Carey v. Population Services International – Contraceptives
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 97 S. Ct. 2010, 52 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1977).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the state regulation of the sale of contraceptives.
FACTS: New York had a law that imposed criminal penalties on the sale or distribution of any type of contraceptive to a minor under the age of 16, or the advertising or display of over-the-counter nonprescription contraceptives. The law required that sales of over-the-counter nonprescription contraceptives be made by licensed pharmacists only.
ISSUES: 1) May a state ban the advertising of nonprescription over-the-counter contraceptives, prohibit sales of contraceptives to minors under 16 years of age, and require that sales be made by licensed pharmacists only? 2) Under what circumstances can a state action infringing upon a fundamental liberty interest be justified? 3) How extensive is the right to privacy for procreation?
RULE OF LAW: 1) A state may not ban the advertising of nonprescription over-the-counter contraceptives, prohibit sales to minors under 16 years of age, or require that sales be made by licensed pharmacists only. 2) Any state action infringing upon a fundamental liberty interest can be justified only by a compelling state interest and must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. 3) The right to privacy for procreation extends to those areas of life necessary and proper to exercise those rights.
HOLDING AND DECISION (Brennan): Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives clearly burden the freedom of to make decisions with respect to contraception. Nothing in the record suggests that pharmacists are particularly qualified to give advice on the merits of different non-medical contraceptives, or that such advice is more necessary to the purchaser of contraceptive products than to consumers of other nonprescription items. The court held that since a state may not impose a blanket prohibition or requirement of parental consent on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy, the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of contraceptives to minors is a fortiori foreclosed.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
Concurring (White): The State has not demonstrated that the prohibition against distribution of contraceptives to minors measurably contributes to the deterrent purposes, which the State advances as justification for the restriction.
Concurring (Powell): A requirement of prior parental consent is merely one illustration of permissible regulation in this area. As long as parental distribution is permitted, a State should have substantial latitude in regulating the distribution of contraceptives to minors.
Concurring (Stevens): I would not leave open the question of whether there is a significant state interest in discouraging sexual activity among unmarried persons under 16 years of age. It is frivolous to claim that a minor has the constitutional right to put contraceptives to their intended use, notwithstanding the combined objection of both parents and the State.
Dissent (Rehnquist): There comes a point when the endless and ill considered extension of principles originally formulated in quite different cases produces such an indefensible result that no logic chipping can possible make the fallacy of the result more obvious.