Editing Griswold v. Connecticut (section)

== Background ==
''Griswold v. Connecticut'' originated as a prosecution under the Connecticut [[Comstock Act]] of 1873. The law made it illegal to use "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception...". Violators could 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".<ref name="scotus" />

In the late 19th and early 20th century, physicians in the United States 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. Then in 1914, [[Margaret Sanger]] openly challenged the public consensus against contraception.<ref>{{cite book|title = Griswold V. Connecticut|last = Johnson|first = John W.|publisher = University of Kansas|year = 2005|isbn = 0-7006-1378-1|pages = 8–10}}</ref>  She influenced the Connecticut Birth Control League (CBCL) and helped to develop the eventual concept of the [[Planned Parenthood]] clinics.<ref>{{Cite web |title=History & Impact of Planned Parenthood |url=https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/our-history |access-date=February 28, 2022 |website=Planned Parenthood}}</ref>

The first Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut opened in 1935 in [[Hartford, Connecticut|Hartford]]. It provided services to women who had no access to a gynecologist, including information about artificial contraception and other methods to plan the growth of their families. Several clinics were opened in Connecticut over the following years, including the [[Waterbury, Connecticut|Waterbury]] clinic that led to the legal dispute. In 1939, this clinic was compelled to enforce the 1879 anti-contraception law. This caught 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.<ref>{{cite book|title = Griswold V. Connecticut|last = Johnson|first = John W.|publisher = University of Kansas|year = 2005|isbn = 0-7006-1378-1|pages = Chapter 2}}</ref>

During the 1940s, two cases arose from the provision of contraception by the Waterbury clinic, leading to legal challenges to the constitutionality of the Comstock law, but these failed on technical grounds. In ''[[Tileston v. Ullman]]'' (1943), a doctor and mother challenged the law on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain sexual situations, threaten the lives and well-being of patients. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked [[standing (law)|standing]] to sue on behalf of his patients. [[Yale School of Medicine]] gynecologist [[C. Lee Buxton]] and his patients brought a second challenge to the law in ''[[Poe v. Ullman]]'' (1961). The Supreme Court again dismissed the appeal, on the grounds that the case was not ''[[Ripeness|ripe]]'': the plaintiffs had not been charged or threatened with prosecution, so there was no actual controversy for the Court to resolve.

The polemic around ''Poe'' led to the appeal in ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', primarily based on the dissent of Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]] in ''Poe'', one of the most cited dissents in Supreme Court history.{{Citation needed|date=May 2022}}

{{blockquote|(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 in the United States; 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 Marshall Harlan II, dissent in ''Poe v. Ullman''.<ref>{{cite book|title = Griswold V. Connecticut|last = Johnson|first = John W.|publisher = University Press of Kansas|year = 2005|isbn = 0-7006-1378-1|pages = Chapter 5}}</ref>}}

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.

After ''Poe'' was handed down in June 1961,  the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) decided to challenge the law again. [[Estelle Griswold]] served on the PPLC as executive director from 1954 to 1965.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Cheek|first=Jeannette Bailey|date=March 17, 1976|title=Estelle Griswold oral history interview about her part in Griswold v. Connecticut, legal challenge to Connecticut birth control law|journal=Women's Studies Manuscript Collections from the Schlesinger Library: Voting Rights, National Politics, and Reproductive Rights|via=ProQuest History Vault}}</ref> Struggling through legal battles against birth control restrictions in Connecticut, Griswold and PPLC made an initial effort to financially support women who wanted contraceptives to bus to cities in New York and Rhode Island.<ref name=":0" /> Griswold<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.cwhf.org/inductees/reformers/estelle-griswold/|title = Estelle Griswold|publisher =Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame}}</ref> and Dr. Buxton (PPLC medical volunteer),<ref>{{cite web|url = http://actionspeaksradio.org/griswold-v-connecticut/#.UbZVV_mTgV0|title = 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Contraception as a right of privacy? The Supreme Court says, 'Yes!'|publisher = Action Speaks Radio|year = 2012|access-date = June 10, 2013|archive-date = March 3, 2014|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140303180439/http://actionspeaksradio.org/griswold-v-connecticut/#.UbZVV_mTgV0|url-status = dead}}</ref> opened a birth control clinic in [[New Haven, Connecticut]],<ref name="Garrow">{{cite journal|url = http://www.davidgarrow.com/File/DJG2011ABAGriswold.pdf|title = Human Rights Hero. The Legacy of Griswold V. Connecticut.|last = Garrow|first = David J.|date =Spring 2011|journal = Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities}}</ref> "thus directly challeng[ing] the state law".<ref name=":0" /> The clinic opened on November 1, 1961, and that same day received its first ten patients and dozens of appointment requests from married women who wanted birth control advice and prescriptions. Less than two days after the fact, police officers arrived, to which Griswold explained in detail both the operations of the clinic and openly admitted to breaking state law. A week later, the detectives arrived with arrest warrants.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Garrow |first=David J. |date=2011 |title=Human Rights Hero: The Legal Legacy of "Griswold v. Connecticut" |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23032421 |journal=Human Rights |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=26–25 |jstor=23032421 |issn=0046-8185}}</ref> Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried in a one-day [[bench trial]],<ref name=":1" /> found guilty, and fined $100 each.<ref name="PBS Griswold">{{cite web |url = https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html|title = EXPANDING CIVIL RIGHTS Landmark Cases Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)|author = Alex McBride|publisher = PBS|date = December 2006}}</ref> The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the [[Connecticut Supreme Court]].<ref>{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Zzz41t_0ufEC&pg=PA44 |title = The Baby Matrix|author = Laura Carroll|publisher = LiveTrue Books |isbn = 978-0-615-64299-4|date = July 2012}}</ref>