When condoms were illegal in Massachusetts unless you were married: Bill Baird returns to the scene of the crime
The Daily Free Press reports Bill Baird spoke the other day at BU - for the first time since his arrest in 1967 for giving a condom and some contraceptive foam to a 19-year-old during a talk there.
Baird's arrest on the felony charge ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling that began the process toward giving unmarried people the same rights in the bedroom as married couples. And it invalidated the Massachusetts laws (still technically on the books) that banned single people from obtaining contraceptives and even banned articles discussing how to obtain them.
A few months after his BU arrest, the Crimson interviewed Baird - and discussed Planned Parenthood's decision at the time not to support him:
Planned Parenthood thinks even less of Baird's recent tactics and his chances in court. In New York he was charged with distributing information and exhibiting contraceptives, and both of those actions can be interpreted as extensions of the right of free speech. But here he has been outflanked by the Massachusetts District Attorney. The charge that he gave out information on birth control, which would probably be declared a constitutional right, was dropped, and the charge that he actually distributed contraceptives was added. Planned Parenthood thinks this question lies in the gray area between individual rights and legitimate state power, and that Baird has little hope of overturning state laws.
Ad:
Comments
First time since 1967?
I saw Baird at an event, at BU, in the 90s. There were at least 30 people there. Maybe it wasn't an official BU event but it was in a BU building. The article is very unclear about what capacity he was speaking in that he hasn't (supposedly) done since the 60s.
These laws are still on the books?
Why? They weren't removed when the outdated and inappropriate (e.g. illegal) laws were taken off the books en masse some time ago?
Not really
"led to a Supreme Court ruling that unmarried people had the same rights in the bedroom as married couples."
That's how it is portrayed, but it only ruled that unmarried people had the same right to contraception as married people. Five years later, the Court relied on Wisconsin's fornication law to decide Zablocki, so it didn't invalidate fornication laws.
Eisenstadt says unmarried people have a right to make decisions about bearing and begetting children, but it doesn't mean they can go ahead and do that without marrying first. Meanwhile, they have a right to use contraception so that they are protected from rape and crimes of passion.
Thanks for the clarification
The Baird case was the first step in a process that led to equal bedroom rights for unmarried heterosexual couples. Post amended to reflect that.
no no, Zablocki affirmed fornication laws
The court has never said that unmarried and married couples have equal "bedroom rights" if by "bedroom rights" you mean the right to have sexual intercourse. In fact, even Lawrence v Texas affirmed that marriage is about the right to have sexual intercourse.
Lawrence?
Didn't that basically outlaw sodomy laws under the right to privacy?
Disapprobation of the strategy of getting tested TOGETHER B4 sex
These days we have disapprobation of AIDS advocates for the strategy of BEFORE sexual contact get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs then make an informed decision.
DISapprobation? Are you
DISapprobation? Are you saying that AIDS activists are against this strategy?
Re: Disapprobation of the strategy of getting tested TOGETHER B4
Clearly they were, earlier in the history of the epidemic.
> DISapprobation? Are you saying that AIDS activists are against this strategy?
>> These days we have AIDS advocates' disapprobation of the strategy of BEFORE sexual contact get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs then make an informed decision.
From a public health perspective ...
There is good reason to not overly promote the "get tested together" strategy. There is nothing wrong with it per se, but it has some substantial issues as an intervention policy.
Some people like relationships, others like to keep it casual. For those who like it casual, this is not an effective strategy. You want to encourage those folks to use condoms because they aren't interested in being a couple.
Consider as well that a couple could be tested together, but one person may not be monogamous after that.
It isn't an either/or situation but a both/and situation. Some might say that, in an ideal world, people would follow this strategy and stay monogamous. But that's like setting out an ideal of heterosexual sexuality where one waits until marriage ... ain't going to happen or work for everyone.
BEFORE sex get tested TOGETHER then make an informed decision.
What you say is true, but...
A single test can find an HIV+ person, or someone with another infection that needs to be treated. Then both people can make a decision from that point. One course might be for the uninfected person to not go forward. Right there you have one less HIV infection. And the positive person can then consider their future, therapies, giving up sex, etc. Again, another possible reduction in future infections. The epidemic will be ended by one non-infection at a time.
BEFORE sexual contact get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs then make an informed decision
http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com