The Carrie Chapman Catt Group
The Political Concerns of WE the People:
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
Volume 1, Issue 1
The Case
By Christine Geddes
On March 29, 1965 the
embittered battle between
Estelle Griswold (and her
colleague C. Lee Buxton)
and the State of Connecti-
cut recommenced. This le-
gal battle worked its way
to the top, to the Supreme
Court of the United States,
the ultimate law of the
land. Joseph B. Clark ar-
gued the case for the ap-
pellee, and Thomas I. Em-
erson argued the case for
the appellants. The cita-
tion for this case was 381
U.S. 479 (1965); 85 S. Ct.
1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d 510;
1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282.
The docket number was
496.The previous actions
taken before this case
reached the Supreme
Court were that the defen-
dants were convicted, the
Circuit Court for the Sixth
Circuit 12-62 affirmed and
the Circuit Court Appel-
late Division 1-7-62 af-
firmed 200 A.2d 479
(Connecticut) in 1964. Fi-
nally on
June 7, 1965 about 70
days later the case was de-
cided. The Supreme Court
favored Estelle Griswold
and C. Lee Buxton in a 7-2
vote. This landmark case
set the precedent for many
cases to come such as Roe
v Wade.
Constitution Violated?
By Gina Bello
To what extent has the
state of Connecticut vio-
lated the United States
Constitution? In recent
commotion surrounding
the Griswold v. Con-
necticut, one is forced to
ponder the allegation.
The state of Connecticut
law prohibits the pre-
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/books
/us/constitution/7small.GIF
GRISWOLD CONVICTED AFTER OPENING CLINIC
By Cori Bogle
NEW HAVEN Estelle
Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Bux-
ton were arrested shortly af-
ter opening the Planned Par-
enthood League of Connecti-
cut in New Haven in 1961.
Their crime: giving medical
advice and prescribing con-
traceptives to married cou-
ples that seek the Planned
April 6, 2006
vention of conception by Amendment XIV
the use of any drug or ob-
ject by any person. Fur- Section 1. All persons born
or naturalized in the
thermore, the state of Con-
necticut stated that any United States, and subject
person who aided with
information or by other
means the use of contra-
ceptives was subject to a
fine, imprisonment, or
both.
Estelle T. Griswold,
whose job at the state
Planned Parenthood
League was to aid and
inform married couples,
was arrested and fine a
hundred dollars for
breaking the Connecti-
cut law. Griswold ap-
pealed to the Su- Estelle Griswold in front of New Haven
preme Court, claim- Planned Parenthood Center
ing that it was a vio-
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/
lation of the Four- ftrials/conlaw/parenthood.jpg
teenth Amendment
which states: (Constitution continued on page 2)
Parenthood for assistance. A Connecticut law that
After their arrest, Griswold, prohibited the use of "any drug,
Executive Director of this medicinal article or instrument
Connecticut branch, and for the purpose of preventing
Buxton, a physician and conception," spurred their ar-
professor at the Yale School rest. Moreover, the law made it
of Medicine, were tried, illegal to "assist, abet, counsel,
found guilty, and fined one cause, hire, or command an-
hundred dollars each. other to commit any offense",
and
(Conviction continued on page 3)
 V O LU ME 1 , ISSUE 1 T HE PO L I T I CAL C O NC E RNS OF WE T HE PEO PL E: PAGE 2

The Judges Decide Griswold v. Connecticut

T By Debra Lee
h The highly controversial case of Gris- sons, including several court cases, from the government. Douglas con-
e wold v. Connecticut was decided June 7, Douglas emphasizes the right to edu- cludes that the privacy of marriage is
1965. The case revolved around the cate one’s children in the manner that within the “zone of privacy” that the
question of whether the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, one chooses. This point is supported by Constitutional Amendments imply be-
h and 9th Amendments to the rulings in cases cause it is at least as noble as
i Constitution implied the such as Pierce v. the institutions covered in
g right to privacy. The final Society of Sisters. previous cases.
ruling on the case was 7 to In addition to the
h 2, striking down the Con- right to education Justice Black and
l necticut law. of choice, Douglas Justice Stewart are the two
y also cites NAACP dissenting votes. They note
Justice Douglas v. Alabama in that nowhere in the Constitu-
delivered the Majority which a penum- tion is the right of privacy
c opinion which struck down bra is found at- mentioned, although they con-
o the Connecticut law and tached to the cede that several guarantees
affirmed the right to pri- First Amend- are listed. The constitutional
n vacy. According to the provisions are only to protect
ment. This
t Justice, “We deal with penumbra Justice Hugo L. Black privacy in certain areas at
Justice William O. Douglas
r a right of privacy older grants certain times and places
http://www.ocpd.state.ct.us/Content/Gi
o than the Bill of Rights.” http://www.rotaryhistoryfellowship.org/his protection deon/Right%20to%20Counsel.htm
Among the list of rea- tory/famous/images/douglas.jpg
of privacy
v (Judges continued on page 3)
e
r
s
People Involved necticut law, which criminalized the
provision of counseling, and other
The chief justice of the case was
Judge Earl Warren. Associate justices
by Khanh Vuong medical treatment, to married persons are Hugo Black, William O. Douglas,
i for purposes of preventing conception.
Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II,
a Many people were involved in Griswold and Buxton were arrested,
William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Bryon
this case. Estelle Griswold (Executive tried, found guilty, and fined $100
l White, Arthur Goldberg.
Director of the Planned Parenthood each. The conviction was upheld by the
League of Connecticut) and Dr. C. Lee Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, Justice William Douglas
c Buxton (a physician and professor at and by the Connecticut Supreme Court (writing for the majority) ruled that the
a the Yale School of Medicine) opened a of Errors. Griswold then appealed her right was to be found in the "penumbras"
birth control clinic in New Haven, Con- conviction to the Supreme Court of the of other constitutional protections. Jus-
s United States.
necticut. The Planned Parenthood tice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring
e League of Connecticut”. They gave in- opinion in which he used the Ninth
Joseph B. Clark argued the
formation, instruction, and other medi- Amendment to defend the Supreme
cause for the appellee. Thomas Emer-
o cal advice to married couples concern- Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall
son argued the cause for the appel-
ing birth control. Griswold and her col- wrote a concurring opinion in which he
f lants.
league were convicted under a Con- argued that privacy is protected by the
due process clause of the Fourteenth
G Amendment. Justice Byron White also
(Constitution continued from page 1)
r Section 5. The Congress shall wrote a concurrence based on the due
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citi- have power to enforce, by appro- process clause.
i
zens of the United States and of priate legislation, the provisions Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter
s of this article.
the state wherein they reside. No Stewart, filed dissents. Black argued
w state shall make or enforce any that the right to privacy is to be found
o Griswold furthermore stated that nowhere in the Constitution. Further-
law which shall abridge the privi-
l the Connecticut law concerning more, he
leges or immunities of citizens of
the prohibiting of contraceptives (People continued on page 3)
d the United States; nor shall any
violates the marriage right of pri-
state deprive any person of life, lib-
vacy, which is assured in the Bill
v erty, or property, without due proc- Constitution, stating that the
of Rights.
ess of law; nor deny to any person Connecticut law interfered in
.
within its jurisdiction the equal With that in consideration the the private sexual relations be-
protection of the laws. Supreme Court upheld the tween married couples.
C
 (Judges Continued from page 2)
THE CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT GROUP

with certain activities. The dis-

senters also claim that forcing federal and state laws to accept the rul-
Carrie Chapman Catt ing of the courts on matters of privacy may jeopardize the balance of
http://www.betterworldheroes.com/portraits/c
powers. Black writes, “Subjecting federal and state laws to such an
att.jpg unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of
legislative enactments would…jeopardize the separation of governmen-
tal powers.” Black also claims that the Doctor standing trial directly
violated the Con-
The Strachan Experience necticut law and
cannot claim the
right of freedom
of speech. He
Those who do not study history are considers the
doomed to repeat the past. Doctor guilty be-
cause he gave
(People continued from page 2) counseling on
which contracep-
tive to use and
criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and
provided the cou-
Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Jus-
ple with the con-
tices adhered. Stewart famously called the Con-
traceptive devices.
necticut statute "an uncommonly silly law," but
noted that it was nevertheless constitutional. The Warren Court
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/

(Conviction continued from page 1)

Constitutionality of the Decision
By Lisa Richards the Planned Parenthood clearly violated this law.
Although the statue was almost never enforced since
The main question in the case within the family and preventing its passing in 1879, some attempts were made to
of Griswold v. Connecticut is married couples from using contra- challenge the constitutionality of the law, but they
“Does the ceptives goes against that basic all failed.
Constitution protect the right of Constitutional right. In addition
marital privacy and the ability the 4th Amendment proves the The first challenge was Tileston v. Ullman
to use Court ruling (1943), in which a doctor stated that banning contra-
contraceptives?” The ruling of was right because it ensures the ceptives could threaten the lives of his patients. The
Griswold v. Connecticut proves right of people to be secure in their second, Poe v. Ullman (1961), was brought to court
that the homes. Finally, the 9th Amend- by a doctor and his patients, but was again dis-
Supreme Court believes that ment prevents the restriction of missed by the Supreme Court for not being ripe.
the Constitution defends a mar- personal Therefore, Griswold v. Connecticut was the first time
ried couple’s liberties by the federal power. the statue had ever received judicial review.
right to privacy and the use of The ruling of the Supreme Court to The Poe case, however, was not a complete
contraceptives. allow the use of contraceptives was failure. Instead, Justice John Marshall Harlan II
First of all, the 1st Amendment a gave one of the most cited dissenting opinions of the
protects the right of association, right decision based on the Court’s Supreme Court. His argument stated that the Due
which interpretation of the Constitution. Process Clause of the Constitution should be inter-
makes the Connecticut law un- Griswold v. Connecticut makes it preted broadly. "The full scope of the liberty guaran-
constitutional by not allowing illegal to forbid the use of contra- teed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or
married couples ceptives limited by the precise terms of the specific guaran-
to express their opinions and do for married couples, which, based tees elsewhere provided in the Constitution…it is a
what they want in on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, rational continuum which, broadly speaking, in-
their marriage. Also, and 9th Amendments cludes a freedom form all substantial arbitrary impo-
the violate the rights of sitions and purposeless restraints," he said. There-
3rd Amendment, married couples. The fore, he stated that this Connecticut law violated the
which disallows the ruling of this case pre- Constitution.
quartering of troops in vents the
the home because violation of basic civil Griswold and Buxton appealed this case to
of a lack of privacy, liberties, which will the Supreme Court on the same grounds as Poe,
also proves the Con- continue to change and claiming that the statue violated the rights of mar-
necticut law to be affect the world for ried people to liberty under the Due Process Clause
unconstitutional. This years to come. of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Federal Appeals
amendment al- Court as well as Connecticut's Supreme Court of Er-
lows for privacy http://www.homeofheroes.com/
hallofheroes/1st_floor/birth/preamble_print.html rors upheld their conviction. Their appeal was heard
in 1965.