At 45354 id at 460 46365 white j concurring in result

Info icon This preview shows pages 126–128. Sign up to view the full content.

at 453–54; id. at 460, 463–65 (White, J., concurring in result); fam- ily relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts , 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska , supra.” 675 Despite the limiting language of Roe , the concept of privacy still retained sufficient strength to occasion major constitutional deci- sions. For instance, in the 1977 case of Carey v. Population Ser- vices Int’l , 676 recognition of the “constitutional protection of indi- vidual autonomy in matters of childbearing” led the Court to invalidate a state statute that banned the distribution of contraceptives to adults except by licensed pharmacists and that forbade any person to sell or distribute contraceptives to a minor under 16. 677 The Court sig- 675 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973). 676 431 U.S. 678 (1977). 677 431 U.S. at 684–91. The opinion of the Court on the general principles drew the support of Justices Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens. Jus- tice White concurred in the result in the voiding of the ban on access to adults while not expressing an opinion on the Court’s general principles. Id. at 702. Justice Pow- ell agreed the ban on access to adults was void but concurred in an opinion signifi- cantly more restrained than the opinion of the Court. Id. at 703. Chief Justice Burger, id. at 702, and Justice Rehnquist, id. at 717, dissented. The limitation of the number of outlets to adults “imposes a significant burden on the right of the individuals to use contraceptives if they choose to do so” and was unjustified by any interest put forward by the state. The prohibition on sale to mi- nors was judged not by the compelling state interest test, but instead by inquiring whether the restrictions serve “any significant state interest . . . that is not present in the case of an adult.” This test is “apparently less rigorous” than the test used with adults, a distinction justified by the greater governmental latitude in regulat- ing the conduct of children and the lesser capability of children in making impor- tant decisions. The attempted justification for the ban was rejected. Doubting the permissibility of a ban on access to contraceptives to deter minors’ sexual activity, the Court even more doubted, because the State presented no evidence, that limit- ing access would deter minors from engaging in sexual activity. Id. at 691–99. This 1958 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED
Image of page 126

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

nificantly extended the Griswold-Baird line of cases so as to make the “decision whether or not to beget or bear a child” a “constitu- tionally protected right of privacy” interest that government may not burden without justifying the limitation by a compelling state interest and by a regulation narrowly drawn to express only that interest or interests.
Image of page 127
Image of page 128
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern