michael
sonoma
county
superior
argued
november
decided
march
petitioner
male
charged
violating
california
statutory
rape
law
defines
unlawful
sexual
intercourse
act
sexual
intercourse
accomplished
female
wife
perpetrator
female
age
years
prior
trial
petitioner
sought
set
aside
information
state
federal
constitutional
grounds
asserting
statute
unlawfully
discriminated
basis
gender
since
men
alone
criminally
liable
thereunder
trial
california
appeal
denied
relief
review
california
upheld
statute
held
judgment
affirmed
pp
cal
affirmed
justice
rehnquist
joined
chief
justice
burger
justice
stewart
justice
powell
concluded
statute
violate
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
pp
classifications
inherently
suspect
subject
strict
scrutiny
upheld
bear
fair
substantial
relationship
legitimate
state
ends
reed
reed
equal
protection
clause
demand
statute
necessarily
apply
equally
persons
require
things
different
fact
treated
law
though
rinaldi
yeager
statute
upheld
gender
classification
invidious
rather
realistically
reflects
fact
sexes
similarly
situated
certain
circumstances
pp
one
purposes
california
statute
state
strong
interest
prevention
illegitimate
teenage
pregnancies
statute
protects
women
sexual
intercourse
pregnancy
age
physical
emotional
psychological
consequences
particularly
severe
virtually
significant
harmful
identifiable
consequences
teenage
pregnancy
fall
female
legislature
acts
well
within
authority
elects
punish
participant
nature
suffers
consequences
conduct
pp
merit
petitioner
contention
statute
impermissibly
underinclusive
must
order
pass
judicial
scrutiny
broadened
hold
female
criminally
liable
male
relevant
inquiry
whether
statute
drawn
precisely
might
whether
line
chosen
california
legislature
within
constitutional
limitations
event
statute
frustrate
state
interest
effective
enforcement
since
female
less
likely
report
violations
statute
subject
prosecution
equal
protection
clause
require
legislature
enact
statute
broad
may
well
incapable
enforcement
pp
statute
impermissibly
overbroad
makes
unlawful
sexual
intercourse
prepubescent
females
incapable
becoming
pregnant
aside
fact
statute
justified
grounds
young
females
particularly
susceptible
physical
injury
sexual
intercourse
constitution
require
california
legislature
limit
scope
statute
older
teenagers
exclude
young
girls
statute
unconstitutional
applied
petitioner
like
girl
involved
time
sexual
intercourse
asserted
ground
statute
presumes
circumstances
male
culpable
aggressor
statute
rest
assumption
instead
attempt
prevent
illegitimate
teenage
pregnancy
providing
additional
deterrent
men
age
man
irrelevant
since
young
men
capable
older
men
inflicting
harm
sought
prevented
blackmun
concluded
california
statutory
rape
law
sufficiently
reasoned
constitutional
effort
control
inception
problem
teenage
pregnancies
california
judgment
affirmed
basis
applicable
test
classifications
set
forth
reed
reed
craig
boren
pp
gregory
jilka
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioner
sandy
kriegler
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
respondent
brief
george
deukmejian
attorney
general
robert
philibosian
chief
assistant
attorney
general
clark
moore
assistant
attorney
general
william
pounders
deputy
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
bruce
ennis
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
john
karr
women
legal
defense
fund
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
heymann
sara
criscitelli
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
rehnquist
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
chief
justice
justice
stewart
justice
powell
joined
question
presented
case
whether
california
statutory
rape
law
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
violates
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
section
defines
unlawful
sexual
intercourse
act
sexual
intercourse
accomplished
female
wife
perpetrator
female
age
years
statute
thus
makes
men
alone
criminally
liable
act
sexual
intercourse
july
complaint
filed
municipal
sonoma
county
alleging
petitioner
male
unlawful
sexual
intercourse
female
age
violation
evidence
adduced
preliminary
hearing
showed
approximately
midnight
june
petitioner
two
friends
approached
sharon
female
sister
waited
bus
stop
petitioner
sharon
already
drinking
moved
away
others
began
kiss
struck
face
rebuffing
petitioner
initial
advances
sharon
submitted
sexual
intercourse
petitioner
prior
trial
petitioner
sought
set
aside
information
state
federal
constitutional
grounds
asserting
unlawfully
discriminated
basis
gender
trial
california
appeal
denied
petitioner
request
relief
petitioner
sought
review
california
held
section
discriminates
basis
sex
females
may
victims
males
may
violate
section
cal
subjected
classification
strict
scrutiny
stating
must
justified
compelling
state
interest
found
classification
supported
mere
social
