Send us a text
What Tries to control the most post personal choices between a husband and wife? In this episode of hidden verdict, we dive into Griswold versus Connecticut, the case that redefined privacy writes in America. Estelle Griswold and Dr. Lee Buxton took a stand against a law and dictated with couples could and couldn’t do in the privacy of their own homes. Learn how their clever plan led to a landmark decision that reshaped personal freedoms for generations to come.
Support the show
Thank you for listening to Hidden Verdicts! If you enjoyed today’s episode, don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share with others who love uncovering the lesser known cases that shaped American Law. Don’t miss our next episode as we continue, revealing the hidden stories behind America’s most impactful legal decisions.
But still, Griswold and Dr. Lee Buxton are sitting in separate jail cells, arrested, fined and humiliated. Decron, opening a clinic in New Haven, Connecticut to help people. What was so controversial about what they were doing? July 5, 1934. One day after the nation celebrated its independence from tyranny, workers in San Francisco took to the streets, demanding a different kind of freedom. Tensions continued to build as their demands were ignored until there was only one possible outcome. This wasn't a war of independence, no. This was something different, something American. Join us every week as we uncover the hidden stories behind America's most explosive riots, stories of struggle, resistance and a fight for justice. This is American Riot, the Frisco Strike riots, coming soon. Estelle Griswold was known for her tireless advocacy for family planning and women's rights, she often spoke about how the lack of access to contraception hurt families. As she said publicly in the 1960s, "Every day I saw women with no options scared and desperate." It wasn't just about birth control, it was about giving people control over their own lives. Born in 1900, Griswold had spent much of her life fighting for reproductive rights and saw firsthand how outdated laws like Connecticut's Armed to Women. Dr. Lee Buxton, a Yale professor and doctor, shared similar views. He wrote letters and spoke to colleagues about the devastating effects of these restrictive laws. In one letter, Dr. Buxton wrote, "I had patients who were in terrible situations, not because they were reckless, but because they didn't have the information or resources to prevent it. The law didn't protect them, it hurt them." For both Griswold and Buxton, this wasn't just a legal issue, it was a moral one. They decided to act. They opened a small clinic in New Haven, fully aware they were breaking the law. Their goal, to force the issue into court and challenge a law they believed was outdated, cruel, and completely out of step with modern life. Why would Connecticut still enforce such a law from the 1800s? To understand, we need to step back in time. The law was rooted in old ideas of morality, designed to promote public decency and prevent behavior that was seen as immoral. I think it's to reduce the chances of immorality if you're on a prison. I use the words immorality here in a broad sense, that is, in one way, to act as a deterrent to sexual intercourse, outside of the marital relationship. But by 1961, it was seen as an absurd relic, one that still wielded power over people's lives. Griswold once explained in an interview, "We weren't just fighting for birth control. We were fighting against a system that controlled the most personal parts of people's lives." The clinic didn't last long, just ten days after opening, the police raided it. Griswold and Buxton were arrested and convicted. The fines were relatively small, but the impact was enormous. Their case moved through the lower courts, and each time the conviction was upheld. But Griswold and Buxton knew that the real battle would be fought in the Supreme Court. In a personal letter to a fellow doctor, Dr. Buxton reflected on the risk they were taking. We didn't expect the lower courts to overturn the law, but we knew that if we could get this to the Supreme Court, there was a chance, a real change. Behind the scenes, the community in New Haven was divided. Some supported Griswold and Buxton quietly, grateful for their courage. Griswold feared the consequences of defying such a long-standing law, but the tide was shifting, and more people began to see the law for what it was, outdated and harmful. [MUSIC] >> Number 496, Estelle T. Griswold at Al Kellen's versus Connecticut. By the time Griswold versus Connecticut reached the Supreme Court in 1965, the stakes were high. On one side, the attorneys for Griswold and Buxton argued that the Connecticut law violated an implicit right to privacy, a right that should protect married couples from government intrusion into their personal lives. >> We rely on the third, fourth and fifth amendments insofar as they embody a concept of the right of privacy. On the other side, Connecticut's attorneys defended the law, arguing that the state had the right to regulate behavior, even within marriage, in the interest of public morality. >> I think if you're on a basis to preserve what kind of morality, what moral purpose is that? >> Well, if you're on a basis, it is not unheard of that the use of contraceptives themselves would be immoral. As I said, if you're on a basis, it seems to me that this case is purely a case of legislative power reduced to its narrowest sense. Does the legislature have the power to enact laws in this area? And I think the answer has to be said that it does. And the other question comes up, did Connecticut go too far? >> Justice Porter Stewart posed a critical question during the oral arguments, one that would shape the case's outcome. >> Well, now, what purpose? What is the police power purpose of Connecticut in telling married people to people who are married to each other, that they could not use contraceptives? On June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Griswold. The majority opinion, written by Justice William O. Douglas, declared that the Connecticut law violated the right to marital privacy. The ruling set a new precedent, establishing privacy as a constitutional right, even though it wasn't explicitly written into the Constitution. Reflecting on the ruling. Griswold said in an interview, "When the ruling came down, it wasn't just about me or Dr. Buxton. It was about all the people who had been affected by that law. People who had no say in what was happening to them." The ruling in Griswold versus Connecticut changed more than just a law. It changed the way Americans thought about privacy and personal freedom. It laid the foundation for future cases that would protect individual rights in ways Griswold and Buxton never imagined. In a letter, written years later, Dr. Buxton reflected on their personal battle. We didn't set out to make history, but history has a way of finding those who stand up for what's right. So what happened to Estelle Griswold and Dr. Buxton after their groundbreaking victory? Dr. Lee Buxton passed away just a year after the Supreme Court ruling in 1966 without ever seeing the full extent of the changes their case would inspire. Still Griswold continued her work in reproductive rights, but her name faded from the public eye. While she was celebrated in certain circles as a pioneer, she never quite achieved the public recognition some might expect. She passed away in 1981. If Griswold and Buxton paved the way for future battles for privacy and individual rights, but their legacies were not as widely celebrated as the impacts of their case, it wasn't until later that the full importance of Griswold versus Connecticut was truly appreciated, particularly as it laid the groundwork for later cases like Roe versus Wade. Their quiet rebellion changed the course of American history, even if their names did not become household words. Griswold and Buxton's quiet rebellion didn't change Connecticut, it changed the nation. It reminded us that sometimes the most personal battles are the ones that shape history. In the next episode of Hidden Vertics, we'll explore how one case changed the way Christmas is celebrated in public spaces. After that decision, Christmas would never be quite the same, at least not in front of a courthouse or at your local airport. Thanks for listening to Hidden Vertics. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review wherever you get your podcast. Your support helps us continue uncovering the stories behind the decisions that shaped our world. [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC]
