论文部分内容阅读
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。
The two appellants in this case were respectively the executive director of the Connecticut Family Planning Commission and his medical director, a licensed physician, who were charged as accomplices in the state on the grounds that they had offered to married women Provide knowledge about contraception and medical advice as well as conduct tests on some women and provide contraceptives and materials for women. This is because it is a criminal act to provide any person with any contraceptives or utensils under Connecticut’s statute. Both appellants alleged that the statutory law applicable to this case violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. However, after two state-level hearings, the Connecticut Intermediate Court of Appeal first found the appellant guilty and since then the Supreme Court upheld the verdict. In the end, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the original verdict as follows: (1) The appellant is entitled to claim the constitutional rights of the married person. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 (1943) should be treated differently and not applicable to the case. (Ii) Connecticut’s statute on the prohibition of the use of contraception violates the privacy of marriage, which is protected in the gray area of the specific rights protected by the Bill of Rights.