## Facts

- Massachusetts made it a felony to “give away” contraceptives, except by a physician or pharmacist, and only to married persons with appropriate medical involvement.
- William F. Baird, during a contraception lecture at Boston University, gave a condom and contraceptive foam to a 19-year-old unmarried woman.
- Baird was prosecuted and convicted for distributing contraceptives to an unmarried person.
- The state high court set aside the conviction for “exhibiting” contraceptives on First Amendment grounds but upheld the conviction for “giving away” contraceptive foam.
- Baird sought federal habeas relief; the First Circuit held the statute unconstitutional and ordered relief.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a non-physician distributor prosecuted under the statute had standing to assert the rights of unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives.
2. Whether limiting lawful access to contraceptives to married persons violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether the Constitution protects an individual’s decision whether to bear or beget a child regardless of marital status.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment granting relief and held the statute unconstitutional.
- Baird had standing because enforcement against him materially impaired unmarried persons’ access to contraception, and he was prosecuted under the challenged provision.
- The statute violated equal protection by treating married and unmarried persons differently despite being similarly situated regarding access to contraception.
- The asserted purposes—deterring fornication and protecting health—did not rationally justify the marital-status classification.
- The Court stated that the right implicated is the individual’s, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into decisions whether to bear or beget a child.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant prosecuted under a statute may, in appropriate circumstances, raise the constitutional rights of third parties when enforcement burdens those parties’ ability to exercise the right and the defendant’s conduct is directly regulated by the challenged law.
- Differential treatment based solely on marital status must, at minimum, bear a rational relation to a legitimate state interest; an arbitrary marital-status line violates equal protection.
- A state may not deny access to contraception to unmarried persons when the claimed objectives (morality deterrence or health protection) are internally inconsistent with the statutory scheme and not plausibly served by the classification.
- Constitutional protection for decisions concerning whether to bear or beget a child is grounded in individual liberty, not limited to the marital relationship.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Massachusetts’s restriction on contraceptive distribution to unmarried persons, holding that the marital-status classification lacked a rational justification under equal protection and confirming that constitutional protection for reproductive decision-making belongs to individuals, whether married or single.


Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)