Griswold v. Connecticut(1965): 14th, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th A., Privacy

t Griswold was the Ex. Dir. of the Planned Parenthood League of Conn. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Conn. law that criminalized the provision of counseling and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

n Majority: DOUGLAS: The Court held that the law violated the Due ProcessClauseof the 14^th A.; “Emanations” and “penumbras” from the 1^st A. (including association and privacy); and other privacy values derived from the 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, and 9^th A. Goldberg, Warren, and Brennanprimarily relied on the 9^th A.

n Dissent: BLACK, STEWART: “Evil qualities of the law do not make it unconstitutional. There is no specific prohibition on Gov. not to invade privacy. It is not the Court’s job to change the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade(1973): Privacy, Abortion (9^th, 14^th A.)

t Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting cert., the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney, Sarah Weddington, could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Stewart. Her opponent, Jay Floyd, misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent, Robert Flowers, came under strong questioning from Justices Stewartand Marshall. Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

n Majority: BLACKMUN, The Court held that a woman's right to an abortionfell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold) protected by the 14^th A. the decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. [The Court's majority opinion received sharp criticism from all quarters on the ground that it was not a constitutional decision. In a 1993 interview, the Blackmunsought to convince the public, if not his critics, that he was on firm constitutional ground.]

n Dissent: REHNQUIST, WHITE: “The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers… with scarcely any reason or authority for its action.” “The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than continued existence and development the life or potential life that she carries.

n GINSBURG, in an address in 1993, wrote that the Court should have just overturned the statute without going further. Then the debate would have been reduced, and the legislature would still be in control of the political question.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 725