlakh, 2019) The Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) which was both part of the national chain of clinics but also a grassroots activism organization, had been trying to challenge the state law for decades. With the most recent ruling in Poe v. Ulman (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing (McBride, n.d.).
At the time, Estelle Griswold was the Executive Director of PPLC sought to challenge the law once again. She and Dr. C. Lee Buxton of Yale Medical School (a volunteer at PPLC) opened a birth control clinic in 1961, openly challenging the state law. Within days, law enforcement shut down the clinic and arrested Griswold and Buxton, who were found guilty and fined $100 per person. This approach was justified in order to directly challenge the law and have standing before the Supreme Court (Griswold v. Connecticut, n.d.). Previous cases were dismissed as the Court found that a doctor and a mother lacked standing, while Poe was dismissed based on grounds that the state never charged the plaintiff. In this case, the clinic’s executive director representing the clinic as an organization, having direct standing to challenge the law and be liable as the plaintiff was charged.
Becoming a Court Case
Upon being charged, Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Court of Errors in Connecticut, challenging the Constitutional validity of the law and their arrest. They argued that the Connecticut legislation against birth control directly contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment which directly states that laws cannot “abridge privileges,” “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,” and violate “due process of law” (Mcbride, n.d.). The Court of Errors upheld the charge, and so did the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, eventually affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Griswold then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was selected to be reviewed in 1965 by the Warren Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of the plaintiff Griswold. The state law was deemed unconstitutional and lower court rulings were reversed. The Court ruled that the privacy of marriage, including the type of family planning and contraceptive used, is protected by the Constitution. The Court established that even if the right to privacy in general is not protected by the Bill of Rights, it creates penumbras, or essentially areas (both physical and relationships) that are guaranteed the right to privacy. One of which is marriage that is protected by multiple amendments and is a “fundamental right” (McBride, n.d.). In their concurrences, judges cited the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments in particular in regard to the right to privacy. The dissenting two judges argued that the reasoning was insufficient to guarantee that the Constitution allowed for a right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, n.d.). Therefore, the final ruling was that the state could not restrict a couple’s right to counsel or use of contraceptives under the privacy clause.
Effects of the Ruling
The case was one of the first which established Constitutional protections for activities conducted in private life and intimate affairs, which was highly controversial at the time of a highly conservative society. However, understanding of birth control and family planning was gaining traction as the easily accessible to consumers birth control pill was created in 1960. The decision was met with significant approval from activists. Due to the reasoning used in the Griswold case, other issues could be pushed to attain Constitutional protections. The case is believed to be the precedent for future landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade which famously made state abortion bans illegal. Due to the availability of birth control and the Supreme Court ruling on Griswold, contraception use became prevalent, which impact public health. Maternal and infant mortality rates fell tremendously, and contraception has allowed people to live healthier, as birth control, for example, is used by 58% of women for more than pregnancy prevention but hormone regulation as well (Griswold v. Connecticut, 2022). Contraception has changed the social shift and attitudes of the country, allowing families to plan for children while those not interested in children to focus on their futures and careers.
Conclusion
The Griswold case became the first in a series of cases addressing private lives and reproduction rights in the United States. Using the precedent of the case, a range of other rights were solidified as Constitutionally protected including the use of contraceptives outside of marriage, abortion, and eventually, same-sex relations and marriage. This has had a tremendous and long-lasting impact on the social behaviors and norms, human rights, and development of the United States and led to a period of over 50 years of liberalization and placing many rights and freedoms in the hands of the people rather than state governments. Often viewed as a critical point in legal history on the expansion of civil rights, Griswold challenged the court in its examination of public opinions in contrast to legal requirement on a highly sensual subject related to sexuality but eventually came out in favor of the right to privacy prohibiting the states from denying birth control or family planning consultations to couples.
My personal opinion of the ruling and the case is that it was both ethically and constitutionally correct. The constitutional Bill of Rights, even in the most conservative interpretations, is meant to provide protection for US residents. As accurately pointed out by one of the justices, the Ninth Amendment specifically allows for the Bill of Rights coverage to expand beyond the traditionally listed rights. While the issue of federalism of state vs. national rights will continuously be a balance that the US is struggling to achieve, there are areas of private life that should be protected at all times by the Constitution, and states or the national government should not be able to intervene.
As mentioned, the case led to a range of other protections, including abortion under Roe v. Wade. I see a lot of connections and disagree with the current controversy of passing back the decision to the states. It simply opens a ‘pandora’s box’ of many similar court decisions, including the Griswold case discussed here, being unraveled and giving states too much power to control private lives of citizens as some of the conservative states have already indicated they would do with legislation. Therefore, ethical perspectives set aside, I believe that legally, private rights covered in Griswold are protected Constitutionally and the ruling was fully justified.
References
Griswold v. Connecticut.(n.d.). Oyez.
Griswold v. Connecticut. (2022). Planned Parenthood.
McBride, Alex. (n.d.). Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Thirteen.
Petlakh, Ksenia. (2019). Griswold v. Connecticut. The Encyclopedia of Women and Crime. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.