In Poe v. Ullman, two women are required to have a medical advice on contraceptive devices to protect their health; however, a physician barred them from providing such advice given that the State's Attorney would eventually prosecute him. Since there had not been any charges and none could display any violations of the law, the Court did not rule. In his dissent, Judge Harlan said that he believed that the statute declared it as a criminal offense, and that was an unjustifiable invasion and intolerability of privacy in intimate concerns of an individual (Cindy et al, 2009).
In Griswold justice views, the Court lacked the right to use personal values, ideas, and philosophy related to interpretations to develop legislative rules. Connecticut residents should have made such a decision through voting against it, or by electing a legislature to remove it. They should also have the rights to keep their law if they desire so (Brandon, 2011).
Douglass argued that their government would have a role in the marital and private decisions in childbearing. Several judges acknowledged the right to marital privacy (Dawn, 2011). Judge Arthur said that the right had been left unspecified and protected by the 9th Amendment. Judge White also suggested that it was among the liberties protected by the 14th Amendment. Although their legal reasoning differed, they acknowledged the existence of constitutional protection of the right to privacy (Brandon, 2011).
Interpretation of privacy matters a lot since Griswold fell in a certain category of privacy, which the government has not accepted. They have put it that:
- The Supreme Court takes abortion to be a liberty claim and a privacy right;
- Abortion is well protected by the 14th Amendment, informed by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.
The Supreme Court has been willing to extend the privacy right to be embraced and expanded it besides the inherent guarantees of the Bill of Rights about the privacy, which is a claim of liberty protected under the 14th Amendment (Dawn, 2011).