Carey v. Population Services International (1977) saw the Supreme Court strike down a New York law prohibiting the distribution of birth control products to persons under 16. The law in question had three provisions. These forbade the sale of birth control products to persons 16 and older except by a licensed pharmacist, forbade anyone from distributing or selling them to persons under 16, and also prohibited the advertisement of them. One of the appellants in the case was a New York man who argued that the law did not permit him to give his children birth control products or information concerning their use.Justice Brennan wrote the 7-2 majority opinion where he maintained that the advertising restrictions violated the 1st Amendment and that the other prohibitions violated the 14th Amendment. Minors were entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights although Brennan agreed that their activities could be regulated more than those of adults. He also argued that it infringed on the fundamental right to privacy.
Justice White wrote a concurring opinion where he argued that New York had not demonstrated that prohibiting birth control to minors would prevent them from having sex. Justice Powell wrote that New York's age of marriage was 14 and it was possible for a girl that young to be legally married yet have no access to contraceptives, and that parents would be unable to obtain them for their children. Justice Stevens also argued that the state had not proven that the law in question would prevent sex and that preventing teen pregnancy or STD transmission was a worthwhile cause.New York City Health Department statistics for the year 1975 alone reported that 6,000 children were born in the city that year to girls younger than 17 and another 11,000 abortions were performed. "[t]eenage motherhood involves a host of problems, including adverse physical and psychological effects upon the minor and her baby, the continuous stigma associated with unwed motherhood, the need to drop out of school with the accompanying impairment of educational opportunities, and other dislocations [including] forced marriage of immature couples and the often acute anxieties involved in deciding whether to secure an abortion."Justice Rehnquist dissented. He said that religious beliefs had not been considered in the case and the New York law served a valid purpose by dissuading underage teenagers from sex. Further it would reduce the likelihood of minors needing to use abortion services and that the Court in effect had denied New York a basic state responsibility to protect the innocence of children, and that requiring adults to obtain contraceptives from a licensed pharmacist did not make it harder to access them. Rehnquist preferred not to engage Brennan's assertions about the right to privacy and thereby give validity to his opinion in the case.
He added that the Founding Fathers almost certainly did not intend the Bill of Rights to enshrine the right of children younger than 16 to obtain over the counter contraceptives. "Those who valiantly but vainly defended the heights of Bunker Hill in 1775 made it possible that men such as James Madison might later sit in the first Congress and draft the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The post-Civil War Congresses which drafted the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution could not have accomplished their task without the blood of brave men on both sides which was shed at Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Cold Harbor. If those responsible for these Amendments, by feats of valor or efforts of draftsmanship, could have lived to know that their efforts had enshrined in the Constitution the right of commercial vendors of contraceptives to peddle them to unmarried minors through such means as window displays and vending machines located in the men's room of truck stops, notwithstanding the considered judgment of the New York Legislature to the contrary, it is not difficult to imagine their reaction."
>>16884421>>16884417The Bill of Rights doesn't confer access to birth control as a fundamental right, James Madison if asked probably would have said it was a matter to be left to the states. That said, it is true that teenagers are really stupid and deterring them from sex is easier said than done, which is something some cultural conservatives have a hard time accepting, and of course teen pregnancy is, well, bad and not based and trad like /pol/ thinks it is.
>>16884421>but what about le two hundred years agopeak cuckservative argumentation
>>16884417>New York City Health Department statistics for the year 1975 alone reported that 6,000 children were born in the city that year to girls younger than 17 andGiven average NYC demographics one supposes that those were mostly nogs and guidos in which case abortion should have been openly encouraged.
Why can't Americans just change the constitution instead of having judges constantly reinterpret the constitution?
Rhenquist was a retard, none of his dissents have any sort of logic besides muh Funding Fathers.
>>16884447>and of course teen pregnancy is, well, bad and not based and trad like /pol/ thinks it is.so we should do what? date an obese 35 year old roastie instead?
>>16884596first of all, you should stop watching vaush and loli
>>16884492Amending the constitution is harder than filing a lawsuit. And common law relies on case law and precedent.