convention
immutable
physiological
fact
female
exclusively
become
pregnant
ibid
canvassing
tragic
human
costs
illegitimate
teenage
pregnancies
including
large
number
teenage
abortions
increased
medical
risk
associated
teenage
pregnancies
social
consequences
teenage
childbearing
concluded
state
compelling
interest
preventing
pregnancies
males
alone
physiologically
cause
result
law
properly
seeks
avoid
held
gender
classification
readily
justified
means
identifying
offender
victim
reasons
stated
affirm
judgment
california
evident
opinions
difficulty
agreeing
upon
proper
approach
analysis
cases
involving
challenges
classifications
issues
posed
challenges
range
issues
standing
see
orr
orr
appropriate
standard
judicial
review
substantive
classification
unlike
california
held
classifications
inherently
suspect
thus
apply
strict
scrutiny
classifications
see
stanton
stanton
cases
held
however
traditional
minimum
rationality
test
takes
somewhat
sharper
focus
classifications
challenged
see
craig
boren
powell
concurring
reed
reed
example
stated
classification
upheld
bears
fair
substantial
relationship
legitimate
state
ends
craig
boren
supra
restated
test
require
classification
bear
substantial
relationship
important
governmental
objectives
underlying
decisions
principle
legislature
may
make
overbroad
generalizations
based
sex
entirely
unrelated
differences
men
women
demean
ability
social
status
affected
class
parham
hughes
plurality
opinion
stewart
equal
protection
clause
demand
statute
necessarily
apply
equally
persons
require
things
different
fact
treated
law
though
rinaldi
yeager
quoting
tigner
texas
consistently
upheld
statutes
gender
classification
invidious
rather
realistically
reflects
fact
sexes
similarly
situated
certain
circumstances
parham
hughes
supra
califano
webster
schlesinger
ballard
kahn
shevin
stated
legislature
may
provide
special
problems
women
weinberger
wiesenfeld
applying
principles
case
fact
california
legislature
criminalized
act
illicit
sexual
intercourse
minor
female
sure
indication
intent
purpose
discourage
conduct
precisely
legislature
desired
result
course
somewhat
less
clear
long
recognized
nquiries
congressional
motives
purposes
hazardous
matter
palmer
thompson
search
actual
primary
purpose
statute
likely
elusive
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
mcginnis
royster
example
individual
legislators
may
voted
statute
variety
reasons
legislators
may
concerned
preventing
teenage
pregnancies
others
protecting
young
females
physical
injury
loss
chastity
still
others
promoting
various
religious
moral
attitudes
towards
premarital
sex
justification
statute
offered
state
accepted
california
legislature
sought
prevent
illegitimate
teenage
pregnancies
finding
course
entitled
great
deference
reitman
mulkey
although
cases
establish
state
asserted
reason
enactment
statute
may
rejected
goal
legislation
weinberger
wiesenfeld
supra
case
satisfied
prevention
illegitimate
pregnancy
least
one
purposes
statute
also
state
strong
interest
preventing
pregnancy
risk
stating
obvious
teenage
pregnancies
increased
dramatically
last
two
decades
significant
social
medical
economic
consequences
mother
child
state
particular
concern
state
approximately
half
teenage
pregnancies
end
abortion
children
born
illegitimacy
makes
likely
candidates
become
wards
state
need
medical
doctors
discern
young
men
young
women
similarly
situated
respect
problems
risks
sexual
intercourse
women
may
become
pregnant
suffer
disproportionately
profound
physical
emotional
psychological
consequences
sexual
activity
statute
issue
protects
women
sexual
intercourse
age
consequences
particularly
severe
question
thus
boils
whether
state
may
attack
problem
sexual
intercourse
teenage
pregnancy
directly
prohibiting
male
sexual
intercourse
minor
female
hold
statute
sufficiently
related
state
objectives
pass
constitutional
muster
virtually
significant
harmful
inescapably
identifiable
consequences
teenage
pregnancy
fall
young
female
legislature
acts
well
within
authority
elects
punish
participant
nature
suffers
consequences
conduct
hardly
unreasonable
legislature
acting
protect
minor
females
exclude
punishment
moreover
risk
pregnancy
constitutes
substantial
deterrence
young
females
similar
natural
sanctions
deter
males
criminal
sanction
imposed
solely
males
thus
serves
roughly
equalize
deterrents
sexes
unable
accept
petitioner
contention
statute
impermissibly
underinclusive
must
order
pass
judicial
scrutiny
broadened
hold
female
criminally
liable
male
argued
statute
necessary
deter
teenage
pregnancy
statute
male
female
subject
prosecution
serve
goal
equally
well
relevant
inquiry
however
whether
statute
drawn
precisely
might
whether
line
chosen
california
legislature
within
constitutional
limitations
kahn
shevin
event
say
statute
effective
statute
california
chosen
enact
state
persuasively
contends
statute
frustrate
interest
effective
enforcement
view
female
surely
less
likely
report
violations
statute
subject
criminal
prosecution
area
already
fraught
prosecutorial
difficulties
decline
hold
equal
protection
clause
requires
legislature
enact
statute
broad
may
well
incapable
enforcement
similarly
reject
petitioner
argument
impermissibly
overbroad
makes
unlawful
sexual
intercourse
prepubescent
females
definition
incapable
becoming
pregnant
quite
apart
fact
statute
well
justified
grounds
young
females
particularly
susceptible
physical
injury
sexual
intercourse
see
rundlett
oliver
ludicrous
suggest
constitution
requires
california
legislature
limit
scope
rape
statute
older
teenagers
exclude
young
girls
remains
petitioner
contention
statute
unconstitutional
applied
like
sharon
time
sexual
intercourse
petitioner
argues
statute
flawed
presumes
two
persons
male
culpable
aggressor
find
petitioner
contentions
unpersuasive
contrary
assertions
statute
rest
assumption
males
generally
aggressors
instead
attempt
legislature
prevent
illegitimate
teenage
pregnancy
providing
additional
deterrent
men
age
man
irrelevant
since
young
men
capable
older
men
inflicting
harm
sought
prevented
upholding
california
statute
also
recognize
case
statute
challenged
grounds
invidiously
discriminates
females
contrary
statute
places
burden
males
shared
females
find
nothing
suggest
men
past
discrimination
peculiar
disadvantages
need
special
solicitude
courts
case
gender
classification
made
solely
administrative
convenience
frontiero
richardson
emphasis
omitted
rests
baggage
sexual
stereotypes
orr
orr
held
statute
instead
reasonably
reflects
fact
consequences
sexual
intercourse
pregnancy
fall
heavily
female
male
accordingly
judgment
california
affirmed
footnotes
statute
enacted
part
california
first
penal
code
cal
ch
recodified
amended
approximately
one
million
became
pregnant
women
age
group
pregnancies
illegitimate
illegitimacy
rates
teenagers
births
per
unmarried
females
ages
increased
alan
guttmacher
institute
million
teenagers
chilman
adolescent
sexuality
changing
american
society
nih
pub
risk
maternal
death
higher
teenager
age
women
early
twenties
risk
higher
statistics
show
teenage
mothers
drop
school
face
bleak
economic
future
see
million
teenagers
supra
bennett
bardon
effects
school
program
teenager
mothers
children
orthopsychiatry
teenage
pregnancy
motherhood
orthopsychiatry
teenagers
disproportionately
likely
seek
abortions
center
disease
control
abortion
surveillance
pp
example
teenagers
california
approximately
abortions
live
births
california
center
health
statistics
reproductive
health
status
california
teenage
women
mar
policy
intent
california
legislature
evinced
legislation
buttresses
view
prevention
teenage
pregnancy
purpose
statute
preamble
pregnancy
freedom
choice
act
example
legislature
finds
pregnancy
among
unmarried
persons
years
age
constitutes
increasing
social
problem
state
california
cal
welf
inst
code
ann
west
subsequent
decision
california
legislature
considered
rejected
proposals
render
gender
neutral
thereby
ratifying
judgment
california
enough
answer
petitioner
contention
statute
accidental
traditional
way
thinking
females
califano
webster
quoting
califano
goldfarb
stevens
concurring
judgment
certainly
decision
california
legislature
good
source
deciding
current
outmoded
perception
women
although
petitioner
concedes
state
compelling
interest
preventing
teenage
pregnancy
contends
true
purpose
protect
virtue
chastity
young
women
statute
unjustifiable
rests
archaic
stereotypes
said
enough
dispose
contention
question
us
question
federal
constitution
whether
legislation
violates
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
whether
supporters
may
endorsed
reasons
longer
generally
accepted
even
preservation
female
chastity
one
motives
statute
even
motive
impermissible
petitioner
argument
must
fail
familiar
practice
constitutional
law
strike
otherwise
constitutional
statute
basis
alleged
illicit
legislative
motive
orr
orr
example
rejected
one
asserted
purpose
impermissible
considered
purposes
determine
justify
statute
similarly
washington
davis
distinguished
palmer
thompson
grounds
purposes
ordinance
open
impeachment
evidence
legislature
actually
motivated
impermissible
purpose
see
also
arlington
heights
metropolitan
housing
dev
mobile
bolden
stevens
concurring
judgment
understand
petitioner
question
state
authority
make
sexual
intercourse
among
teenagers
criminal
act
least
basis
carey
population
services
international
plurality
opinion
brennan
four
members
assumed
purposes
case
state
may
regulate
sexual
behavior
minors
four
members
emphatically
stated
regulation
permissible
white
concurring
part
concurring
result
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
rehnquist
dissenting
long
recognized
state
even
broader
authority
protect
physical
mental
moral
youth
adults
see
planned
parenthood
central
mo
danforth
ginsberg
new
york
prince
massachusetts
petitioner
