|
''Griswold v. Connecticut'', , is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect() from governmental intrusion." Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Arthur Goldberg and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. == Background == ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' originated as a prosecution under the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1879. The law made it illegal to use of "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception(...)” and subject to 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."〔 Although almost never enforced, Massachusetts and Connecticut were the only two states that still had this type of statute on their statute books by the 1950s. From the late 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century in the United States physicians largely avoided the publication of any material related to birth control, even when they often recommended or at least gave advice regarding it to their married patients. It was not until Margaret Higgins Sanger that the public opinion regarding contraception was challenged. She influenced the Connecticut Birth Control League (CBCL), and helped to develop the eventual concept of the Planned Parenthood clinics. The first Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut opened in 1935 in Hartford. It provided services to women who had no access to a gynecologist, information about contraception or other methods to plan the growth of their families. Several clinics were opened in Connecticut over the following years, including the Waterbury clinic that led to the legal dispute. In 1939, this clinic was compelled to enforce the 1879 anti-contraception law towards poor women in the area. This brought the attention of the ''CBCL'' leaders, who remarked on the importance of birth control for cases in which the lives of the patients depended upon it. Their legal claims succeeded in 1965. Cases were raised during the 1940s regarding the use and spread of contraception in ''Waterbury clinic'', and several legal challenges were made to the constitutionality of the law, which failed on technical grounds. In Tileston v. Ullman (1943), a doctor and mother challenged the statute on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain sexual situations, threaten the lives and well-being of patients. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of his patients. A second challenge to the Connecticut law was brought by Yale School of Medicine gynecologist C. Lee Buxton as well as his patients in Poe v. Ullman (1961). The Supreme Court again voted to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds that the case was not ''ripe''. It held that, because the plaintiffs had not been charged or threatened with prosecution, there was no actual controversy for the judiciary to resolve. The polemic around ''Poe'' led to the appeal in Griswold v. Connecticut, primarily based on Justice John Marshall Harlan II opinion regarding the case, one of the most cited dissenting views in Supreme Court history. "(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints." ''- Justice John Marshal Harlan II, about Poe v. Ullman'' He argued, foremost, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. Thereafter, he indicated his support for a broad interpretation of the due process clause. On the basis of this interpretation, Harlan concluded that the Connecticut statute violated the Constitution. Shortly after the Poe decision was handed down on June 1961, Estelle Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut,〔(【引用サイトリンク】Estelle Griswold )〕 and ''Dr. Buxton'',〔(【引用サイトリンク】1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Contraception as a right of privacy? The Supreme Court says, ‘Yes! )〕 chairman of Yale Medical School’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and volunteer medical of PPLC, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, hoping to test the contraception law once again.〔 The clinic, which opened in November 1, 1961 received its first ten patients and dozens of appointment requests from married women who wanted advice regarding birth control and prescriptions. Shortly after the clinic was opened, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each. The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Griswold v. Connecticut」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|