Massachusetts Legislature debates archaic law banning birth control for unmarried women

[Mass]

http://washingtonindependent.com/113063/massachusetts-legislature-debates-archaic-law-banning-birth-control-for-unmarried-women

Really? Does that even require debate? This seems a no brainer to me.

Today, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary is debating whether to repeal portions of an bygone law regarding women’s access to contraception.

House Bill 515, introduced early this year by state Rep. Ellen Story (D-Hampshire District), would amend a section of the “Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order” to legally allow unmarried persons to buy birth control or contraception from a pharmacist or to be prescribed a form a birth control from a pharmacist. The law currently reads (emphasis added):

A registered physician may administer to or prescribe for any married person drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception. A registered pharmacist actually engaged in the business of pharmacy may furnish such drugs or articles to any married person presenting a prescription from a registered physician. A public health agency, a registered nurse, or a maternity health clinic operated by or in an accredited hospital may furnish information to any married person as to where professional advice regarding such drugs or articles may be lawfully obtained.

The Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women describes the bill as outdated and long-irrelevant, yet still technical law that should be modified:

This bill would repeal outdated, unconstitutional, and archaic laws that remain on the books in Massachusetts, including a pre-Roe v. Wade abortion ban, a medically unjustified and burdensome hospital mandate, and a birth control ban for unmarried couples. It would ensure that abortion rights are upheld in the Commonwealth should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned.
...

[aquamarina]

1. O. F. F. S.!

What century are we in? This is ridiculous.

[pinto]

2. Mass has a lot of "Blue Laws" still on the books, technically.

So-called because they were in blue bindings. Most are ignored. A good move to remove it officially, though.

[hifiguy]

3. This needs to be debated in a sane society??

:wtf:

Though it has probably been rendered thoroughly unconstitutional and inoperative by a lengthy line of Supreme Court decisions back in the Earl Warren days. But still, this is an imbecilic statute that should be removed from the books.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I suppose there was a time when allowing contraception for married women and permitting

abortions for medical necessity was a step forward. Just as there was a time when decriminalizing homosexuality was a step forward. What was progress not that long ago - would be oppressive today.

[saras]

5. Toxic waste. Pack 'em up and move 'em out. Dangerous laws to leave lying around.

[CTyankee]

6. Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this YEARS ago? I don't remember the decision

but it certainly overrode state laws...

[hifiguy]

7. I think it was the Baird case

back in the early 1970s. Took a few minutes for me to recall the name of the SCOTUS case.

[msanthrope]

9. Eisenstadt v. Baird? I think the actual product was the old Enfoam

spermicide???

[CTyankee]

11. Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird

[msanthrope]

8. Yes. It does require debate. Before you repeal, you want to give all dissenters

a chance to come, be sworn in, and used in campaign ads.

For example, you would want the Tea Party or Republican Party to send representatives to tell us why this should not be repealed.

[CTyankee]

12. It's settled law. See above. Eisenstadt v. Baird. Supreme Court.

How do they get to challenge this?

[msanthrope]

13. Yes, of course, This is more a political thing, see above. nt

[CTyankee]

14. An exercise in political posturing, leading nowhere...

[whathehell]

10. Then they need to "debate" birth control for unmarried MEN...

No rubbers without a marriage license, bro!