ABSTRACT
In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the US Supreme Court augmented its ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, recognizing that personal autonomy and privacy in reproduction extend beyond the marital relationship and are located in the individual. Griswold had overturned a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives by married couples. The Court in Eisenstadt found a Massachusetts statute outlawing the prescription or distribution of contraceptives to nonmarried persons to be unconstitutional as well. The right of privacy is rooted in the individual, not inherent in the marital state as was stated in Griswold. In Eisenstadt, the Court connected a fundamental right to control the choice of reproduction to the right of privacy, which the Court found in Griswold was implicit in the Bill of Rights. Eisenstadt held that any distinction between married and unmarried individuals was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
