Warren E. Burger

Name: Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger
Author: Warren E. Burger

Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

Summary

“Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger”, published in 1972, is a work by Warren E. Burger. It explores elements such as contraceptives, Massachusetts and distributors.

Quotes from Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (Warren E. Burger)

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ I simply cannot believe that the limitation on the class of lawful distributors has significantly impaired the right to use contraceptives in Massachusetts. By relying on Griswold in the present context, the Court has passed beyond the penumbras of the specific guarantees into the uncircumscribed area of personal predilections.
The need for dissemination of information on birth control is not impinged in the slightest by limiting the distribution of medicinal substances to medical and pharmaceutical channels as Massachusetts has done by statute. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ Even assuming no present dispute among medical authorities, we cannot ignore that it has become commonplace for a drug or food additive to be universally regarded as harmless on one day and to be condemned as perilous on the next. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ Moreover, there may be information known to the medical profession that a particular brand of contraceptive is to be preferred or avoided, or that it has not been adequately tested. Nonetheless, the concurring opinion would hold, as a constitutional matter, that a State must allow someone without medical training the same power to distribute this medicinal substance as is enjoyed by a physician.
It is revealing, I think, that those portions of the majority and concurring opinions rejecting the statutory limitation on distributors rely on no particular provision of the Constitution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ To my mind the validity of this restriction on dispensing medicinal substances is the only issue before the Court, and appellee has no standing to challenge that part of the statute restricting the persons to whom contraceptives are available. There is no need to labor this point, however, for everyone seems to agree that if Massachusetts has validly required, as a health measure, that all contraceptives be dispensed by a physician or pursuant to a physician's prescription, then the statutory distinction based on marital status has no bearing on this case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ The choice of a means of birth control, although a highly personal matter, is also a health matter in a very real sense, and I see nothing arbitrary in a requirement of medical supervision. [3] It is generally acknowledged that contraceptives vary in degree of effectiveness and potential harmfulness. [4] There may be compelling health reasons for certain women to choose the most effective means of birth control available, no matter how harmless the less effective alternatives. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ The actual hazards of introducing a particular foreign substance into the human body are frequently controverted, and I cannot believe that unanimity of expert opinion is a prerequisite to a State's exercise of its police power, no matter what the subject matter of the regulation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ The opinion of the Court today brushes aside appellee's status as an unlicensed layman by concluding that the Massachusetts Legislature was not really concerned with the protection of health when it passed this statute. Mr. Justice White acknowledges the statutory concern with the protection of health, but finds the restriction on distributors overly broad because the State has failed to adduce facts showing the health hazards of the particular substance dispensed by appellee as distinguished from other contraceptives. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (1972)

“ The second argument, finding its origin in a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, rejects a health purpose because, " [i] f there is need to have a physician prescribe...contraceptives, that need is as great for unmarried persons as for married persons." ”

Warren E. Burger

Summary

Quotes from Eisenstadt v. Baird — Dissent Burger (Warren E. Burger)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature