Eisenstaedt V. Baird 2.2: Case Study

BUAD 3070-901
October 28, 2012

I. Eisenstaedt v. Baird II. CITATION: 405 U.S. 438 (1972)

III. FACTS:

On April 6th, 1967 at Boston University in William Baird violated Massachusetts law at the time when he handed a condom and a package of Emko vaginal foam to an unmarried 19 year old young woman. At the time of the incident, under Massachusetts state law “Crimes against Chastity” makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug, medicine, instrument, or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a registered physician administering or prescribing it for a married person or (2) an active registered pharmacist furnishing it to a married person presenting a registered physician's prescription. The Massachusetts Supreme Court set aside the conviction for exhibiting contraceptives on the grounds that it violated Baird First Amendment rights, but sustained the conviction for giving away the foam. The law permitted
married persons to obtain contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, but forbid single persons from obtaining them. After this Baird filed a petition for federal writ of habeas corpus, which was later refused by the federal district court. Once the refusal was appealed by the First Circuit Court, and the writ was eventually granted, the charge was dropped, the reasoning behind the charge being dropped is due to the fact that the court concluded that the Massachusetts state law was infringing on human basic rights, whether married or unmarried this right is found in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

IV. LEGAL ISSUES:
There are two main legal issues with this court case, the first being it should be a woman’s chose in the matter of whether she is allotted to take contraceptive or not, and the second being is there ethical reasoning behind the different treatment of women who are married and women are unmarried under the state law of Massachusetts. V. COURT DECISIONS:
In a 6-1 decision (2 Justices-Rehnquist and Powell were not sworn in time in order to participate in this court case ruling) the Supreme Court struck down the Massachusetts state law, but on different reasoning than did the circuit courts which was due to Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment. VI. OPINION AND REASONING OF THE COURT(by Justice Brennan Jr., Justice William O. Douglas, Justice Potter Stewart, and Thurgood Marshall ):
The court stated that that the law’s distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the “rational basis test” of the fourteenth amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Married couples were entitled to contraception under the Court’s Griswold Supreme Court case decision from earlier. Thus, the Court did not have to rely on Griswold to invalidate the Massachusetts statute. VII. CONCURRING OPINONS(Justice White and Justice Blackmun): Stated by Blackmun:
“First Amendment rights are not limited to verbal expression.
The right to petition often involves the right to walk. The right of assembly may mean pushing or jostling. Picketing involves physical activity, as well as a display of a sign. A sit-in can be a quiet, dignified protest that has First Amendment protection even though no speech is involved, as we held in Brown v. Louisiana, supra. Putting contraceptives on display is certainly an aid to speech and discussion. Handing an article under discussion to a member of the audience is a technique known to all teachers, and is commonly used. A handout may be on such a scale as to smack of a vendor's marketing scheme. But passing one article to an audience is merely a projection of the visual aid, and should be a permissible adjunct of free speech. Baird was not making a prescription, nor purporting to give medical advice. Handing out the article was not even a suggestion that the lady use it. At most, it suggested that she become familiar with the product
line.”
This upheld that the treatment of married or unmarried people under the Massachusetts law violates the Equal Protection Clause. First, if health is the rationale of the law, it is both discriminatory and overbroad. Second, right to obtain contraceptives must be the same for married and unmarried individuals.

VIII. DISSENTING OPINONS(delivered by Justice Berger):
“Either to married or unmarried persons. This approach is plainly erroneous, and requires the reversal of Baird's conviction, for, on the facts of this case, it deprives us of knowing whether Baird was, in fact, convicted for making a constitutionally protected distribution of Emko to a married person.”
The law is a justified exercise of the State’s police power because of the hazards of introducing a foreign substance into the human body. IX. PERSONAL OPINION BY STUDENT: there were some major issues in this court case, the first one that is of the most importance is the right of privacy, the right of the government to not intrude on the personal lives of women. This is an issue that is being seen right now in the debate of healthcare for women, it is not the right of a man to choose the rights of a woman’s body. Not only is it the right of women, but the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion. The other issue is that of the state of Massachusetts, was discriminatory against women, and the fact that the women are not treated the same as men.