Griswold v. Connecticut Background
In particular, Griswold v. Connecticut lays a foundation for the concept of a right to keep issues related to our bodies private. In the United States during the early twentieth century, it was illegal in many parts of the country to provide married couples with contraceptive devices, like the birth control pill, or to give advice about pregnancy and family planning.
Estelle Griswold, director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. Buxton, a physician and the medical director of the New Haven, CT location, were both found guilty of violating two Connecticut laws. These laws criminalize use of contraception for anyone, including married couples, as well as providing any counseling on the subject. Griswold and Buxton counseled married patients about family planning and contraception. This case asks if the Constitution protects a married couple's right to learn about and use contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.
Decision of the Court
In a vote of 7 to 2, the Court held that there are penumbras of privacy (381 U. S. 483), which would include a married couple's right to contraception counseling and use. A penumbra (or shadow) is a right that the language of the Constitution hints at, but does not state directly. In other words, the Constitution's words are more than just what is immediately apparent; there are broader implications, which can be inferred. Here, the Court held that the right to privacy is suggested by the following amendments:
- First: individual liberties, including religion and assembly
- Fourth: protection of your property and body against search and seizure of evidence without a warrant
- Fifth: right to refuse to testify against yourself or produce evidence to be used to convict
- Ninth: even if a right is not spelled out in the Constitution, that doesn't mean that we do not have it
These together create a zone of privacy. Your body, home, and property are generally free from government interference. These are a safe zone where you can expect to have your privacy protected. You have the right to worship as you please, to assemble and peacefully protest, to protect your body and property against search, and to refuse to incriminate yourself, as well as the guarantee that you have other rights not spelled out in the Constitution too. There are plenty of examples of your rights to privacy on specific limited topics so a broader right to privacy must then exist in the background of all of these. The zone of privacy is created by these amendments, casting a shadow or penumbra of a right to privacy in our bodies, particularly in cases of human sexuality.
Setting a Precedent
Griswold v. Connecticut has set an important precedent for many Supreme Court cases that followed. Two of the most notable cases are Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.
- Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 1973): A right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. The Court established a trimester approach, based on the nine months of pregnancy. Within the first trimester, states cannot restrict abortion services; in the second trimester, states may regulate abortion services at their discretion; in the third trimester, no abortion services can be offered legally. As the pregnancy progresses, the prevailing importance of the right to privacy is replaced by the state's interest in preventing abortions after fetal viability.
- Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003): A right to privacy also includes the right of two consenting adults to engage in sexual conduct free from government restriction; in particular, states cannot create discriminatory laws, which solely criminalize homosexual sexual activities. This case overturned the precedent set by Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 186, 1986), which allowed states to create discriminatory sexual conduct legislation.
Lesson Summary
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) determined that we have an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, encompassed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. This right guards against unwanted government interference in our bodies, particularly in cases of human sexuality. This particular case argued that states do not have the right to deny married couples access to or counseling about family planning, pregnancy prevention, and contraception.
