A day late... Eisenstadt v. Baird

[LadyHawkAZ]

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/22/today-marks-the-41st-anniversary-of-legal-contraception-for-single-people/

Bill Baird attributes his birth control crusade to having seen a 29-year-old mother who already had numerous children die in a Harlem hospital after she tried to self-abort with a coat hanger. She didn’t have the right to a legal abortion, and she didn’t have the right to contraception, or even information about it. Baird dedicated his life to providing contraception and abortion care to women, particularly poor women, and to challenging the laws that denied these things to them.

{...}

In Massachusetts in 1967, it was illegal to both exhibit contraceptives and distribute them to unmarried persons. Seeking to challenge the law by breaking it once again, Baird gave a lecture to approximately 2,000 students at Boston University. He displayed contraceptives during the lecture and closed by giving contraceptive foam and a condom to a young woman. He was arrested and subsequently convicted of both crimes.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously set aside the conviction for exhibiting contraceptives as a violation of Baird’s First Amendment rights but sustained the conviction for giving away the foam. In Massachusetts, fornication was a misdemeanor punishable by a $30 fine or three months in jail; distributing contraceptives was a felony punishable by five years in prison. Baird spent 36 days in Boston’s Charles Street Jail, where the conditions where so bad that a court later found them unconstitutional: “It scarred me to this day,” Baird told RH Reality Check, “but I endured it.”

In 1965, the Supreme Court had held that Connecticut’s prohibition against the use of contraceptives was an unconstitutional infringement of the right to marital privacy. But that decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, wasn’t much help to single people or people like Baird willing to help them. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote, “the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup.” That is not how the law treated marriage historically. Married women were once considered the property of their husbands, rather than separate persons. In holding that prohibiting contraception only for unmarried people denied them the equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court recognized the individual autonomy of women. The case was important to the court’s decision in Roe v. Wade the following year.


~The comment at the end on his granddaughter made me very sad.

[Gormy Cuss]

1. It's good to remind people just how recently Bill Baird made a difference.

In our current climate of chipping away at reproductive rights it's very important to remember just how different it was only two generations ago. Sterilization for either gender was also difficult.

[LadyHawkAZ]

2. Unless things have changed drastically in the last 8 years

sterilization for a woman still is. The last time I asked I was 32, and was told that I was still too young for any doctors that clinic knew of. I had a miscarriage a year later and it did enough damage that I will never have to worry again. It was terrifying when it happened, but I'm glad it did.

It's hard to believe that these things are still so recent. The time frame gets to me every time. Eisenstadt v. Baird happened the year I was born.

[Gormy Cuss]

3. Around 1988 a friend of mine's health plan required that she get her spouse's signature

on a form notifying him that she was having a tubal ligation. It was legal for her to have it done but they still put barriers in front of her, just as happened to you and most women who want sterilization before age 35. I recognize that some people who have been sterilized at a younger age regret it later but it's absurdly paternalistic to let doctors make the choice for them.