Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Griswold vs. Connecticut

Gwen T. & Samantha D. P.3

Brief Summary of the Case

SUMMARY

Estelle Griswold had opened a Planned Parenthood clinic in Conncticut, a state in which contraceptives were banned. Even though she was aware of this, she and Dr. C. Lee Buxton had given out information about contraceptives and the latter had even prescribed some. A few days after the clinic was opened, it was shut down, and Griswold and Buxton were arrested. The case ended up in the Aupreme Court, and the court ruled that banned concraceptives violated the right to marital privacy - it was also described as violating Amendment 14.

APPETIZERS

APPETIZERS

Dear 'Hartford Courant',

Estelle Griswold, executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and C. Lee Buxton M.D., the medical director of the clinic were arrested for their violations of an 1879 statute which prohibited any use of contraceptives. Their clinic has prescribed and made married women aware of birth contraceptives. Both of them were found to be accessories to a crime, and they were rightfully convicted and fined $100; although I believe that they should have been fined more.

It is not up to a woman to decide whether or not she should have children, it is up to God. If God did not want a woman to have children, she wouldn’t have one - it should be up to God to put the baby in the woman or not.

While we agree that sex is a private affair, we think that matters concerning children are not! This country needs great people, and we believe that the child that a couple using conceptions could have had would have been a great American.

Thankfully our intelligent state, Connecticut, had not succumbed to the sin of birth control which had come out a year prior.

Back to Griswold and Dr. Buxton, we think that those women should not have gotten off as they did. They prevented the births of beautiful children, going against God’s will to give all children a chance. We plead with the Supreme Court to side with us and protect the marriages and babies of America! This has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with the greater good of America!

The Beautiful State of Connecticut

Editorial

Samantha

Police Report

Samantha

MAIN COURSE

MAIN COURSE

1

Conversations between the Justices and Advocates

Twitter Feed

-gwen-

2

Blog Post

So earlier today, on June 7th, 1965, the Supreme Court voted for the marital right to privacy when it comes to conception. It was a 7-2 vote for Estelle Griswold. Connecticut had a law that made it illegal to distribute birth control to any married couples. So Griswold and her partner Lee Buxton, got arrested for trying to offer birth control even though doing so was against the law. It’s crazy that it was illegal to have control of when you would like to have a kid. The 7 Justices that voted for Griswold had cited other cases, amendments, and the Bill of Rights showing where it states that there’s some form of privacy given to married couples. Both who voted no to the case, he refused to believe the evidence and brushed it all off, using his own personal opinion to show his point of view. Justices Harlan and White used the Fourteenth Amendment to add on with Justice Douglas quoting the Bill of Rights and the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments to back up his argument along with Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sister, and NAACP v. Alabama. Justices Harlan and Goldberg use some of the same documents to help back up their side. Both Justices Black and Stewart had dissented against the case. Justice Black had believed that it was unconstitutional to fight the law. “He, however, distinguished speech from conduct, stating, “Merely because some speech was used in carrying on that conduct . . . we are not in my view justified in holding that the First Amendment prohibits the State to punish their conduct.”” Justice Black believed against it and did not want to consider any facts or evidence placed in front of him. Justice Stewart called the law “silly” but was not able to find anything to disprove the constitutionality.

-gwen-

DESSERT

The word art is in the form of a pacifier as this case deals with contraception for married couples.

Word Art

-gwen-

Tweet it Out

SCOTUS @supreme7

“It is none of our business whether you use contraceptives or not. The 14th Amendment alludes to the fact that people of authority shouldn’t hide under married couples’ beds to see whether they use contraceptives or not, and everyone has a right to privacy!” #privacy #nooneisunderyourbed #nobabies

Tweet It Out

Samantha

Quote the Majority

IMPACT

Impact

Samantha

Thank you!

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi