美国法对隐私权的确认——格里斯沃德诉康涅狄格州案
发布时间：2019-04-04 10:29
【摘要】：本案两位上诉人分别是康涅狄格州计划生育委员会的执行理事和他的医疗理事(一位有执业资格的内科医生),他们均作为从犯在该州受到了指控,理由为:他们向已婚妇女提供关于避孕的知识和医疗建议,以及通过检测后向部分妇女开具处方,并提供女用避孕用具与材料等行为。这是因为根据康涅狄格州的制定法,向任何人提供任何避孕药物或用具的行为都属犯罪行为。两位上诉人均诉称,这种用以认定从犯的、适用于本案的制定法违反了宪法第十四修正案。然而经过州层面的两次审理,先是康涅狄格州中级上诉法院认定了上诉人有罪,此后州最高法院也维持了原判。最终,美国联邦最高法院推翻了原判,其判决如下:(一)上诉人有资格主张结婚者的宪法权利。Tileston v.Ullman,318 U.S.44(1943)应被区别对待,不适用于本案。(二)康涅狄格州关于禁止使用避孕手段的制定法侵犯了婚内隐私权,此权利处于权利法案所保护的特定权利范围的灰色地带,应予保护。
[Abstract]:In this case, plaintiff, the executive director of the Connecticut Family Planning Commission and his medical director (a licensed physician), were both charged as accomplices in the state. The reasons are: they provide married women with knowledge and medical advice on contraception, as well as prescribing some women after testing and providing women with contraceptives and materials. This is because it is an offence to provide any contraceptive drug or device to anyone under Connecticut legislation. Both plaintiff complained that the enactment of the law applicable to the case violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which was used to identify accomplices. However, after two state-level trials, the Connecticut Intermediate Court of Appeal found plaintiff guilty, and the State Supreme Court later upheld the verdict. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling as follows: (1) plaintiff was entitled to claim the constitutional rights of a married person. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S.44 (1943) should be treated differently and not applicable in the present case. (2) Connecticut's legislation prohibiting the use of contraceptives violates the right to privacy within marriage, which is in a grey area within the specific scope of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights and shall be protected.
【作者单位】： 英国牛津大学法学院;
【分类号】：D971.2
本文编号：2453726
[Abstract]:In this case, plaintiff, the executive director of the Connecticut Family Planning Commission and his medical director (a licensed physician), were both charged as accomplices in the state. The reasons are: they provide married women with knowledge and medical advice on contraception, as well as prescribing some women after testing and providing women with contraceptives and materials. This is because it is an offence to provide any contraceptive drug or device to anyone under Connecticut legislation. Both plaintiff complained that the enactment of the law applicable to the case violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which was used to identify accomplices. However, after two state-level trials, the Connecticut Intermediate Court of Appeal found plaintiff guilty, and the State Supreme Court later upheld the verdict. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling as follows: (1) plaintiff was entitled to claim the constitutional rights of a married person. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S.44 (1943) should be treated differently and not applicable in the present case. (2) Connecticut's legislation prohibiting the use of contraceptives violates the right to privacy within marriage, which is in a grey area within the specific scope of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights and shall be protected.
【作者单位】： 英国牛津大学法学院;
【分类号】：D971.2
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前2条
1 未未;耶鲁:从此不再宁静 5·21美国校园爆炸案图证[J];上海消防;2003年07期
2 ;[J];;年期
相关重要报纸文章 前3条
1 记者 赖竞超 实习生 张思婉;肖志恒会见康涅狄格州州长[N];南方日报;2012年
2 记者 王建刚;巴裔嫌犯被警方逮捕[N];新华每日电讯;2010年
3 杨威;美国学校开始对可乐薯条说“不”[N];新华每日电讯;2005年
，本文编号：2453726
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2453726.html