contends
statute
hinder
prosecutions
prosecutor
take
account
relative
burdens
females
males
generally
prosecute
males
concede
concede
prosecutor
exercising
discretion
virtually
always
prosecute
man
woman
see
impermissible
legislature
enact
statute
effect
question
whether
statute
substantially
related
asserted
goals
best
opaque
one
plausibly
argued
statute
produce
fewer
prosecutions
statute
issue
see
stewart
concurring
post
justice
brennan
dissent
argues
hand
even
assuming
statute
difficult
enforce
ommon
sense
suggests
statutory
rape
law
potentially
greater
deterrent
sexual
activity
law
simple
reason
law
subjects
men
women
criminal
sanctions
thus
arguably
deterrent
effect
twice
many
potential
violators
post
emphasis
deleted
noted
two
three
cases
relied
upon
justice
brennan
dissent
readily
distinguishable
instant
one
see
post
navedo
preisser
meloon
helgemoe
cert
denied
respective
governments
asserted
purpose
statute
protect
young
women
physical
injury
courts
rejected
justification
grounds
showing
young
females
likely
males
suffer
physical
injury
sexual
intercourse
held
contrary
decision
pregnancy
prevention
plausible
purpose
legislation
thus
neither
reached
issue
presented
whether
statute
substantially
related
prevention
teenage
pregnancy
significantly
meloon
severely
limited
rundlett
oliver
upheld
statutory
rape
law
ground
state
shown
sexual
intercourse
physically
injures
young
women
males
course
even
justice
brennan
dissent
dispute
young
women
suffer
disproportionately
deleterious
consequences
illegitimate
pregnancy
justice
stewart
concurring
section
face
classifies
basis
sex
male
engages
sexual
intercourse
underage
female
wife
violates
statute
female
engages
sexual
intercourse
underage
male
husband
petitioner
contends
state
law
punishes
males
conduct
question
violates
fourteenth
amendment
right
equal
protection
law
today
correctly
rejects
contention
outset
noted
statutory
discrimination
viewed
part
wider
scheme
california
law
clearcut
might
first
appear
females
freed
criminal
liability
california
engaging
sexual
activity
may
harmful
unlawful
example
person
either
sex
molest
annoy
contribute
delinquency
anyone
years
age
persons
prohibited
committing
lewd
lascivious
act
including
consensual
intercourse
child
members
sexes
may
convicted
engaging
deviant
sexual
acts
anyone
finally
females
may
brought
within
proscription
since
female
may
charged
aiding
abetting
violation
section
thus
one
part
broad
statutory
scheme
protects
minors
problems
risks
attendant
upon
adolescent
sexual
activity
sure
creates
additional
measure
punishment
males
engage
sexual
intercourse
females
ages
question
whether
constitution
prohibits
state
legislature
imposing
additional
sanction
basis
constitution
violated
government
state
federal
invidiously
classifies
similarly
situated
people
basis
immutable
characteristics
born
thus
detrimental
racial
classifications
government
always
violate
constitution
simple
reason
far
constitution
concerned
people
different
races
always
similarly
situated
see
fullilove
klutznick
dissenting
opinion
mclaughlin
florida
concurring
opinion
brown
board
plessy
ferguson
dissenting
opinion
contrast
detrimental
gender
classifications
government
often
violate
constitution
always
reason
differences
males
females
constitution
necessarily
recognizes
case
deal
basic
differences
females
become
pregnant
result
sexual
intercourse
males
recognized
parham
hughes
state
free
make
overbroad
generalizations
based
sex
entirely
unrelated
differences
men
women
demean
ability
social
status
affected
class
classifications
may
based
upon
administrative
convenience
upon
archaic
assumptions
proper
roles
sexes
craig
boren
frontiero
richardson
reed
reed
recognized
certain
narrow
circumstances
men
women
similarly
situated
circumstances
gender
classification
based
clear
differences
sexes
invidious
legislative
classification
realistically
based
upon
differences
unconstitutional
see
parham
hughes
supra
califano
webster
schlesinger
ballard
cf
san
antonio
independent
school
dist
rodriguez
concurring
opinion
classifications
invariably
invalid
men
women
fact
similarly
situated
area
covered
legislation
question
equal
protection
clause
violated
caban
mohammed
dissenting
opinion
applying
principles
classification
enacted
california
legislature
readily
apparent
violate
equal
protection
clause
young
women
men
similarly
situated
respect
problems
risks
associated
intercourse
pregnancy
statute
realistically
related
legitimate
state
purpose
reducing
problems
risks
california
catalog
shows
pregnant
unmarried
female
confronts
problems
numerous
severe
faced
male
partner
alone
endures
medical
risks
pregnancy
abortion
suffers
disproportionately
social
educational
emotional
consequences
pregnancy
recognizing
disproportion
california
attempted
protect
teenage
females
prohibiting
males
participating
act
necessary
conception
fact
males
females
similarly
situated
respect
risks
sexual
intercourse
applies
force
males
older
males
risk
pregnancy
significant
deterrent
unwed
young
females
shared
unmarried
males
regardless
age
experienced
observation
confirms
common
sense
notion
adolescent
males
disregard
possibility
pregnancy
far
adolescent
females
extent
may
punish
males
intercourse
prepubescent
females
punishment
justifiable
substantial
physical
risks
prepubescent
females
shared
male
counterparts
petitioner
argues
california
legislature
drafted
statute
differently
purpose
accomplished
precisely
issue
course
whether
statute
drafted
wisely
whether
lines
chosen
egislature
within
constitutional
limitations
kahn
shevin
may
decided
attack
problems
broadly
statutes
mean
every
state
constitutionally
compelled
short
equal
protection
clause
mean
physiological
differences
men
women
must
disregarded
differences
must
never
permitted
become
pretext
invidious
discrimination
discrimination
presented
case
constitution
surely
require
state
pretend
demonstrable
differences
men
women
really
exist
see
accompanying
text
infra
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
see
people
dontanville
cal
app
cal
rptr
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
people
haywood
cal
app
dist
people
lewis
cal
app
according
statistics
maintained
california
department
justice
bureau
criminal
statistics
approximately
juveniles
arrested
participation
acts
made
unlawful
females
moreover
underage
female
culpable
male
partner
culpable
may
prosecuted
juvenile
delinquent
cal
welf
inst
code
ann
west
supp
gladys
cal
males
females
equally
prohibited
sexual
intercourse
minors
compare
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
noted
children
born
girls
california
illegitimate
born
girls
also
observed
accounting
california
pregnancies
teenagers
accounted
legal
abortions
see
ante
also
empirical
evidence
sexual
abuse
young
females
serious
problem
sexual
abuse
young
males
example
review
five
studies
found
sexually
abused
minors
female
jaffe
dynneson
ten
bensel
sexual
abuse
children
diseases
children
another
study
involving
admissions
hospital
emergency
room
period
reported
children
examined
sexual
abuse
girls
orr
prietto
emergency
management
sexually
abused
children
diseased
children
see
also
state
craig
mont
sarafino
estimate
nationwide
incidence
sexual
offenses
children
child
welfare
teenage
mothers
finish
high
school
disadvantaged
economically
thereafter
see
moore
teenage
childbirth
welfare
dependency
family
planning
perspectives
suicide
rate
teenage
mothers
seven
times
greater
teenage
girls
without
children
nye
parenthood
state
ext
bull
adolescent
mothers
aged
welfare
within
two
five
years
birth
children
teenage
pregnancy
everybody
problem
dhew
publication
hsa
despite
increased
availability
contraceptives
sex
education
pregnancy
rates
young
women
increasing
see
alan
guttmacher
institute
million
teenagers
see
generally
chilman
adolescent
sexuality
changing
american
society
nih
pub
petitioner
contends
statute
overinclusive
allow
defense
contraceptives
used
procreation
reason
impossible
petitioner
allege
however
used
contraceptive
pregnancy
resulted
conduct
charged
even
assuming
petitioner
standing
raise
claim
overbreadth
clear
statute
recognizing
defenses
suggests
encounter
difficult
impossible
problems
proof
see
teenage
pregnancy
motherhood
orthopsychiatry
see
also
state
rundlett
rundlett
oliver
see
barnes
state
see
generally
orr
prietto
supra
jaffee
dynneson
ten
bensel
supra
chilman
supra
fact
statute
necessarily
lead
closer
fit
aim
reducing
problems
associated
teenage
pregnancy
parties
equally
liable
prosecution
female
far
less
likely
complain
complaint
accordingly
possible
statute
result
fewer
prosecutions
one
us
event
state
legislature
free
address
believes
serious
aspect
broader
problem
equal
protection
clause
require
state
must
choose
attacking
every
aspect
problem
attacking
problem
dandridge
williams
see
also
williamson
lee
optical
justice
blackmun
concurring
judgment
gratifying
plurality
recognizes
risk
stating
obvious
teenage
pregnancies
increased
dramatically
last
two
decades
significant
social
medical
economic
consequences
mother
child
state
ante
footnotes
omitted
times
wondered
whether
capable
perception
particularly
struggled
different
unrelated
problems
attend
abortion
issues
see
example
opinions
dissenting
opinions
beal
doe
maher
roe
poelker
doe
harris
mcrae
williams
zbaraz
today
opinion
matheson
ante
might
conclude
two
uses
criminal
sanction
flatly
forbid
intercourse
order
forestall
teenage
pregnancies
matheson
prohibit
physician
abortion
procedure
except
upon
notice
parents
pregnant
minor
vastly
different
proscriptions
basic
social
privacy
problems
much
utah
statute
matheson
california
statute
case
legislatively
created
tools
intended
achieve
similar
ends
addressed
societal
concerns
control
direction
young
people
sexual
activities
plurality
opinion
impliedly
concedes
much
notes
approximately
half
teenage
pregnancies
end
abortion
children
born
likely
candidates
become
wards
state
ante
however
vote
strike
california
statutory
rape
law
think
sufficiently
reasoned
constitutional
effort
control
problem
inception
important
difference
state
action
state
adamant
rigid
refusal
face
even
recognize
significant
consequences
woman
forced
unwanted
conception
found
difficult
rule
constitutional
example
state
efforts
block
later
point
woman
attempt
deal
enormity
problem
confronting
rejected
state
efforts
prevent
women
rationally
taking
steps
prevent
problem
arising
see
carey
population
services
international
see
also
griswold
connecticut
contrast
persuaded
although
minor
substantial
privacy
rights
intimate
affairs
connected
procreation
california
efforts
prevent
teenage
pregnancy
viewed
differently
utah
efforts
inhibit
woman
dealing
pregnancy
become
inevitability
craig
boren
opinion
large
part
joined
plurality
opinion
present
case
points
ante
respective
phrasings
applicable
test
reed
reed
craig
boren
vote
affirm
judgment
california
uphold
state
classification
test
exemplified
two
cases
schlesinger
ballard
weinberger
wiesenfeld
kahn
shevin
note
also
california
penal
code
one
several
california
statutes
intended
protect
juvenile
justice
stewart
concurring
opinion
appropriately
observes
one
part
broad
statutory
scheme
protects
minors
problems
risks
attendant
upon
adolescent
sexual
activity
ante
think
fair
respect
particular
petitioner
point
partner
sharon
appears
unwilling
participant
least
initial
stages
intimacies
took
place
night
june
petitioner
sharon
nonacquaintance
incident
drinking
withdrawal
others
group
foreplay
willingly
participated
seems
encouraged
closeness
ages
difference
one
year
days
factors
make
case
unattractive
one
prosecute
especially
prosecute
felony
rather
misdemeanor
chargeable
state
chosen
prosecute
manner
facts
reluctantly
conclude
may
fit
crime
sharon
preliminary
hearing
testified
follows
deputy
district
attorney
june
approximately
midnight
midnight
june
rohnert
park
sharon
yes
sonoma
county
yes
anything
unusual
happen
night
rohnert
park
yes
briefly
describe
happened
night
see
defendant
night
rohnert
park
yes
first
meet
bus
stop
anyone
sister
anyone
defendant
yes
many
people
defendant
two
met
defendant
happened
walked
railroad
tracks
happened
railroad
tracks
drinking
railroad
tracks
walked
bush
started
kissing
stuff
kissing
back
first
telling
stop
yes
telling
slow
stop
said
okay
okay
kept
kept
sister
two
guys
came
sister
said
told
get
come
home
yes
sister
right
david
one
boys
started
walking
home
stayed
later
right
bruce
left
michael
know
michael
defendant
witness
yeah
laying
kissing
asked
wanted
walk
park
walked
park
sat
bench
started
kissing
laying
bench
told
take
pants
said
trying
get
hit
back
bench
said
forget
let
wanted
took
pants
telling
put
legs
around
stuff
sexual
intercourse
defendant
yeah
put
penis
vagina
yes
said
hit
yeah
hit
slugged
face
slug
fist
abouts
face
chin
result
bruises
kind
injury
yeah
happened
bruises
hit
one
time
hit
witness
hit
two
three
times
course
evening
defendant
ask
age
yeah
tell
sixteen
tell
sixteen
yes
said
drinking
correct
yes
describe
condition
result
drinking
little
drunk
app
go
away
others
yeah
know
guess
wanted
need
go
bathroom
yes
sister
walked
railroad
tracks
bushes
went
bathroom
understand
went
bushes
correct
yes
okay
bushes
kissing
hugging
sitting
laying
lying
bushes
yes
far
away
rest
bushes
right
next
railroad
tracks
walked
bushes
far
sister
two
boys
came
michael
right
yeah
say
remember
sister
say
anything
said
come
sharon
let
go
home
asked
go
home
affirmative
nod
go
home
wanted
stay
know
hit
happened
five
minutes
bruce
stayed
michael
remember
remember
negative
head
shake
occasion
time
kiss
bruce
yeah
kissing
bruce
time
affirmative
nod
bruce
kissing
yes
standing
time
sitting
okay
point
time
left
hugging
kissing
bruce
right
yeah
sitting
yes
sister
still
yeah
first
standing
michael
david
yes
anything
michael
david
think
whose
idea
bruce
kiss
initiate
yes
happened
bruce
left
michael
asked
wanted
go
walk
park
say
said
yes
happened
walked
park
long
take
get
park
ten
fifteen
minutes
walk
yes
ever
mention
name
yes
disturbing
find
splintered
case
presents
straightforward
issue
whether
admittedly
classification
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
bears
sufficient
relationship
state
asserted
goal
preventing
teenage
pregnancies
survive
constitutional
scrutiny
mandated
craig
boren
applying
analytical
framework
provided
precedents
convinced
one
proper
resolution
issue
classification
must
declared
unconstitutional
fear
plurality
opinion
justices
stewart
blackmun
reach
opposite
result
placing
much
emphasis
desirability
achieving
state
asserted
statutory
goal
prevention
teenage
pregnancy
enough
emphasis
fundamental
question
whether
discrimination
california
statute
substantially
related
achievement
goal
ii
uncertainty
proper
framework
