Alright, let’s talk about March 22, 1972—the day the United States Supreme Court finally pulled its head out of its robed rear end and acknowledged that single people do, in fact, have sex. Shocking, right? Who knew? Apparently not the state of Massachusetts, which up until then was acting like the only way you could get your hands on birth control was by flashing a wedding ring and proving you had legally committed to a lifetime of passive-aggressive dishwashing disputes.
So here’s how this all started. Picture it: Boston University, 1967. A guy named William Baird—who, let’s be honest, was the kind of troublemaker we need more of—was giving a lecture about birth control and population control. At the end of his talk, he handed a 19-year-old woman a package of contraceptive foam. A nice gesture, right? Like, “Hey, kid, maybe don’t end up pregnant before midterms.” But in Massachusetts at the time, that was a big no-no. Because the law—written, no doubt, by a bunch of dudes who thought babies were made when you prayed hard enough—said that only MARRIED couples could get contraceptives, and only from a doctor or pharmacist. And since Baird was neither of those and this girl wasn’t married, they arrested him like he had just tried to sell heroin outside a preschool.
So Baird gets convicted, and the case moves up the legal food chain faster than a bad take on Twitter. Eventually, it lands at the Supreme Court, and on March 22, 1972, the justices looked at Massachusetts and basically said, “Are you people serious?!” In a 6-1 decision, they struck down the law, because apparently, the Constitution applies to single people too. Who knew?
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the opinion, and I swear, you can almost hear the exasperation in his words. He basically said, “Listen, if the right to privacy means anything, it’s that the government shouldn’t be sticking its nose into whether someone wants to pop out a kid or not.” And with that, unmarried folks across America rejoiced, because finally, they could get laid without also getting saddled with a surprise 18-year responsibility.
But here’s why this decision was a huge deal. It didn’t just mean that single people could buy condoms without a priest hiding behind the pharmacy counter, ready to throw holy water at them. It laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade the very next year. That’s right—this case was like the warm-up act for the biggest reproductive rights ruling of all time. It established that privacy and bodily autonomy aren’t just for people with a marriage license. It’s for everyone, because, believe it or not, single people have genitals too.
Now, fast forward to today, and guess what? That same right to privacy that Eisenstadt solidified is under attack—again. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which means states can now play God with people’s uteruses. And if you think they’re stopping at abortion, guess again. Some politicians have openly talked about coming for Griswold v. Connecticut (which protected birth control for married couples) and Eisenstadt v. Baird, because apparently, the dream is to go back to a time when the only acceptable form of contraception was “Oops, guess I’m a mom now.”
So yeah, Eisenstadt v. Baird isn’t just some dusty old case from the ’70s. It’s proof that every right we think is secure can be yanked away faster than a plate of free breadsticks at Olive Garden. The fight for reproductive freedom never really ends—it just changes shape. But hey, at least thanks to Baird, single people got to enjoy a few decades of hassle-free birth control before the government decided to stick its nose in their business again. Progress? Sure. But let’s keep an eye on these clowns before they start trying to outlaw orgasms.
