Eisenstadt v. Baird
405 U.S. 438 (1972)
Rule of Law:
A state may not prohibit the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons while allowing their distribution to married persons, as such dissimilar treatment for similarly situated individuals violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- William Baird, a lecturer on contraception, delivered a speech on birth control and overpopulation to students at Boston University.
- During his lecture, Baird exhibited various contraceptive articles to the audience.
- At the conclusion of the lecture, Baird gave a package of Emko vaginal foam to a young woman in the audience.
- A Massachusetts law, chapter 272, § 21, made it a felony to sell, lend, or give away any article for the prevention of conception.
- An exception, § 21A, allowed registered physicians to prescribe contraceptives for married persons and registered pharmacists to fill such prescriptions.
- The law effectively created a complete prohibition on the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.
Procedural Posture:
- William Baird was convicted at a bench trial in the Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court) for giving away a contraceptive article.
- Baird appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (state's highest court).
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction for giving away the contraceptive foam.
- Baird filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which dismissed his petition.
- Baird (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (intermediate federal appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, ordering that the writ of habeas corpus be granted.
- The Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts (appellant), appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Massachusetts law that permits married persons to obtain contraceptives but prohibits their distribution to unmarried persons violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the Massachusetts law violates the Equal Protection Clause. The statute's distinction between married and unmarried persons is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The proffered state interests—deterring premarital sex and protecting public health—are not plausible justifications for the law. Deterring fornication by making pregnancy the punishment is unreasonable, and the law is riddled with exceptions that undermine this goal. The health justification is also irrational, as the law denies non-hazardous contraceptives to unmarried persons while allowing them for married persons, despite the health needs being identical. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes, the law is unconstitutional, but on narrower First Amendment grounds. Baird's lecture on contraception is protected speech, and his act of giving away a single sample of vaginal foam was not commercial distribution but a 'time-honored teaching technique' and an illustrative part of his lecture. To punish this act is to unconstitutionally burden his right to free speech and the dissemination of information and ideas. The distinction between speech and conduct allows for regulation of conduct that interferes with others' rights, but Baird's action was a permissible, expressive adjunct to his speech.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the conviction should be reversed, but on narrower grounds without reaching the equal protection issue for unmarried persons. The state failed to provide any evidence that the specific contraceptive distributed, vaginal foam, is hazardous to health and requires a medical prescription. Absent such proof, restricting its distribution even to married persons would burden their constitutional rights established in Griswold. Since Baird could not be constitutionally convicted for distributing this non-hazardous item to a married person, and the record does not establish the recipient's marital status, the conviction is invalid because it may rest on an unconstitutional application of the law.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No, the law does not violate the Constitution in its application to Baird. The central issue is not the rights of unmarried persons, but the state's legitimate power to regulate the distribution of medicinal products to protect public health. Baird, an unlicensed layman, was prohibited from dispensing contraceptives to anyone, married or unmarried. The Court should defer to the Massachusetts court's determination that the statute serves a valid health purpose by requiring medical supervision for contraceptives. Baird lacks standing to challenge the part of the statute concerning unmarried persons because his own conduct was clearly illegal regardless of the recipient's status.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark extension of the right to privacy first articulated for married couples in Griswold v. Connecticut. By applying the Equal Protection Clause, the Court established that the right to make personal decisions about contraception and procreation is an individual right, not one confined to the marital relationship. This shift from a marital to an individual right to privacy was a critical doctrinal step that laid the foundation for Roe v. Wade the following year. The case signifies that if a right is fundamental, the state cannot grant it to one group (married people) while denying it to another (unmarried people) without a compelling justification.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"