Right to Privacy

The right to privacy is a fundamental value of American culture. The original European colonization of North America was done by Puritan refugees seeking the freedom to practice their religion devoid of governmental interference. The legacy of tolerance and privacy is vital to the continuation of the American way of life that began over 400 years ago. However, specifically during the Warren and Burger courts of the mid-1900s, debate has arisen over the actual degree of privacy allowed in the Constitution. Since then, the varying degree of judicial activism has shaped present-day legislation and the zone of privacy therein.

This paper will illustrate my opinion for the need to distinguish between behaviors that are morally suspicious and actions that are reasonably related to cause direct harm to a large population. I will progress through the three main privacy rights cases and describe their effect on society. It is my contention that the decisions in these cases have expanded the zone of privacy to an adequate size and without these milestone rulings, our culture would be at a significant disadvantage.

Roe v. Wade (1973) is arguably the most popular and controversial privacy case in the history of the Supreme Court. The ruling of this case clearly stated that a women’s right to privacy is grounds for the legality of an abortion (under very specific circumstances). In a way, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was the predecessor to Roe v. Wade’s controversial ruling. Griswold v. Connecticut involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled that such a law violated “the right to marital privacy” and established that the Constitution protected the right to privacy despite any explicit mention of the word “privacy” in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, notably the due process clause and the privileges and immunities clause to allow a citizen the “right” to privacy.

Like the later Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut deals with a decision between rational adults. The decision to use contraceptives is one exercised by logical, consenting people and affects no one but those directly involved. Such a decision to use birth control is not a sweeping attempt to control a large population. Those who oppose these practices claim that, with the precedent set in Griswold, the use of contraceptives will erode social morality. This position primarily stems from religious beliefs, and therefore, the secular state in which we live must protect against the overt influence of religion upon public domain. This, again, is an example of a morally suspicious law. I can say that, at the time of Griswold v. Connecticut, I can understand the state’s position on the issue. Contraceptives were not very well known, nor were the generally accepted at that point in history. Thus, those born 1960s were dubbed the �Baby Boomer’ generation. However, freedom of choice supersedes any suspected negative impact a law may have. In other words, legality/legitimacy comes before morally based opinion.

Lawrence v. Texas was the landmark ruling that struck down the prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas. The court found that intimate homosexual conduct between consenting adults was part of the liberty protected by due process under the 14th Amendment. This ruling helped invalidate similar laws across the country that criminalized consensual sexual activity acting in private, namely the Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick. Like Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas concerns only those directly involved and, while the ruling does indirectly affect a larger number of people than contraceptive rights (seeing as abortion affects only young women of child-bearing age), it is not an attempt to forcefully negatively influence a population.

The United States Supreme Courts holding in Yoder v. Wisconsin made it illegal for Wisconsin to forcibly place Amish children in compulsory education past 8th grade. The court found that the Wisconsin statute violated the free exercise of religion clause of the 1st Amendment. Of all the three cases I discuss, Yoder v. Wisconsin is most likely the one with least resistance. I believe this to be because freedom of religion is directly stated in the Bill of Rights, whereas privacy is implied and thus subject to interpretation. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the freedom to freely exercise religion without any governmental intervention is a pillar of American society. Because of this, I believe the court takes a more activist role when dealing with the denial of the 1st Amendment. As well, unlike sodomy and contraceptive use, which in some situations directly contradict the beliefs of certain religions, the exercise of an alternative religion does