Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MineralMan
This was the problem that Massachusetts faced in Eisenstadt v. Baird. The Court ended up chucking a statute requiring drugs to be issued only by licensed professionals when it struck down the ban on issuing contraceptives to single individuals.
54 posted on 02/10/2006 7:41:39 AM PST by rzeznikj at stout (This is a darkroom. Keep the door closed or you'll let all the dark out...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: rzeznikj at stout

"This was the problem that Massachusetts faced in Eisenstadt v. Baird. The Court ended up chucking a statute requiring drugs to be issued only by licensed professionals when it struck down the ban on issuing contraceptives to single individuals."



Yup. I'm old enough to remember when all condom packages were marked, "For prevention of disease only." That was in California in the early 1960s. It was a holdover from the old anti-contraception days.

As a teenager, I couldn't buy them at all until I was 21 in California. If you needed condoms, you had to find a friend over 21 to buy them for you.

Did that stop the kids in my high school from having sex? It did not. We had a number of pregnancies in my class of 106 kids. How many, I can't be sure. Some went to "stay with their aunt." Others had abortions from the doctor in town everyone knew would take care of "late periods." Others got married while still in high school. Only a couple actually had babies while single.



58 posted on 02/10/2006 7:46:42 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson