U.S.

Supreme Court

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)

Eisenstadt v. Baird

No. 70-17

Argued November 17-18, 1971 Decided March 22, 1972

405 U.S. 438

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Facts: William Baird was convicted felony Massachusetts Superior Court under Massachusetts General
Laws Ann., c. 272, 21, first, for exhibiting contraceptive articles while delivering a lecture on
contraception to a group of students at Boston University and, second, for giving a young woman a
package of Emko vaginal foam at the close of his address.

Mass Supreme Court (1969) Set Aside Conviction first: Exhibiting because it violated Bairds first
amendment rights. Sustained 4 to5 second Conviction: Giving

William Baird filed Writ of Habeas Corpus District Court (1970): Dismissed Habeas

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the action with
directions to grant the writ discharging Baird (1970). conflicts "with fundamental human rights" under
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.

This appeal by Eisenstadt Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, To Supreme Court followed

272, 21 % years max prison for giving instrument of conception prevention Except Dr. to
Married Woman or Pharmacist with prescription from Dr. to Married. Note: Unmarried NO

Issue: 1) Equal Protection Clause: Unequal Treatment of Married and Unmarried Women Re
Availability of Contraception. Unmarried denied access (1987 Constitution Sec 14, Art II-woman equality;
Sec 1 Art III due process [note against is Sec 12 Art II sanctity of life])

2) Due Process Clause: Denying unmarried women a right: to choose to use contracaeption

3) Standing of Baird to Attack Massachusetts General Laws Ann., c. 272, 21 S. 479. Appellant,
inter alia, argues that appellee lacks standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to
contraceptives because he was neither an authorized distributor under the statute nor a single person
unable to obtain contraceptives.
Resolution:

1. By providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are
similarly situated, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

2. By denying a right to unmarried it violates Due Process Clause

3. 272, 21 not a health measure, appellee Baird may not be prevented, because he was not an
authorized distributor, from attacking the statute in its alleged discriminatory application to

potential distributees. Appellee, furthermore, has standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons
denied access to contraceptives because their ability to obtain them.

will be materially impaired by enforcement of the statute.

Conclusion:

The Equal Protection Clause does deny to States the power to legislate that different

treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis

of criteria, wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute. A classification

must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference

having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons

similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.

Due Process Clause prevents the states from denying right to segments of society without
compelling societal reasons