Summary

Portrait of William J. Brennan William J. Brennan Eisenstadt v. Baird — Opinion of the Court (1972)

Even conceding the legislature a full measure of discretion in fashioning means to prevent fornication, and recognizing that the State may seek to deter prohibited conduct by punishing more severely those who facilitate than those who actually engage in its commission, we, like the Court of Appeals, cannot believe that in this instance Massachusetts has chosen to expose the aider and abetter who simply gives away a contraceptive to 20 times the 90-day sentence of the offender himself.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William J. Brennan William J. Brennan Eisenstadt v. Baird — Opinion of the Court (1972)

The Court of Appeals went on to hold, id., at 1402:
"To say that contraceptives are immoral as such, and are to be forbidden to unmarried persons who will nevertheless persist in having intercourse, means that such persons must risk for themselves an unwanted pregnancy, for the child, illegitimacy, and for society, a possible obligation of support. Such a view of morality is not only the very mirror image of sensible legislation; we consider that it conflicts with fundamental human rights.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William J. Brennan William J. Brennan Eisenstadt v. Baird — Opinion of the Court (1972)

If there is need to have a physician prescribe (and a pharmacist dispense) contraceptives, that need is as great for unmarried persons as for married persons." The Court of Appeals added: "If the prohibition [on distribution to unmarried persons] ...is to be taken to mean that the same physician who can prescribe for married patients does not have sufficient skill to protect the health of patients who lack a marriage certificate, or who may be currently divorced, it is illogical to the point of irrationality."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature