Eisenstadt_V._Baird

Eisenstadt V. Baird Eisenstadt v. Baird During his lecture on Birth control and over population, William Baird displayed articles addressing the use of contraceptives to a group of students at Boston University. Along with giving a package of Emko Vaginal Foam to a young woman after his lecture near his home address. The state of Massachusetts charged William Baird with a felony for violating a state law. In which it states “ ‘whoever…gives away…any drug, medicine, instrument or article whatever for the prevention of contraception,’” except a “ ‘ registered physician may administer to or prescribe for any married person drugs or articles intended for the prevention of pregnancy or conception’” (Eisenstadt v. Baird, para.4). Secondly, only “a registered pharmacist actually engaged in the business of pharmacy may furnish such drugs or articles to any married person presenting a prescription form a registered physician’” (Eisenstadt v. Baird, para.4). William Baird was neither one of the permitted distributors. The constitutional issues that arouse were did the Massachusetts law disregard the right to privacy recognized in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut' The case supported and held the right of privacy on the grounds of the third, fourth, baird, right, william, state, privacy, massachusetts, decision, case, registered, one, married, lecture, individuals, freedom, fourteenth, eisenstadt, court’s, articles, single, protection, prevention, person, para4, laws, law, justifiable, issues, griswold, government, form, equal, drugs, contraceptives, connecticut, conclusion