Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Law professors Helen Alvaré and Rachel Rebouché talked about the Supreme Court 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which concerned Planned Parenthood's challenge of Connecticut's 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a right to privacy. The guests also responded to viewer phone calls and social media comments. Clips were shown from a 1962 CBS documentary, Birth Control and the Law on the Connecticut birth control debate. Another clip was from an interview with Rosemary Stevens, who volunteered to assist Planned Parenthood in the case. A portion of the oral argument in the case was played, an exchange between former Justice Potter Stewart and Joseph B. Clark, who argued on behalf of the state. Also, clips from the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch and Judge Robert Bork were shown in which the nominees talked about their views of the case. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

Law professors Helen Alvaré and Rachel Rebouché talked about the Supreme Court 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which concerned Planned Parenthood's challenge of Connecticut's 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a right to privacy. The guests also responded to viewer phone calls and social media comments. Clips were shown from a 1962 CBS documentary, Birth Control and the Law on the Connecticut birth control debate. Another clip was from an interview with Rosemary Stevens, who volunteered to assist Planned Parenthood in the case. A portion of the oral argument in the case was played, an exchange between former Justice Potter Stewart and Joseph B. Clark, who argued on behalf of the state. Also, clips from the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch and Judge Robert Bork were shown in which the nominees talked about their views of the case. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

Perma.cc archive of https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/#tab-opinion-1945662 created on 2022-08-08 16:54:03.497729+00:00.

Landmark Cases highlighted Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Planned Parenthood challenged an 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Supreme Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a right to privacy. Helen Alvar and Rachel Rebouch, two law professors at George Mason and Temple universities, discussed the history and characters of the case, and answered questions from viewers about the case's legal legacy. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

Landmark Cases highlighted Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Planned Parenthood challenged an 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Supreme Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a right to privacy. Helen Alvar and Rachel Rebouch, two law professors at George Mason and Temple universities, discussed the history and characters of the case, and answered questions from viewers about the case's legal legacy. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

Perma.cc archive of https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html created on 2016-11-14 22:16:21+00:00.

[LIVE] Landmark Cases highlights Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Planned Parenthood challenged an 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Supreme Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a still-evolving right to privacy. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

[LIVE] Landmark Cases highlights Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Planned Parenthood challenged an 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Supreme Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a still-evolving right to privacy. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

Perma.cc archive of https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/ created on 2022-07-29 14:57:42.671709+00:00.

Law professors Helen Alvaré and Rachel Rebouché talked about the Supreme Court 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which concerned Planned Parenthood's challenge of Connecticut's 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a right to privacy. The guests also responded to viewer phone calls and social media comments. Clips were shown from a 1962 CBS documentary, Birth Control and the Law on the Connecticut birth control debate. Another clip was from an interview with Rosemary Stevens, who volunteered to assist Planned Parenthood in the case. A portion of the oral argument in the case was played, an exchange between former Justice Potter Stewart and Joseph B. Clark, who argued on behalf of the state. Also, clips from the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch and Judge Robert Bork were shown in which the nominees talked about their views of the case. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

"Supreme Court of Connecticut. Griswold v. N. Y. & N. E. Railroad Company" is an article from The American Law Register (1852-1891), Volume 34 . View more articles from The American Law Register (1852-1891) . View this article on JSTOR . View this article's JSTOR metadata . You may also retrieve all of this items metadata in JSON at the following URL: https://archive.org/metadata/jstor-3305108

Case name: Griswold v. Connecticut Opinion filed: 1965-06-07 Docket No.: 496 Citations: • 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 • 85 S. Ct. 1678 • 381 U.S. 479 • 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282 Case holding summaries: • “The right of freedom of speech and press includes . . . freedom of thought . . . .” • The rights (of third parties), pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.' • private realm of family life is one in which the state should not enter • recognizing right "to marry and raise a family" • placing the right to marry within the fundamental right to privacy • striking state statute banning use of contraceptives because it infringed on fundamental right of privacy • recognizing a "right of privacy" in marriage stemming from the "zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees" • criminal statute prohibiting use of contraceptives by married couples held unconstitutional • holding that contraception, although not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, "concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees" • "[S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." • right of access to birth control • statute prohibiting use of contraceptives by married persons violates fundamental privacy interest inherent in marital relationship • holding that physicians have standing to assert the constitutional rights of patients to whom they prescribed contraceptive devices • finding Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives unconstitutionally intruded upon the right to privacy • state control of contraception in marriage relationship • rights to privacy and association include political, social, educational, legal, economic, and reproductive freedoms • various Bill of Rights provisions create "zones of privacy," including Fifth Amendment's Self Incrimination Clause which creates zone of privacy protecting individual against compulsory and prejudicial surrender • recognizing a married couple’s privacy 2 right in their intimate relationship • state statute forbidding use of contra- ceptives impermissibly intrudes on right of marital privacy • right to marital privacy in use of contraceptives • "[S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." • holding that contraception, although not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, "concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees" • permitting doctor to assert constitutional rights of patients because of the accessorial and professional relationship between them • invalidating statute crimi- nalizing the use of contraceptives • physician permitted to assert privacy interests of patients to challenge prohibition of sales of contraception • criminal law restricting married persons' access to contraceptives • couple's right to use contraceptives • couple's right to use contraceptives • marital privacy and right to use contraception • allowing physician to assert privacy rights of patients because of the confidential nature of the relationship and because the rights of the latter were "likely to be diluted or adversely affected" if they could not be asserted by the physician • concurring opinion of Goldberg, J. • invalidating a state law prohibiting the dispensing or use of birth control devices to or by married couples because the law violated the right to privacy • recognizing a “right of privacy” against a contraception prohibition • "The right of freedom of speech and press includes ... freedom of thought" • "The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but ... the right to receive ... and freedom of inquiry[.]" • recognizing right to marital privacy in the home as fundamental • asserting rights of married patients regarding contraceptives • invalidating state prohibition of use of contraceptives by married persons • myriad and complementary facets of first amendment protection • reversing conviction of executive director and medical director of Planned Parenthood League as accessories for providing family planning information to married persons • right to privacy in making conception decisions • "[T]he First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion." • physician and directors of planned parenthood league may assert constitutional rights of married persons with whom they had professional relationship • multiple constitutional sources of protectible privacy interests • state restriction on the dissemination of birth control information from physician to patient held unconstitutional • invalidating statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives • statute prohibiting sale, etc., of contraceptives • constitutional right of privacy encompasses right of married couples to use contraception • invalidating law prohibiting use of contraceptives as applied to married persons • “The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

[LIVE] Landmark Cases highlights Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Planned Parenthood challenged an 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Supreme Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a still-evolving right to privacy. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

[LIVE] Landmark Cases highlights Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Planned Parenthood challenged an 1879 state law banning the use of birth control. The Supreme Court ruled the law to be unconstitutional and established a still-evolving right to privacy. Sponsor: C-SPAN,National Constitution Center

Griswold v. Connecticut  381 U.S. 479 Oral Argument March 29, 1965