Appellant
Thomas Eisenstadt, sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
Appellee
William R. Baird, Jr.
Appellant's Claim
That the lower courts erred in overturning Baird's conviction on charges of distributing contraceptives without a medical license and to unmarried people.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Joseph R. Nolan
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Joseph Balliro before the lower courts; Joseph D. Tydings before the SupremeCourt
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger (Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and William H. Rehnquist joined the Court too late in 1972 to participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
22 March 1972
Decision
Upheld lower court reversals of Baird's conviction and invalidated state lawsrestricting the use of contraceptives to married people.
Significance
In addition to making contraceptives legally available to unmarried people throughout the United States, the decision described the constitutional right of privacy in language that foreshadowed the Court's 1973 finding that the right to privacy protected a woman's right to have an abortion.
Although the Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples in 1964's Griswold v. Connecticut, furnishing contraceptives to unmarried people in many states continued to be illegal. Massachusetts prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to anyone without a medical prescription and to unmarried people under any circumstances.Violation was punishable by up to five years imprisonment.
In the spring of 1967, birth control activist William R. Baird, Jr., acceptedan invitation from Boston University students to lecture and "distribute free lists of abortionists and birth control devices to interested coeds." Priorto Baird's visit, the B.U. News published an article in which Baird,a former medical student who had once worked for a pharmaceutical company, explained that he had become a birth control and abortion rights activist afterwitnessing the death of a young mother of eight who had been admitted to anemergency room after an illegal abortion. Saying that more than ten thousandwomen had died from illegal abortions in 1966, he condemned laws making contraceptives available only to married women under a doctor's care and declaredthat he would "test this law in Massachusetts . . . No group, no law, no individual can dictate to a woman what goes on in her own body."
When Baird took the stage in an auditorium at Boston University on 6 April, there were 1,500 to 2,000 people in the audience--and three vice squad officers in the wings. B.U. News editor Raymond Mungo introduced Baird, saying, "We are here to test the legal aspects of the birth control and abortion laws in the state of Massachusetts."
When Baird announced his intention to distribute contraceptive foam and a list of places outside the United States where one might secure an abortion, headdressed the vice squad directly, reminding them to "do your duty." Tellingthe students that "the only way we can change the law is to get the case intoa court of law," he urged them to approach and to take the offered information and contraceptive foam. He was arrested as soon as he started handing outthe materials.
Among the Lower Courts
Baird was tried before Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Donald B. Macaulayin October of 1967. Represented by attorney Joseph J. Balliro, who took the case without charge, Baird waived his right to a jury trial.
Assistant District Attorney Joseph R. Nolan called police lieutenant Joseph Jordan to the stand. Jordan, who had arrested Baird at Boston University, described Baird's speech and his actions. Balliro argued that the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional. Macaulay found Baird guilty of violating the law, but postponed Baird's sentencing until an appeal was heard.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard the case in November of 1968.Nolan characterized Baird's actions at Boston University as "an invitation topromiscuity and sexual license," and he defended the commonwealth's objective of "preventing the distribution of articles designed to prevent conceptionwhich may have undesirable, if not dangerous, physical consequences."
In April of 1969, the court overturned Baird's conviction for displaying contraceptives, on the basis that this had been part of a speech protected by theFirst Amendment. However, it affirmed Baird's criminal conviction for distributing the contraceptive foam on the basis that Baird was not a physician, nurse, or pharmacist legally entitled in Massachusetts to engage in such conduct. Returning to the Suffolk County Superior Court, Baird was sentenced to three months. Macaulay agreed to postpone Baird's imprisonment pending an appealto the Supreme Court, but, to the surprise of many, the Court would not hearBaird's appeal.
Balliro filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. WhenU.S. District Judge Anthony J. Julian had not ruled by 20 February, Baird went to the Charles Street jail in Boston and surrendered to Suffolk County sheriff Thomas Eisenstadt. Julian heard oral arguments at the end of the month and in March of 1970, denied the habeas corpus petition. The denial entitled Baird to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. This court ordered that Baird be set free until his appeal could be heard. On 6 July, the court ruled that the Massachusetts birth control law was unconstitutional and reversed Baird's remaining conviction.
At the Supreme Court
Eisenstadt appealed to the Supreme Court. This time, the Court announced thatit would hear the appeal. Oral arguments were presented on 19 and 20 November 1971, before seven justices. Nolan, arguing for Massachusetts, emphasized Baird's lack of a medical license and claimed that "there are some very dangerous side lights and side effects to the use of many contraceptives."
Nolan dismissed any possible comparison to Griswold, which had been decided on the basis of a married couple's "right to privacy," since this caseinvolved a very public display of contraceptives. Joseph Tydings, a former U.S. senator from Maryland, who had replaced Balliro as Baird's attorney, saidthat the Massachusetts law was "inherently unconstitutional because there isno compelling state reason for it."
On 22 March 1972, the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority opinion, written by Justice Brennan, further defined the Ninth Amendment right of privacy first enunciated inGriswold:
In 1973, the right to privacy was found by the Supreme Court to protect a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, in Roe v. Wade. Four years later, the Supreme Court, citing Eisenstadt, ruled that states could not prohibit the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried minors (Carey v. Population Services International, 1977).
Related Cases
Thomas Eisenstadt, sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
Appellee
William R. Baird, Jr.
Appellant's Claim
That the lower courts erred in overturning Baird's conviction on charges of distributing contraceptives without a medical license and to unmarried people.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Joseph R. Nolan
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Joseph Balliro before the lower courts; Joseph D. Tydings before the SupremeCourt
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger (Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and William H. Rehnquist joined the Court too late in 1972 to participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
22 March 1972
Decision
Upheld lower court reversals of Baird's conviction and invalidated state lawsrestricting the use of contraceptives to married people.
Significance
In addition to making contraceptives legally available to unmarried people throughout the United States, the decision described the constitutional right of privacy in language that foreshadowed the Court's 1973 finding that the right to privacy protected a woman's right to have an abortion.
Although the Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples in 1964's Griswold v. Connecticut, furnishing contraceptives to unmarried people in many states continued to be illegal. Massachusetts prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to anyone without a medical prescription and to unmarried people under any circumstances.Violation was punishable by up to five years imprisonment.
In the spring of 1967, birth control activist William R. Baird, Jr., acceptedan invitation from Boston University students to lecture and "distribute free lists of abortionists and birth control devices to interested coeds." Priorto Baird's visit, the B.U. News published an article in which Baird,a former medical student who had once worked for a pharmaceutical company, explained that he had become a birth control and abortion rights activist afterwitnessing the death of a young mother of eight who had been admitted to anemergency room after an illegal abortion. Saying that more than ten thousandwomen had died from illegal abortions in 1966, he condemned laws making contraceptives available only to married women under a doctor's care and declaredthat he would "test this law in Massachusetts . . . No group, no law, no individual can dictate to a woman what goes on in her own body."
When Baird took the stage in an auditorium at Boston University on 6 April, there were 1,500 to 2,000 people in the audience--and three vice squad officers in the wings. B.U. News editor Raymond Mungo introduced Baird, saying, "We are here to test the legal aspects of the birth control and abortion laws in the state of Massachusetts."
When Baird announced his intention to distribute contraceptive foam and a list of places outside the United States where one might secure an abortion, headdressed the vice squad directly, reminding them to "do your duty." Tellingthe students that "the only way we can change the law is to get the case intoa court of law," he urged them to approach and to take the offered information and contraceptive foam. He was arrested as soon as he started handing outthe materials.
Among the Lower Courts
Baird was tried before Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Donald B. Macaulayin October of 1967. Represented by attorney Joseph J. Balliro, who took the case without charge, Baird waived his right to a jury trial.
Assistant District Attorney Joseph R. Nolan called police lieutenant Joseph Jordan to the stand. Jordan, who had arrested Baird at Boston University, described Baird's speech and his actions. Balliro argued that the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional. Macaulay found Baird guilty of violating the law, but postponed Baird's sentencing until an appeal was heard.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard the case in November of 1968.Nolan characterized Baird's actions at Boston University as "an invitation topromiscuity and sexual license," and he defended the commonwealth's objective of "preventing the distribution of articles designed to prevent conceptionwhich may have undesirable, if not dangerous, physical consequences."
In April of 1969, the court overturned Baird's conviction for displaying contraceptives, on the basis that this had been part of a speech protected by theFirst Amendment. However, it affirmed Baird's criminal conviction for distributing the contraceptive foam on the basis that Baird was not a physician, nurse, or pharmacist legally entitled in Massachusetts to engage in such conduct. Returning to the Suffolk County Superior Court, Baird was sentenced to three months. Macaulay agreed to postpone Baird's imprisonment pending an appealto the Supreme Court, but, to the surprise of many, the Court would not hearBaird's appeal.
Balliro filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. WhenU.S. District Judge Anthony J. Julian had not ruled by 20 February, Baird went to the Charles Street jail in Boston and surrendered to Suffolk County sheriff Thomas Eisenstadt. Julian heard oral arguments at the end of the month and in March of 1970, denied the habeas corpus petition. The denial entitled Baird to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. This court ordered that Baird be set free until his appeal could be heard. On 6 July, the court ruled that the Massachusetts birth control law was unconstitutional and reversed Baird's remaining conviction.
At the Supreme Court
Eisenstadt appealed to the Supreme Court. This time, the Court announced thatit would hear the appeal. Oral arguments were presented on 19 and 20 November 1971, before seven justices. Nolan, arguing for Massachusetts, emphasized Baird's lack of a medical license and claimed that "there are some very dangerous side lights and side effects to the use of many contraceptives."
Nolan dismissed any possible comparison to Griswold, which had been decided on the basis of a married couple's "right to privacy," since this caseinvolved a very public display of contraceptives. Joseph Tydings, a former U.S. senator from Maryland, who had replaced Balliro as Baird's attorney, saidthat the Massachusetts law was "inherently unconstitutional because there isno compelling state reason for it."
On 22 March 1972, the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority opinion, written by Justice Brennan, further defined the Ninth Amendment right of privacy first enunciated inGriswold:
If under Griswold the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution tounmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship.Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart ofits own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional make-up. If the right of privacy means anything, it is theright of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person asthe decision whether to bear or beget a child.
In 1973, the right to privacy was found by the Supreme Court to protect a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, in Roe v. Wade. Four years later, the Supreme Court, citing Eisenstadt, ruled that states could not prohibit the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried minors (Carey v. Population Services International, 1977).
Related Cases
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1964).
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
User Comments Add a comment…