The Pros And Cons Of Personal Privacy

The Pros And Cons Of Personal Privacy
In this paper I will analyze the interpretations of privacy and personal liberty employed by the rulings of United States Supreme Court cases such as
Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and propose a notion of privacy and personal liberty that strikes an ideal
balance between individual autonomy and the interest of the state. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the leadership of Planned Parenthood were convicted of
violating a Connecticut statute which prohibited the use of any drug or article to prevent conception because they provided information on
contraception and prescribed a contraceptive device for use by the wife of a married couple. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the
Connecticut statute was unconstitutional.1 The court reasoned that the relatively vague nature of several constitutional amendments left room for the
implicit establishment of a broader range of rights and protections than those which are more explicitly mentioned in the text of each amendment.
Several justices drew from a number of different amendments to support their final ruling including the self–incrimination clause of the fifth
amendment, the ninth amendment, and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The key effect of this ruling was that the Supreme Court
established an explicit reference to an individual's constitutional right to privacy and it functionally pitted that right against the interest of the state. In
this case, the Supreme Court
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Women 's Rights And The Rights
Throughout history women have had to repeatedly fight for the basic rights readily given to their male counterparts. The right to vote, the right to own
property, the right to divorce, and the right to an equal education are only a few of many examples in which women have had to fight for gender
equality against their peers, and even their own government. I believe the women's plight of this generation is a woman's right to an abortion. It is my
opinion that women should retain the right to an abortion, regardless of trimester. No state or federal law should be able to regulate a situation so
personal and private, or impose laws in order to make treating the condition more difficult for those involved. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is
morally complex for everyone involved, however, it should be a woman's decision and hers alone. An invasion of privacy in such an inhuman way is
unconstitutional and a direct attack on women's rights and the progress women have made in striving for equality.
On March 29, 1965 the Supreme Court was presented with the infamous case, Griswold v. Connecticut. When Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director
of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and a colleague, the Medical Director for the League, unlawfully gave medical advice to married
couples considering birth control. Such counseling was illegal in the state of Connecticut and the two were criminalized for potentially preventing
contraception. On June 7, 1965 the Supreme

Seeking a Just Judiciary
In recent years, many people in the United States have acquired an oddly tilted concept of how the judicial branch of government should function.
Modern consensus postulates that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and that its judgments cannot be challenged or changed
except through its own decision (Vieira). Curiously, however, this idea of giving the power of final constitutional interpretation to the judiciary–known
in law as "judicial supremacy"–finds no basis in the text of the Constitution itself or in historical opinion. This doctrine is a modern construction, and it
poses an unhappily real threat to individual liberties in America. The people of our nation deserve a judiciary that is just in its... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
While one may contend that there were relatively few judicial "power grabs" during the lifetimes of these two presidents, there is a disturbing new
legal model that extends the power of the Supreme Court far beyond its traditional authority of constitutional arbitration. In 1965, a landmark case
known as Griswold v. Connecticut came before the Supreme Court. The ruling was, as usual, long and technical, but the legal precedent upon which the
Court based its holding had many lawyers scratching their heads and reaching for their dictionaries. The Court confidently stated that their holding was
based upon the "right to privacy", which the justices had managed to locate in a "penumbra, formed by emanations from [the Bill of Rights]"
(Griswold). The word penumbra, which is used four times in this particular ruling, is not often heard in the field of law, and for good reason. Of all
things, it is a Latin astronomical term that roughly translates to "secondary shadow". Essentially, the 1965 Court was calling the enumerated rights the
umbra, or primary shadow, while claiming that there was a separate set of unenumerated rights found in the penumbra (Griswold v. Connecticut). This
idea of a constitutional penumbra, which was never suggested before the ruling in Griswold, allows the Supreme Court to invent entirely new rights
and constitutional statutes, an ability that extends its powers into

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Essay examples
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court abandoned its previous doctrine for ruling upon an individual's right to privacy. Written by Justice
White, the opinion of the Court in this case focused on the morality of sodomy, particularly sodomy between homosexuals, rather than the
constitutional question of privacy. The Court made substantial progress in defining the right to privacy in the preceding years, but the decision in
Bowers demonstrated that even the "highest Court in the land" is sometimes unable to look beyond stereotypes and prejudices (Banks, 92).
In Bowers, the Court protected a statute which enabled Georgia to prosecute a homosexual for engaging in sodomy in his home. This ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thus the right to practice safe sex, to bear or beget a child, in short, to have sexual freedom, was decided to be Constitutionally protected.
In Bowers, however, the court abandoned this stance in favor of tradition. Justice White did not adhere to precedents because homosexuals would be
given more sexual freedom. For White, the rationale for previous cases, "procreative choice and family autonomy," became meaningless in a sodomy
case. Central to the majority's opinion was its belief that "recognition of a fundamental right requires that the right be either deeply rooted in this
nation's history, or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Law Review, 12). America had historically persecuted homosexuals and the majority felt
that if this tradition was not maintained, America might loose its morals. White feared that by condoning private homosexual conduct the court would
likewise be allowing adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes to occur" (Banks 85). He therefore understood the state's justification for proscribing
sodomy to be their interest in regulating morality within the state, which met the state's need to demonstrate a compelling interest for their statute.
The dissenters in this case "criticized the majority opinion's focus on the particular act rather than the underlying right to freedom from government
intrusion" (Law Review 12). In his dissent, Blackmun questioned the majority's "blind imitation of the

The Case Of Griswold V. Connecticut
Tandy Hood
U.S. Government
Professor Neher
11/19/15
Griswold v. Connecticut
The first Supreme Court case that I listened to was one brought forth in front of the Warren Court in 1965. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut is a
very significant case regarding contraceptive use, counsel and advice with married couples. The case later played a great reference in the Constitutional
rights for abortion. The Griswold v. Connecticut case went in front of the Supreme Court in March and was passed a few months later in June by a
vote of 7–2 in favor of Griswold.
Griswold was the Executive Director of a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Connecticut. The State of Connecticut charged her and her Medical Director,
Dr. Buxton, for giving advice and medical ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The statutes were being challenged on the due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment regarding the Freedom of
Speech. At the time of this case it was illegal to sale or prescribe contraceptives for the prevention of pregnancy, but not for the prevention of disease.
At the beginning of the oral argument the appellant's lawyer, Thomas I. Emerson was asked if the case was an equal opportunity case. He verbally
stumbled and was delayed with his response to the Judges. The Judges asked several times why it was not being argued as an equal opportunity case
due to the distinction that only married women received treatment and counsel from the Planned Parenthood Clinic. His only response was that was not
the issue of this case.
Emerson stated the history of the case in order to paint his picture to the Judges. Mrs. Griswold did not have a medical license, but was allowed to
work under the umbrella of the clinic's Medical Director, Dr. Buxton. The clinic was only open for ten days when the two appellants were arrested and
charged for the counsel and distribution of contraceptives to married women, at which time the clinic was forced to close. Three of the married women
that received treatment and counsel provided by the clinic were fined and later testified against

The Landmark Case Of Griswold V. Connecticut Served As A...
The landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut served as a precedent for following landmark cases regarding privacy.
First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of
birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion,
and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained
the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.
Eisenstadt v. Baird was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. It ruled in favor of unmarried couples using birth control. Griswold v.
Connecticut provided the right for secrecy under the marital bedroom only, but not birth control on unmarried couples. The ruling was based it violated
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument was simple. The law which the defendants were penalized was a
Massachusetts law of "Crimes Against Chastity". Because it did not prosecuted marry couples due to buying, possessing, or using birth controls, it was
discriminatory this law persecuted unmarried couples for it. Also it was ruled one of the defendants was exercising his freedom of speech, when
distributing birth control. Therefore he could not be punished. Judge Brennan wrote in his opinion

The Legalization Of Birth Control
Griswold vs. Connecticut The legalization of Birth Control Ashley Barreras August 10, 2015 Political Science Imagine living in a world where
birth control did not exist or was considered illegal to all women. This is the reality that women from our history dealt with for many years. Until the
year 1965 birth control was banned for women living in the state of Connecticut. Whether married or unmarried the simple right of contraception, or
asking a pharmacist about preventing pregnancy was illegal. This law prohibiting the practice of contraception was changed with the help of birth
control activist such as Estelle Griswold. Griswold appealed the law in the popularly known case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. Her claim for legalized
birth control helped changed the future for women living in the state of Connecticut. The revised law gave married women the freedom and privacy to
take charge of their bodies and prevent unwanted pregnancies with the practice of birth control. Birth control was illegal in the state of Connecticut
until the 1960s. The reasoning behind prohibiting any form of contraception was influenced by Protestant moral reformers as well as middle class
women from the1870s. The leader of the purity movement was Anthony Comstock who was a Postal Inspector and responsible for most of the anti
contraception laws. Together he worked with other activist and created a social purity movement that assisted to outlaw the ideas of contraception.
These activist

How The Privacy Can One Person Actually Get?
People wonder if they're being watched while they play their favorite video game or if there might be a camera in the changing room at a clothing
store. These are things that I have wondered myself. How much privacy can one person actually get? If someone were to ask me how many
cameras I walk past every day, I would probably say just a few. Well once I began to really examine my day and pay more attention, I was a bit
surprised. I get up in the morning and go to school. There are plenty of cameras watching my every move. There is also a camera at my job
constantly watching me. There is a camera at the grocery store or that restaurant I visit after work and then cameras on the street while I drive home. I
suppose privacy is something we... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Another place the Right to Privacy can be found is in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that, "The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So
basically, this Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches. So it helps to prevent someone from trying to search your home without a
warrant. Another example would be someone trying to search your car without probable cause. These are things that people need protection from and
this is how we stay protected. The Right to Privacy was developed initially by a man named Justice Louis Brandeis and Sam Warren in 1890, who both
praised a specific right. That was "a right to be left alone" as they would say it in his Harvard Law Review article. The Roy Olmstead Case was a
big start for the development of The Right to Privacy. Warren was married to the U.S. senators daughter and reporters were constantly trying to invade
their privacy and get into their home to see their parties. Warren asked Brandeis for his help on the Harvard Law Review

Griswold V. Connecticut Case Study
Procedural History: The cases arose from the married couple whom were given advice from the Executive Director. The Executive Director of
Planned Parenthood gave the information and advice was based on how to prevent conception along with material to be used by the wife.
Facts: Griswold v. Connecticut is similar to the case Roe v. Wadewhich are both based on the problem of privacy. Griswold the Executive Director of
Planned Parenthood is a licensed medical director. He was also a professor at Yale University Medical School. Griswold gave advice to a married
couple on how to prevent conception by using contraceptives. Under the law Connecticut violated the counseling or medical treatment to a married
couple for the purpose of preventing conception.

Response of Law to New Technology: Contraception Essay
The rapid advances in science and medicine since 1950, and especially the advances in computer technology since 1980, have revolutionized the way
society functions. It is widely recognized that our society is making a transition from the industrial manufacturing age to an information age. In
contrast, the U.S. Constitution and most of our common law was written when people lived in an agrarian economy prior to 1850. Law has been slow
to adapt to the choices posed by technology. While I believe that knowledge, opportunities, and choices are inherently Good, there are the possibilities
of (1) prohibiting or restricting use of new technologies for no good reason or (2) of misusing technology to harm people. Law that made sense in 1850,
or ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mail by the Comstock Law, together with "obscene, lewd or lascivious" publications. See U.S. v. Chase, 135 U.S. 255, 257 (1890);
Andrews v. U.S., 162 U.S. 420 (1896). As a result, condoms were sold for prevention of sexually–transmitted disease (i.e.,
"prophylactics"), not as contraceptives.
Some state statutes, notably in Connecticut, prohibited the distribution of information about contraception and also prohibited the distribution of
contraceptive devices or drugs.
The U.S. Supreme Court in a series of three famous decisions, invalidated laws making contraception illegal.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut state law that prohibited use of contraceptives and
also prohibited any person (including a physician or pharmacist) from giving advice about contraception. Because Griswold, who was director of a
Planned Parenthood clinic and a professor at Yale Medical School, was giving married people information, instruction, and medical advice about
contraception, this case is sometimes said to uphold the right of married people to have information about contraception.
In Eisenstadt v. Baird. 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Massachusetts state law that prohibited the sale or gift of
nonprescription contraceptives. Because Baird gave a can of spermicidal foam to an adult unmarried woman, this case upholds the right of

The Legal Model Of Judicial Decision Making That The...
In the courts of the United States there are three different models of judicial decision making that the Supreme Court uses. Included are the legal
model, in which the decisions are based solely on the provided facts on the case. (Mitchel) It can also choose to let previous case hearings and
decisions influence the decision for the case at hand. An example would be Reno v. ACLU where the court ruled that the anti–obscenity law was to
broadly written that it violated the first amendment right. (Mitchel) Another methodology used is the attitudinal model, where the justices can make
any decision they wish without fear of losing their job due to their life term in the position. (Mitchel) A way of viewing this would be imagining a
bench with a mixture of conservative and liberal justices, the way the judges interpret the constitution is based on their own ideologies, meaning that
the conservative justice will interpret the constitution in a conservative way, and vice versa for the liberal justices. (Mitchel) An example being in the
2000 election, in which the fiasco of Bush's victory in Florida ended up having to be hand tallied, the Supreme Court intervened and due to the five
conservative justices ruling against four liberal justices, the court ruled that the hand tally should cease and that Bush should be elected President.
(Mitchel) The final method of explanation is the strategic model, which states that justices make decisions based on they think their peers will vote, and

Essay On Third Amendment
In our modern day and age, the amendments have seen some changes. Different court cases have lead to different interpretations. Although the third
amendment is one of the first ten original amendments as it is part of the Bill of Rights, it has remained relatively constant with only minor changes in
the past few centuries. This does not mean that the third amendment is not as vital as the others. In fact, it is necessary for everyday life in America
and clearly shows its prevalence. Living without the third amendment would be like living without a door lock. Who would be crazy enough to do that?
The third amendment is the right to refuse housing to a soldier which protects your privacy in the home. It was created due to the resentment of ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This case challenged the rights of marital privacy within the home. In 1961, Griswold and her partner, Dr. Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New
Haven, Connecticut. A law enacted in 1879 made it illegal to use anything to prevent contraception in the state. That's right, nothing could be used to
prevent pregnancy. Consequently due to their actions, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined to pay $100. Griswold
appealed her conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the state was in breach of multiple amendments including the fourteenth, first,
and of course, the third amendment. The argument based on the third amendment was that the home is and should be a private place. No one is to
know what happens in the home, or in the bedroom for that matter. The only way to prove that the women who visited the clinic were actually using
birth control would be storm their homes. In the end, it was found that Connecticut's actions were unconstitutional and this court case paved the way for
future cases such as the famous Roe vs Wade

Griswold V. Connecticut : The Founding Fathers Of The...
Griswold v. Connecticut The Founding Fathers of the United States of America laid the foundation for the basic and fundamental rights that its citizens
are entitled to. These principles have been the underlying framework for the United States of America's government and legal system, where the
citizens hold the power. Throughout the country's history, many laws on both state and federal levels have been challenged and have thus evolved
America's culture. Among these laws that have challenged the Constitution is a famous court case from 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. A highly
controversial case, Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for future controversies and legal development of its kind. I.Summary of Griswold v.
Connecticut In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that prohibited the use and education of contraceptives to both married and unmarried women, men,
etc. Since this law was said to be seldom enforced, a Planned Parenthood in New Haven, Connecticut decided to take the risk. The executive director
of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, and a doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, Dr. C. Lee Buxton, were arrested,
found guilty, and fined $100 each (equivalent to about $750 U.S. today) for counseling a married couple about contraceptives and prescribing birth
control to the wife. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, where the Connecticut court upheld their conviction. Griswold and Buxton
appealed to the Supreme Court of the

Griswold vs. Connecticut Essay
Griswold vs. Connecticut
On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority
decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53–32 and 54–196 of the General Statues of
Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later
constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade(1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned
Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the... Show more
(54–196) Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if
were the principal offender.
Griswold and Buxton opened the clinic in 1961, in New Haven Connecticut, and were shut down ten days later and fined one–hundred dollars each.
They appealed their convictions, stating that the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Essentially, the clinic operated as a
medical advice center, where married persons could get counciling, advice, and instruction on contraception devises. For their advice they charged
patients according to their ability to pay.
There was, however, a question to wether Griswold could assert the rights of married couples. But the Supreme Court ruled that she did because under
the terms of the statute she could be convicted for offering her services to them and because her relationship with the married couples was a
professional one. ACertainly the accessory should have standing to assert that the offense which he is charged with assisting is not, or cannot
constitutionally be a crime.@
This was significant because there had been two earlier challanges to the law, but the Court refused to hear them on grounds that it was not clear if
they could be prosecuted (1943, 1961).
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griswold, and her claim that the state contraceptive law was unconstitutional.

The Right Of Privacy And Griswold V. Connecticut Essay
The Right to Privacy and Griswold v. Connecticut According to Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut the United States Constitution protects
women's rights to use contraceptives. Our Constitutional heritage and principles contradict the verdict of that case. The general right to privacy that
(has been said) is outlined in the Constitution, was used in the Supreme Court case to argue that decisions about a woman's body is protected. Yet,
nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right to marital privacy. There are many flaws surrounding the verdict of Griswold v. Connecticut; not
only constitutionally, but theologically and scientifically.
Facts of the Case Griswold, a Planned Parenthood executive, was convicted by the state of Connecticut for giving advice to married couples about
preventing conception through the use of contraceptives. The state of Connecticut had a law implemented to criminalize that type of counselling.
However, Griswold argued that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy. The court ruled in favor of Griswold, 7–2. (Law 2016)
The Constitution Wrongly Interpreted The supreme court acknowledged that the Constitution does not outright state that there is a general right to
privacy. (Linder 2016) Instead, they looked at various amendments and selected bits and pieces out of them to form a basis to establish a right to
privacy. In other words, the decision is unconstitutional because the supreme court essentially created a right

Griswold Vs Connecticut Case Study
Griswold v Connecticut The director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton were accused and found
guilty of providing illicit contraception under a Connecticut law. They were both fined $100 each for this crime. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, stating that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The
Connecticut court endorsed the conviction, so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court revised the case in 1965.
In a 7–2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas,the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be
enforced against married ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Supreme Court stated that the "Homosexual Conduct" law of Texas was unconstitutional and the law violated the 14th Amendment Due process
Clause. This Clause protects the right to personal freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn't "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but "the
right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex."
Lawrence v. Texashad an impact on the government in two ways. First, the ruling stated that private and consensual homosexual sex is the right to
liberty and preserved by the Constitution. Second, Lawrence held that "fundamental rights" are very broad concepts of liberty under numerous and
different activities may be kept safe.
This court case doesn't affect me directly because I am not gay but I do have gay friends that would be impacted by this case. If they were to be
involved in homosexual intimacy and this case was decided against Lawrence then they would be arrested and fined for being with their

Abortion : The United States
Rebecca Mejia
Molly Gum
Senior English
24 March, 2017
Research Paper : Abortion
During the 7th century, the Catholic Church premeditated that the act of oral sex was a far more worse sin than getting an abortion. Roe V. Wade was
the 1973 US Supreme court case that made abortion legal in the United States. Abortion should be the woman's choice. The US supreme court has
declared abortion to be a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Reproductive rights also give women a sense of empowerment,
as they are in control of their bodies. Concluding with these, death and injury rates to women have decreased a significant amount as now abortions
are easier to obtain and the procedures are far more safer.
During the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The "rape" incident failed, as there was no police documentation made by McCorvey beforehand. The following year of 1970, Roe V. Wadehad came
to see an appeal because of the U.S. Supreme court. In the case of Griswold V. Connecticut, the Supreme court ruled out the right of privacy to couples
(married, specifically). And it restricted that of trying to prohibit married couples from using any forms of birth control. This has had a major impact on
Roe V. Wade because it is all about terminating pregnancies, and although forms of birth control are not always guaranteed, they do help limit those
pregnancies from happening initially.
The issue of abortion has always been very controversial. Most women conflict with their morals, when considering an abortion and in the fear of
judgment (especially before Roe V. Wade) they would go about it illegally. The infamous coat hanger was a symbol of abortions prior to the ruling of
Roe V. Wade. Women would un wrap a metal coat hanger and place it in their cervix in hopes of stabbing the fetus and thus performing their own
abortions, however getting it back out was even more dangerous and they would end up causing internal bleeding from stabbing their own organs or
other medical issues.
For the better, since this those who have passed due to abortion–related situations have significantly decreased

Essay On The Third Amendment
In 1789, the Congress created the Bill of Rights to make sure the people are protected and the government has limitations. The Third Amendment states,
"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law." ("Bill of Rights"). Throughout the years the amendments have been manipulated, in a way, to be used in a certain way. In researching the Third
Amendment, one will find the past and present of the Quartering of Soldiers through the origins of the law, modern application of the amendment, and
its current effectiveness. In the origins, the Third Amendment was formulated because of The Quartering Act that was created in 1774. The
... Show
Today it protects the people's privacy of their house. When it was created it standed for that now soldier shall be housed literally. "The federal
government today is not likely to ask people to house soldiers in their homes, even in time of war." (Wood). Also, Amendment 3 purpose today is to
protect the people from intruding their house. Amendment 3 supports Amendment 4, search and seizure law, both laws ties into the rights of privacy.
Ending, one can indicate that the Third Amendment's application has differed from the21st century and the era it was created in.
Court cases are examples of how the application of the law changed. Through the Griswold case the Third Amendment protects the invasion of privacy
by the government. The court held that statement and they also asked if they would let the government search the bedrooms in that case. "The Court
explained that the right to privacy was inherent in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. The Bill of Rights created "zones of privacy"
into which the government could not intrude." ("Griswold V. Connecticut"). In the Griswold case, the Third Amendment and some other amendments
protected the rights of privacy which helped Ms. Griswold. Closing up, the Griswold case is an example how the law applies in the world now.
In the present, the Third Amendment is rarely used by the Supreme Court and is least used in the Bill of Rights showing the application has

Creating A Legal Taxonomy Of Privacy
Differentiating Meanings of "Privacy" "Invasion of privacy" did not exist as a separate tort prior to the 20th century. In 1960, William Prosser
described how privacy came to be established in tort law and how many distinct torts fit within it, including torts for intrusion, public disclosure of
private facts, and placing a person in a false light. Daniel Solove builds off of Prosser's work, constructing a legal taxonomy of privacy focused on
information collection, information processing, information dissemination, and intrusion. As this thesis aims to gain insight into how privacy has
evolved conceptually within the American court system, and particularly the Supreme Court, I aim to identify conceptual divisions of privacy in the ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This ruling stands in stark contrast to the Court's decision in 1914 in Weeks v. United States, which is largely considered a landmark case as the Court's
unanimous decision resulted in the establishment of the "exclusionary rule" prohibiting the submission of evidence to court which was obtained
illegally (i.e. in violation of the Fourth Amendment by being unreasonably seized without a warrant). In his dissent in Olmstead, Brandeis made an
eloquent argument that the Fourth Amendment remains applicable in the case, as individuals should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their
conversations (which, in this instance, had been wiretapped by law enforcement officials targeting bootleggers violating the National Prohibition Act).
Brandeis wrote: The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance
of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in
material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the
government, the right to be let alone–the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect

The Rights Of The United States
Contraceptives are widely used throughout the United States in today's age and age, but in the early 1950s, Connecticut and Massachusetts were the
only states in the union that still had anticontraception policies such as the 1879 Connecticut statute prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives
(Johnson 6). Estelle Griswold accepted a job as executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and began a fight to give access
for women to use contraceptives legally. It was very predictable the verdicts for the lower court cases during Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as many
judges took the side of the 1879 precedent. However, by the time it reached the Supreme Court, the main issue focused was the right to privacy which ...
On June 20th, Griswold and PPLC planned that a clinic should be opened to get Griswold arrested. This shows the desperate measures that were taken
to get the challenge to the 1879 Connecticut law which states that Section 53–32: "Any person who use any drug, medicinal article or instrument for
the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both
fined and imprisoned" and Section 54–196: "Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be
prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender" (Johnson 6). People stage incidents to draw attention and bolster support for a cause. In
this case, Griswold ran the clinic to question the constitutionality of the Connecticut law. The PPLC announced that they would open a birth control
clinic for married couples in New Haven, Connecticut, and the renovations were completed on November (Johnson 79). They announced the news in
advance to probably generate publicity through the local media networks. This

A.c.l.u And Planned Parenthood V. Pence
Khin Pont Pont Kyaw
Professor Failer
Pols Y305
Moot Court Panel 1
A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood v. Pence Opinion
The case of A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood v. Pence has brought attention to the Supreme Court with the question of which of the two is of greater
importance: the duty to honor the woman's autonomy versus the duty to respect potential life. Indiana's governor, Mike Pence, has signed a House
Enrolled Act No.1337 to amend the Indiana health code, which will go in effect on July 1 of 2016. The act affects abortions in several ways which
include that doctors much provide perinatal hospice care information to women considering abortion after receiving a diagnosis of a lethal fetal
anomaly, prohibits all abortions solely based on fetus's race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis of the fetus having any disability, and
lastly requires the women to take responsibility financially for the disposal of the remain of any abortion or miscarriage. After the act was signed into
law, A.C.L.U of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued Governor Pence on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. The
A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood won in the district court. The case was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and was reversed. Today, the
court responds to the petitioners' appeal by holding that Indiana's House Enrolled Act No.1337 is unconstitutional. This decision stems from the
recognition that the law while attempting to do its duty

Abortion Propaganda: Abortion Should Be Illegal
Abortion is murder no matter what a person believes ! There are many reasons abortion should be illegal . Think about The health threat to the mother
after going through with the procedure as well as the lifelong health risks that remain , also the emotional damage that occurs . Personally I'm against
abortion and you should be as well .
Many may not know that abortion can be a threat to a women's health because all they see or choose to see is the reason why she is going through
with the procedure. Abortion has been said to lead to an increasing risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and stroke. These chances are said to be
more likely to occur in women who have had any type of abortion rather than a women who has not have any abortions. Also abortion can cause
Cervical cancer ,Ovarian cancer and liver cancer Women with a history of one abortion face a 2.3 times higher risk of having cervical cancer,
compared to women with no history of abortion. Women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk
Of ovarian and liver cancer . These causes are due to the unnatural disruption of hormonal changes .
Not to mention the damage done to the reproductive system. Abortion can damage a woman's chances of later on getting pregnant in life usually
caused by
Cervical lacerations which is a greater risk for teenage mothers in there second trimester or failure to use the right products for dilation of the cervix.
Lastly Abortion can cause a dramatic change in emotion

The Rights Of The State Of Connecticut
Griswold was a Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, she and another gave some instructions about birth control and some
other ways of planned parenthood in the state of Connecticut. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of
counselling, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. (along with with some other medical treatment) The conclusion is although that
the constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy, the numerous zones in the Bill of Rights, do establish a right to privacy. The Connecticut
statute conflicts with this right, therefore making it void. At first the case was on the side on Connecticut, until the case was later overturned by the
U.S Supreme court on June, 7 of 1965. Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton,
doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100
each. They sued the state of Connecticut claiming it violated their constitutional rights. Their argument was that a married couple has a constitutional
"right of privacy" They directly argued that– "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal

Henry Roe Vs Henry Wade
In 1971, a case was filed by Norma Mccorvey, known more commonly as Jane
Roe, against Henry Wade. Henry Wade was the district attorney of Dallas county from
1951 to 1987. Jane filed a case against him because he enforced a law prohibiting abortion unless it risks the life of the mother (CNN, 2017). Texas
had enacted a criminal abortion statute in 1854 prevent women from getting legal abortions. Since it had been slightly modified once and since
remained the same. It stated that abortions were not permitted unless medical advice was provided to abort in order to save the life of the mother. It
had been challenged several times, but Roe Vs. Wade was the case that changed the preexisting ban on abortion (Justia,2016).
Jane roe was a single pregnant women that resided in Dallas county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were
unconstitutional.
Roe claimed that she was unwed and pregnant and wanted to terminate her pregnancy in a safe way done by trained professionals. She stated that Texan
law on abortion was unconstitutional because it went against her right of personal privacy laid out by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth
amendments. She also stated that she was suing not only on behalf of herself but all texan women (Justia, 2016). SHe believed that all women should
have the right to chose to abort. She filed this lawsuit to overturn decision made in the case Dole V. Bolton. The court had ruled that an abortion could
not

Connecticut Case
On June 7, 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was the constitutional right of married females to be prescribed birth control. This
ruling found fault in the Connecticut state ban on the use of contraceptives. The 1879 Connecticut law was ruled as unconstitutional because it
infringed on citizen's rights to privacy. This case is studied to this day because it concerns the rights and liberties of individuals. The Connecticut state
law made it illegal for married people to receive any form of contraceptives or information on contraceptives. The 1879 law stated that "any person
who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not
less than sixty days." It continues to state, "any... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They were arrested and found guilty of providing illegal contraception. The League at its Center in New Haven stayed open for only ten days in
November of 1961 until the appellants were arrested. Each of them was fined $100. Griswold and Buxton then appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors
of Connecticut arguing that the law violated the US Constitution. In the Connecticut court decision, the appellants were found guilty. The case then
made its way to the US Supreme Court in 1965. Griswold and Buxton were guaranteed the fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights. The Supreme
Court's decision was divided seven to two. The Fourth and Fifth amendments protect a citizen's home and private life from government interference and
outline the Due Process Clause. These rights drawn under the amendments made it unconstitutional for Connecticut to ban birth control. Majority of
people found the Connecticut law unconstitutional because it intruded on the rights of privacy to marriage which were outlined in the Bill of

The Civil Rights Movement Of The United States Of America
Until the 19th century, no abortion laws existed in the United States of America. By the 1880s, most states had banned abortion except in cases where
it was necessary to save the mother's life. The cause of this shift in attitude can largely be attributed to the American Medical Association, founded in
1847. The organization wanted to stop unlicensed abortions by forcing the people giving them out of business. Religious leaders supported the
American Medical Association's move and worked with them to lead campaigns that would make abortions illegal. It was only in the 1960's that these
strict laws were reconsidered. The civil rights movement seeking equal treatment for black Americans led to women's rights organizations seeing...
Nowadays, the drug is only used for advanced cancers and severe complications of leprosy. Also, due to the German measles (Rubella) epidemic in
the United States in 1962, thousands of children were born with birth defects. Sometimes, the pregnant women were also affected by these high
risk pregnancies. However, these women could not seek abortions due to the strict bans. (Supreme Court Drama, wikipedia.org, time.com) While
women and women's rights activists supported this movement, it also raised the question of whether or not abortions were merely a
convenience. Also, people against abortion believed that abortions were a cause of unprotected sex and women should live with the
consequences of their actions. However, it has been proven that all contraceptive methods are not as effective as they claim to be Also, multiple
abortion cases deal with pregnancy due to rape or incest. Some people who are against normally against abortion allow it in these types of cases,
because they recognize that the woman was not responsible for the child. (Supreme Court Drama) If a woman did not want a baby in the first place,
it is highly unlikely that she (and her partner, if she has one) would be able to provide for onethe baby and be able to give the baby a good life.
People who oppose abortion suggest adoption as an alternative. Another fear that goes along with the previous idea of legalizing abortions was that
women would rely on abortionuse them

Roe V. Wade Case Study
In Roe v. Wade, Norma Mccorvey "Jane Roe" started federal action against the Dallas county, Texas district attorney, Henry Wade. Originally, Roe
wanted a woman to be able to terminate any pregnancy at any time. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe's opinion, ending in a ruling where an
abortion could happen before the end of the first trimester. This ruling also included ways to balance state interests with a woman's right of privacy. In
the final SCOTUS opinion, the majority states, "Statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman's constitutional right of privacy"(
Roe v. Wade).The decision made by the Supreme Court explained that the many Texas statues making abortion criminal violated both the due process
clause of the 14th amendment and a woman's right of privacy. The lasting impact made by Roe v. Wade has increased the freedoms of women as well
as set precedents for many cases regarding abortion and privacy. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Connecticut the director of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold, and Yale Gynecologist C.Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven,
Connecticut, knowing they were breaking a law from 1879 banning any sort contraceptives. Both were arrested and took the case to the Supreme Court,
stating that the law violated the 14th amendment. In the final majority opinion, written by William Orville Douglas, it states,"The Connecticut law
unconstitutional because it violated the right to privacy within marriage...a personal zone off limits to the government"(Griswold v. Connecticut). The
Supreme Court ruling for Griswold v. Connecticut stated that marital and general privacy was established before the Bill of Rights, therefore
guaranteeing the right of privacy to an extent. The impact of the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling on the United States is that the case established a
precedent for further privacy cases through the distinction of "zones of privacy" found in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th

The Right To Privacy
Report to Congress
I, Savannah Parmelee believe an individual's right to privacy should be protected if they do not violate the law to a certain degree therefore, I plan to
seek out evidence during my research that supports this controlling idea. I am greatly concerned about this topic due to the people's privacy not being
fully protected for both terrorist and by the government.In the video "Impact of drones on privacy rights" on "CBS This Morning" claims that
"Lakota, N.D., is the first known site where a drone was used domestically to help arrest a U.S. citizen." What the quote is saying is that drones
helped arrest a U.S. citizen. The incident in the video proves that drones can help see illegal activities happening and can try to stop ... Show more
"We Need Privacy Laws for the Digital Era | The Nation." The Nation, 8 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.
@cbs. "Impact of Drones on Privacy Rights." CBS. N.p., 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 26 Oct. 2016
Linder, Douglas O. Rights to Privacy. N.p.: n.p., 18 June 2013. Microsoft Word document.
DiLascio, Tracey M. "The NSA and Its Surveillance Programs Are Critical to US Security." Microsoft Word Document, 10 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Oct.

The Rights Of The State Of Connecticut
Griswold was a Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, she and another gave some instructions about birth control and some
other ways of planned parenthood in the state of Connecticut. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of
counselling, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. (along with with some other medical treatment) The conclusion is although that
the constitution does not directly protect the right to privacy, the numerous zones in the Bill of Rights, do establish a right to privacy. The Connecticut
statute conflicts with this right, therefore making it void. At first the case was on the side on Connecticut, until the case was later overturned by... Show
"Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or
imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned." says the law of Connecticut. Section 54–196 provides:
"Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were
the principal offender." The standing of the Connecticut court each found them guilty and they were both fined 100$ each. This is against the claim
that the accessory statute as so applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. A plaintiff is actually a person who brings a case against another in a
court of law. While a defendant is an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law, both are google definitions. Now it
obviously doesn't take a genius to agree that the plaintiff in this was the party of Griswold. They are the ones who sued the court of Connecticut and
brought it to the supreme court. The defendant in this would be Connecticut, as the state is the one accused of a direct violation to the U.S.
constitution. The two arguments being made are not exactly comparable. The argument for the plaintiff is that "No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any

Griswold Vs. Connecticut: Birth Control And The...
In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut
anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the
"anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first
section of the Fourteenth Amendment." Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court's 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that "The First Amendment... has a
penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion." He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was
unconstitutional because "a law such as Section 53–32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives 'sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.'" Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.... Show more
She stated that "The problem with unrestricted breeding ... was that racial decay had been taking place for millennia because of the 'sexual
enslavement' of women." This quote illustrates an underlying theme women have faced throughout history. Underlying the struggle for women to
obtain any rights is men's fear of losing power over women. In this instance, as illustrated by Sanger, it was the fear of losing the power to control their

Landmark Bioethics Cases
7 Landmark Bioethical Cases Throughout History Patients have enjoyed informed consent as an assumed right for less than a century. Medical
professionals, in sharp contrast to some lingering views, now follow this concept diligently. Over time, an intermingling of law and ethical reform –
focused on informed patient consent and many other issues – have combined to create the current health care legal environment of change, ambiguity,
progress and opportunity. For instance, cases involving animal rights typically cite the Sierra Club ruling. More recently, bioethics issues have come
under scrutiny and must stand the test of hundreds of years of legal and moral guidance. The following seven legal cases represent significant
contemporary bioethics influences. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914) The Mary Schloendorff case sets a precedent for bioethical
autonomy. It began with a fibroid tumor examination.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Today, if a therapist believes that a client will commit harm, the practitioner must make a reasonable interceptive effort, while continuing to maintain
reasonable patient privacy. York v. Jones (1989) York v. Jones revolves around Steven and Risa York's request to transfer their stored embryos to
anther cryogenic facility. The lab, however, refused to grant the request. Using the written agreement the lab provided, the York's counsel proved that
the couple retained property rights to their embryos. The case was the first litigation over a cryopreserved embryo and set the precedent that embryo
creators retain decision–making rights. Sierra Club v. Morton, Secretary of Interior (1972) The judicial system has visited numerous cases involving
animal rights. The issue remains under dispute to this day. People typically equate animal rights to the only available reference, which is how they
would feel if they received the same

The Meyer Vs Nebraska Court
I Racism, bigotry, and hate are recurring flaws in human nature. These flaws derive from a psychological tendency to like those who are similar to
oneself and dislike those who are different. Throughout history, xenophobia, the intense, irrational fear or dislike of foreigners, has plagued
human societies. In the times of the 1920s in America, xenophobia was directed toward certain European powers, mainly the Soviet Union and
Germany. In a fear of these European immigrants corrupting future generations with their own languages, laws were passed in several places, one
of which was Nebraska. Robert Meyer, a teacher who defied this law, went all the way to the Supreme Court simply to defend his freedom of
privacy (Ross). The Meyer vs Nebraska court case impacted several aspects of the Supreme Court; most recognizable impacts include future legal
decisions, the implications of the fourteenth amendment, and the state's limit to their police power. II The roaring twenties were a time of change
and logic. The twenties were the beginning of the loss of faith triggered by the debates of tradition over modernism. New stereotypes were created
such as the rebellious teen, and new roles were filled such as women's active role in politics, working life, and their own nightlife. Despite this, a
combination of the First World War, the Red Scare, and a natural distrust of foreigners lead to prejudicial laws. The First World War was unlike any
war before and understandingly drew fear into

The Importance Of Birth Control
Louise Slaughter, a New York congresswoman, once wrote, "for most women, including women who want to have children, contraception, is not an
option, it is a basic health care necessity". In other words, Slaughter believes that for many women, no matter their decision on child bearing,
contraceptives are are essential to their health. In short, contraception is just as important as a routine check up with a primary doctor. Furthermore,
birth control serves more than one purpose; contraception controls if or when women reproduce but is also used to treat medical conditions, such as,
endometriosis, and irregular menstruation. Although, the first birth control clinic was opened in Brooklyn, New York in 1916 byMargaret Sanger, the
fight for reproductive freedom and the complete legalization of contraception would not end until the 1960s. Merely ten days after opening the
clinic, Sanger and employees were arrested for breaking the Comstock Law. The Comstock Law, which was passed in 1873, prohibited and restricted
advertisements and sales of information, and materials, that could be used as contraception. Although the odds were against her in the fight for legal
birth control, Sanger reopened the clinic; however, Sanger was arrested a second time and was "charged with maintaining a public nuisance"
according to the Margaret Sanger Paper Project. Regardless of being arrested twice before, Sanger reopened the clinic a third time. Consequently, the
police forced Sanger's landlord

Morality: The 1964 Civil Rights Act
The 1964 Civil Rights Act "challenge[d] laws that treated people inequally" (Lecture, Week 6). Those opposed, like Barry Goldwater, the 1964
Republican presidential candidate, stated that morality couldn't be legislated without eliminating the concept, arguing for government neutrality so
individuals are "free to choose [their] own conception of the good life" (Justice, 246). Morality is a person's natural distinction between right and
wrong and dependent on "doing the right thing for the right reason" (Justice, 111). We can not effectively pass laws that apply equally to each
individual if they have a different perspective of right versus wrong. It can be argued that Goldwater was correct and that we cannot move forward
effectively ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The concepts of this prove to be difficult to test and provide empirical data for. Other theories such as those under the umbrella of the positivist
school are much more appealing because they offer ways to empirical test these theories .Under the positivist school theory, criminals, find crime
more attractive are different from rational beings. They believe that this inclination towards crime is dependent on other factors such as biological
harms, genetic inheritance, or social environment. For example, they found that brain abnormalities lead to crime, like it did for "Alex" whose brain
tumor caused pedophiliac tendencies that went away once the tumor was removed (Class Readings, Brain on Trial). Another example of the genetic
inclination of crime is illustrated with the Juke Family, a clan of criminals all found to be in some way related to each other by blood (Bad Seed or
Bad Apple Reading). As opposed to classical theory, positivist theory is more concerned with rehabilitating the criminals by removing them from
society in order to control

Birth Control: The Griswold V. Connecticut Case
In today's society birth control is a normal thing. It is openly talked about by many people, and it is also very commonly used by a vast number of
women. Sixty–two percent to be exact (Jones, Joe, Ph.D.). Women make up just a little over fifty percent of the population bringing their population to
308 million. That means just under two–hundred million women use birth control in our country, which obviously proves it is a very common thing
in the United States. However, it wasn't always this way. In the early 1900s, people were much more conservative. You were not really supposed to
talk about personal things. It was not a law or anything, and there were no documents saying you could not. It was just kind of a known rule that
everyone followed. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If the women did not want the child it could lead to an abortion, which is the murder of an innocent baby. Surely no human being could say that
murder is okay. Even if the women gave up her baby for adoption, that baby is going to have a chance of being in the system, having a hard life of
poverty, or feeling empty or upset because their birth parents did not want them. Therefore is much more effective to prevent thepregnancy. Lastly, a
commonly stated argument by people who are in opposition for birth control being covered by insurance may be that it violates religious freedoms.
They say that it forced Catholics to go against their beliefs ("Should Employers Be Required to Provide Coverage?"). Most supporters would agree
with this statement when opponents say that it could go against religious freedom. That is why a religiously ran business such as a church, a private
school, etc. would not be required to abide by this

Griswold V. Court Case Analysis
1. Many were pleased that the social moral wrong doing was rectified and that fairness had conclusively prevailed when the Civil Rights Act of
1964 was passed. Its purpose was "to overcome stereotyped thinking" (Lecture, Week 6). On the other hand, individuals were enraged and
disappointed. Barry Goldwater opposed this Act by stating that one cannot legislate morality because "The justices cannot, of course, invoke their
own personal morality, nor the ideals and virtues of morality generally" (Sandel, 249). He aimed for a "neutral state" that "respects individual choice"
(Sandel, 219). Laws are created based on one's own moral beliefs, science, and logic.
Morality varies amongst individual's due to their experiences, "exposure to the raw edges ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The privacy rights of two consenting adults was established through Griswold v. Connecticut, but it was for heterosexual and not homosexual married
couples. In 1986 homosexual sodomy laws were outlawed as the result of Bowers v. Hardwick. In 2003, Lawrence v. Texasoutlawed these sodomy
laws because it deprives them of their liberty in sexual conduct (Article, Lawrence v. Texas, Week 7). Even though these laws were overturned
homosexuals were still discriminated in employment, public services, and banned from teaching, and the military (Sandel, 253).
3. Jeremy Bentham was the founder of utilitarianism as well as an English philosopher. His theory expressed that humans are rational beings with a
free will to commit crime. Yet, prior to committing a crime they weigh the costs and benefits to maximize the overall happiness and minimize the
overall pain and punishment (Sandel, 34). In order for a crime to occur, the overall pleasure should exceed the pain and punishments. Moreover, those
who commit a crime have a low situation control and they are discouraged through punishments that are severe, certain, swift, and appropriate to the

Comparing Griswold Vs. Connecticut
Griswold vs Connecticut
Madison Hayworth
Clovis Community College
November 25, 2015
Often times in today's world we take certain luxuries for granted. The right to vote, the right of free speech, etc. But one of those luxuries that people
often don't consider is the right for women to use birth control. The Supreme Court case that argued for the use of contraceptives was Griswold vs
Connecticut. The court case was argued March 29th–30th 1965, but was not decided until June 7th 1965. The case was on the debate of whether or
not the use of contraceptives should be legalized. Griswold, the Executive and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was on
the side arguing for the legalization of the use of contraceptives in a marriage. While the opposing side, the state of Connecticut statute, had forbidden
the use of contraceptives since 1879.
The Appellant, Estelle Griswold, had been counseling married couples at the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, located in New Haven. The
counseling aimed to give them medical advice as well as information about different types of contraceptives, such as devices or drugs. Ms. Griswold
would meet with married couples and discuss which form of contraception was the right fit for the patient. Due to the fact that these actions broke a
Connecticut law that criminalized counseling about birth control, Griswold and one of her colleagues were both found guilty. Nine days after the
Planned

Right To Privacy Essay
The right to privacy is a fundamental value of American culture. The original European colonization of North America was done by Puritan refugees
seeking the freedom to practice their religion devoid of governmental interference. The legacy of tolerance and privacy is vital to the continuation of
the American way of life that began over 400 years ago. However, specifically during the Warren and Burger courts of the mid
–1900s, debate has
arisen over the actual degree of privacy allowed in the Constitution. Since then, the varying degree of judicial activism has shaped present–day
legislation and the zone of privacy therein. This paper will illustrate my opinion for the need to distinguish... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, notably the due process clause and the privileges and immunities clause to allow a citizen the
"right" to privacy. Like the later Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut deals with a decision between rational adults. The decision to use
contraceptives is one exercised by logical, consenting people and affects no one but those directly involved. Such a decision to use birth control is
not a sweeping attempt to control a large population. Those who oppose these practices claim that, with the precedent set in Griswold, the use of
contraceptives will erode social morality. This position primarily stems from religious beliefs, and therefore, the secular state in which we live must
protect against the overt influence of religion upon public domain. This, again, is an example of a morally suspicious law. I can say that, at the time
of Griswold v. Connecticut, I can understand the state's position on the issue. Contraceptives were not very well known, nor were the generally
accepted at that point in history. Thus, those born 1960s were dubbed the 'Baby Boomer' generation. However, freedom of choice supersedes any
suspected negative impact a law may have. In other words, legality/legitimacy comes before morally based

Griswold V. Connecticut Case Summary
I.Citation: 381 U.S. 479 Griswold v. Connecticut (No. 496) Warren Court Argued: March 29
–30, 1965 Year decided: June 7, 1965 II.Brief case facts:
The two appellants of this case were giving guidance and providing married couples with information on the use of contraception. Eventually the two
appellants were charged of violating a law that prohibit the use of any type of contraception by anyone. However, they appealed the court's decision
arguing that the law violated the married couples right to privacy, which is protected under the a few amendments of the US constitution (McBride,
2007). III.Outline the procedural history: The state of Connecticut had passed a law in 1879 making it illegal for the use of contraceptives, which
included... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Include their opinions The judges did not vote unanimous; it was a 7–2. Concurrence: The decision was written by Justice William O. Douglas, stating
in the ruling that the law was in violation against married couples right to privacy, and the law could not be enforced upon them. Justice Douglas and
the other Justices continued to elaborate on the idea that the right of privacy was protected under the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and the
Fourteenth Amendment (McBride, 2007). Other Justices helped justify the right to privacy in these amendments by elaborating more in depth. In the
third amendment prohibition of quartering troops, prohibited the government to invade the married couple's decision of using contraceptives. In the
fifth amendment, freedom of searches and seizures. In the fourteenth amendment, the Due Process Clause is violated because of the basic concept of
ordered liberty. Dissent: Justice Stewart and Justice Black both argued that the law was constitutional even though it seemed like a "silly law" (Strauss,
2007). Justice Black felt that the Constitution did not enclose the right to privacy. He also rejected the views in the concurrences of the ninth and
fourteenth

The Pros And Cons Of Personal Privacy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Carolina Fox

More from Carolina Fox (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Pros And Cons Of Personal Privacy