In the Supreme Court Case Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in favor of Griswold because the court decided that the Law against contraceptions for pregnancy was unconstitutional as it violated the right of marital privacy. The court essentially stated that no one has the right to tell a married couple that they can or can’t have a baby a certain way because that is the decision for those two people to decide, and no one person or group of people can decide that for them, not even the government. The Supreme Court gave one of it’s reasoning’s to allow Griswold to give pregnancy contraceptions by saying that it went against his first amendment rights to freedom of speech. The Law did this because he wasn’t allowed to voice his opinion about what the couples should do and it restricted his right to teach. It also goes against our freedom of association because the people that were aware and associated with the party got in trouble and likely interrogated for something as simple as just having a meeting with Mr. Griswold and his associate Dr. Buxton. …show more content…
Connecticut changed the governments role in privacy cases as it relates to an individual’s personal choices because privacy is wrapped into our constitution and is hinted in many of the amendments. So now every time that a privacy case comes up in our society the government has to look at it because someone feels that their rights have been violated they must go to the court to determine and intemperate the law for them. But, now because of Griswold people can have the possible right to privacy and they can know that there are some instances in the constitution that give us that basic right. The Government and the Supreme Court need to make a policy or law defining our right of privacy because it’s not right to just have that topic just floating around for debate all of the