Privacy rights protect individual autonomy over procreation regardless of marital status

Evidence

The Supreme Court in Eisenstadt struck down the Massachusetts law as a violation of the constitutional right to privacy. Speaking for the Court, Justice William Brennan noted, “If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1271

Categorization

• CANDY: Brennan’s one-line canon on privacy as individual autonomy over bearing or begetting a child is a concise quotable.
• XREF: connects to: Roe extended the privacy right to abortion as an elaboration of Eisenstadt. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1275; The right to privacy shifted from protecting marriage to protecting individual choice — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1272; Privacy is fundamentally about decision rights over self-disclosure — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 283 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Privacy is fundamentally about decision rights over self-disclosure #expands (0.75) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 283
• Marriage’s ethical dignity actually suppresses rather than dignifies women’s sexuality #complicates (0.72) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1136
• Property-based and data-portability arguments for privacy have limits and alternatives #qualifies (0.72) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 1101