C. Personal Autonomy

• what regulation is being challenged?
• what constitutional provision is applied?
• specific holding: discrimination against unmarried couples is unconstitutional
• standard of review applied: rational basis
• purposes offered for the regulation:
• deterring premarital sex: irrational
• distributing contraceptives: felony, 5 years in prison
• fornication: misdemeanor, 3 months/ $30 fine
• protecting health by restricting harmful products: irrational
• chapter entitled "crimes against chastity, good morals, decency, etc."
• no exception when contraceptives are needed to protect health
• prohibiting contraception: illegitimate (Griswold)

• What regulation is being challenged, and what are its purposes (i.e., what state interests are being protected)?
• In terms of such interests, how does this case differ from Griswold?
• In terms of the State's interest in protecting fetal life, why was it unnecessary to determine when "life" begins?
• The "personhood" of the fetus
• Is the fetus a "person"? 14th Amendment s.1
• Why would the appellant's case "collapse", if the fetus were a "person"?
• If the fetus were a "person", could the State properly have decided to liberalize the anti-abortion laws (i.e., repeal the prohibition or substantially relax it)?
• With respect to the State's interest in protecting the mother's health
• when does it become "compelling"?
• what regulations are necessary for the protection of that interest?
• With respect to the State's interest in protecting the life of the fetus
• when does it become "compelling"?
• is an absolute prohibition against abortion ever justified?
• How did the Court arrive at its "trimester" analysis in identifying "compelling points"?