Ainsley Mesnard
The Eisenstadt vs. Baird court case of 1972 was one of the first of its kind to reach the supreme court. William Baird is a reproductive rights activist who operated women’s health clinics and initiated several legal cases to secure women’s rights to contraception and abortion [7]. Baird is known for his quote “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child” [5]. While Baird was a well known activist and public figure, it was lecture at Boston University in April 1967 that acted as a catalyst for the entire supreme court case. At the time there was limited access to contraceptives that had an impact on women’s reproductive rights [2]. At the end of his lecture on birth control and overpopulation, Baird gave away a previously purchased contraceptive to a 19-year old female student. This caused his immediate arrest and put in handcuffs in front of the entire lecture hall. He was arrested for violating a Massachusetts law that made it illegal for anyone other than a physician or pharmacist to distribute anything to prevent conception [2]. Furthermore, the law stated that only married men and women were allowed to obtain contraceptives from physicians or pharmacists, making Baird’s action even more notable [6]. Baird’s first stop to the Supreme Court was the Massachusetts Trial Court, in which he lost the case and was sentenced to time in jail. His team then filed for habeas corpus in the federal courts, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional. Even though the Federal Trial Court denied relief, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the state’s decision, allowing for the Supreme Court to review the case, in which they did [3]. In a decision that was 6-to-1, the Court struck down the Massachusetts law but not on the grounds that were expected. The Court held that the law’s distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the “rational basis test” of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause [6]. The constitutionality of the Massachusetts law was being challenged using the Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) decision that established a right to privacy [8].
The reaction to the outcome of the case was polarized in very opposite directions. Some people, specifically extreme pro-life activists, did not agree with the decision made by the supreme court. In fact, one of Baird’s clinics in Hempstead, New York was firebombed by one of said groups after the Supreme Court decision had been made [7]. Even almost 40 years after the decision, people are still talking about the ruling as well as Bill Baird himself. There is a website that is titled A Menace to Society: a historical docudrama based on the life of Bill Baird. Seeing that this website was published in 2008 and the titles is directly calling Baird a ‘menace to society’ it is clear to see that strong opinions live on decades after the ruling [1].
However, the fight for women’s reproductive rights did not stop there. A year later, Roe v. Wade entered the Supreme Court. Many say that this would have not been possible without the Eisenstadt vs. Baird case, for the ruling paved the way for Roe v. Wade [4]. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade in 2022, there was an interview with Baird in which he voiced his opinions. He stated that even when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, he knew that the fight was not over. He went to right extremist conventions and saw the work they were doing to try to overturn the ruling from the beginning. He stated that even at 90 years old, he would fight for women’s rights for as long as he could and was not willing to give up [4].
Exploring the Eisenstadt vs. Baird as a site of memory is very interesting when looking at it through the lens of cultural memory. Furthermore, the idea of the Eisenstadt vs. Baird being one of universal cultural memories is fascinating. When thinking about the Eisenstadt vs. Baird as a site of memory, one can think of the memories and emotions that people have connected to the outcome. When learning about the case itself, people are going to have a reaction, whether positive and in support or negative and in opposition. The type of reaction that one has to the case can be centered around a plethora of experiences, such as where you grew up, the type of household you are in, or where you went to school. Whether or not one is in favor of or opposition to the ruling, Eisenstadt vs. Baird brings up memories for everyone. In this way, Eisenstadt vs. Baird is a universal experience of cultural memory, being used as a specific site of memory that, to this day, is experienced by all.
Ainsley Mesnard
Works Cited
[5] Lucas, Roy. “New Historical Insights on the Curious Case of Baird v. Eisenstadt,” n.d.
[6] Oyez. “Eisenstadt v. Baird.” Accessed April 13, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-17.