analyzing
equal
protection
challenges
statutes
containing
classifications
see
ante
settled
upon
proposition
statute
containing
classification
withstand
constitutional
challenge
unless
classification
substantially
related
achievement
important
governmental
objective
kirchberg
feenstra
ante
wengler
druggists
mutual
ins
califano
westcott
caban
mohammed
orr
orr
califano
goldfarb
califano
webster
craig
boren
supra
analysis
applies
whether
classification
discriminates
males
females
caban
mohammed
supra
orr
orr
supra
craig
boren
supra
burden
government
prove
importance
asserted
objective
substantial
relationship
classification
objective
see
kirchberg
feenstra
ante
wengler
druggists
mutual
ins
supra
caban
mohammed
supra
craig
boren
supra
state
meet
burden
without
showing
statute
less
effective
means
achieving
goal
wengler
druggists
mutual
ins
supra
orr
orr
supra
state
california
vigorously
asserts
important
governmental
objective
served
prevention
teenage
pregnancy
claims
statute
furthers
goal
deterring
sexual
activity
males
class
persons
considers
responsible
causing
pregnancies
even
assuming
prevention
teenage
pregnancy
important
governmental
objective
fact
objective
see
infra
california
still
burden
proving
fewer
teenage
pregnancies
statutory
rape
law
law
gender
neutral
meet
burden
state
must
show
statutory
rape
law
punishes
males
females
effectively
deters
minor
females
sexual
intercourse
plurality
assumes
statute
less
effective
deterring
sexual
activity
statute
create
significant
enforcement
problems
plurality
thus
accepts
state
assertion
female
surely
less
likely
report
violations
statute
subject
criminal
prosecution
area
already
fraught
prosecutorial
difficulties
decline
hold
equal
protection
clause
requires
legislature
enact
statute
broad
may
well
incapable
enforcement
ante
footnotes
omitted
state
produced
evidence
case
moreover
least
two
serious
flaws
state
assertion
law
enforcement
problems
created
statutory
rape
law
make
statute
less
effective
statute
deterring
sexual
activity
first
experience
jurisdictions
california
belies
plurality
conclusion
statutory
rape
law
may
well
incapable
enforcement
least
enacted
statutory
rape
laws
although
laws
protect
young
persons
either
sex
sexual
exploitation
older
individuals
laws
arizona
florida
illinois
permit
prosecution
minor
females
minor
males
engaging
mutual
sexual
conduct
california
introduced
evidence
handicapped
enforcement
problems
plurality
finds
persuasive
surely
provide
evidence
might
expect
california
introduced
addition
california
legislature
recent
years
revised
sections
penal
code
make
example
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
prohibiting
sodomy
oral
copulation
person
years
age
cause
two
minor
homosexuals
subjected
criminal
sanctions
engaging
mutually
consensual
conduct
state
introduced
evidence
explain
statutory
rape
law
difficult
enforce
statutes
second
flaw
state
assertion
even
assuming
statute
difficult
enforce
state
still
shown
enforcement
problems
make
statute
less
effective
statute
deterring
minor
females
engaging
sexual
intercourse
common
sense
however
suggests
statutory
rape
law
potentially
greater
deterrent
sexual
activity
law
simple
reason
law
subjects
men
women
criminal
sanctions
thus
arguably
deterrent
effect
twice
many
potential
violators
even
fewer
persons
prosecuted
law
state
suggests
still
true
twice
many
persons
subject
arrest
state
failure
prove
law
less
effective
deterrent
law
like
state
failure
prove
law
difficult
enforce
led
invalidate
iii
recently
california
commentator
suggested
purpose
california
statutory
rape
law
protect
young
women
risk
pregnancy
indeed
historical
development
demonstrates
law
initially
enacted
premise
young
women
contrast
young
men
deemed
legally
incapable
consenting
act
sexual
intercourse
chastity
considered
particularly
precious
young
women
felt
uniquely
need
state
protection
contrast
young
men
assumed
capable
making
decisions
law
therefore
offer
special
protection
perhaps
gender
classification
california
statutory
rape
law
initially
designed
outmoded
sexual
stereotypes
rather
reduce
incidence
teenage
pregnancies
state
unable
demonstrate
substantial
relationship
classification
newly
asserted
goal
cf
califano
goldfarb
stevens
concurring
judgment
whatever
reason
state
shown
cal
penal
code
effective
law
deterring
minor
females
engaging
sexual
intercourse
therefore
met
burden
proving
statutory
classification
substantially
related
achievement
asserted
goal
hold
violates
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
reverse
judgment
california
california
acknowledged
indeed
parties
dispute
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
discriminates
basis
sex
ante
petitioner
male
faces
criminal
felony
charges
possible
prison
term
female
partner
remains
immune
prosecution
gender
participants
relative
responsibility
determines
subject
criminal
sanctions
california
stated
people
hernandez
cal
omitted
ven
circumstances
girl
actual
comprehension
contradicts
law
presumption
minor
female
innocent
naive
understand
implications
nature
act
male
deemed
criminally
responsible
act
although
young
naive
responding
advances
may
made
none
three
opinions
upholding
california
statute
fairly
applies
equal
protection
analysis
carefully
developed
since
craig
boren
plurality
opinion
example
focusing
obvious
uncontested
fact
females
become
pregnant
suggests
statutory
gender
discrimination
rather
invidious
actually
ensures
equality
treatment
since
females
subject
risk
pregnancy
plurality
opinion
concludes
criminal
sanction
imposed
solely
males
serves
roughly
equalize
deterrents
sexes
ante
justice
stewart
adopts
similar
approach
recognizing
females
become
pregnant
result
sexual
intercourse
males
justice
stewart
concludes
oung
women
men
similarly
situated
respect
problems
risks
associated
intercourse
pregnancy
therefore
realistically
related
legitimate
state
purpose
reducing
problems
risks
emphasis
added
ante
justice
blackmun
conceding
limits
must
placed
state
power
regulate
control
direction
young
people
sexual
activities
also
finds
statute
constitutional
ante
distinguishes
state
power
abortion
context
pregnancy
already
occurred
power
present
context
problem
inception
concludes
without
explanation
california
statutory
rape
law
sufficiently
reasoned
constitutional
effort
control
problem
inception
ibid
three
approaches
common
failing
overlook
fact
state
met
burden
proving
gender
discrimination
substantially
related
achievement
state
asserted
statutory
goal
brethren
seem
recognize
california
burden
proving
statutory
rape
law
less
effective
deterring
sexual
activity
leading
teenage
pregnancy
fail
analyze
issue
terms
believe
reach
unsupportable
result
statutory
rape
laws
struck
navedo
preisser
hicks
meloon
helgemoe
cert
denied
precisely
government
failed
meet
burden
proof
remarkable
display
sexual
stereotyping
california
stated
legislature
well
within
power
imposing
criminal
sanctions
males
alone
persons
may
physiologically
cause
result
law
properly
seeks
avoid
cal
emphasis
original
petitioner
questioned
state
constitutional
power
achieve
asserted
objective
criminalizing
consensual
sexual
activity
however
note
cases
foreclose
privacy
challenge
state
attempting
reduce
incidence
teenage
pregnancy
imposing
criminal
sanctions
engage
consensual
sexual
activity
minor
females
stressed
however
right
privacy
means
anything
right
individual
married
single
free
unwarranted
governmental
intrusion
matters
fundamentally
affecting
person
decision
whether
bear
beget
child
eisenstadt
baird
omitted
see
rev
stat
ann
stat
rev
ch
addition
eight
permit
parties
prosecuted
one
participants
consensual
act
sexual
intercourse
age
see
stat
ann
mass
laws
ch
west
supp
comp
laws
mont
code
ann
rev
stat
supp
code
ann
supp
utah
code
ann
supp
stat
tit
supp
logical
reason
contrast
laws
governing
forcible
rape
statutory
rape
laws
apply
consensual
sexual
activity
force
element
crime
since
woman
consents
act
sexual
intercourse
unlikely
report
partner
police
whether
subject
criminal
sanctions
enforcement
undermined
statute
made
gender
neutral
see
infra
seems
ineffective
deterrent
sexual
activity
cf
carey
population
services
international
supra
substantial
reason
doubt
limiting
access
contraceptives
substantially
discourage
early
sexual
behavior
according
statistics
provided
state
average
juvenile
males
adult
males
arrested
statutory
rape
year
brief
respondent
years
approximately
one
million
californian
girls
ages
cal
dept
finance
population
projections
california
counties
detail
series
although
record
case
indicate
incidence
sexual
intercourse
involving
girls
period
california
state
department
health
estimates
almost
pregnancies
among
girls
cal
dept
health
birth
abortion
records
physician
survey
office
abortions
think
fair
speculate
evidence
comparison
number
arrests
statutory
rape
california
number
acts
sexual
intercourse
involving
minor
females
state
likely
demonstrate
male
contemplating
sexual
activity
minor
female
chances
arrested
reassuringly
low
seriously
question
therefore
whether
enforced
substantial
deterrent
effect
see
craig
boren
stevens
concurring
california
statutory
rape
law
origins
statutes
westminster
enacted
reign
edward
close
century
edw
ch
edw
ch
age
consent
time
years
reduced
years
eliz
ch
statute
part
common
law
brought
thus
first
california
penal
statute
enacted
contained
provision
cal
ch
proscribed
sexual
intercourse
females
age
california
statute
amended
make
age
consent
cal
ch
age
advanced
cal
ch
fixed
remains
cal
ch
females
generally
reached
puberty
age
inconceivable
statute
designed
prevent
pregnancy
directed
acts
sexual
intercourse
females
age
legislative
history
available
draftsmen
notes
penal
code
supports
view
purpose
california
statutory
rape
law
protect
young
give
consent
draftsmen
explained
statutory
rape
provision
embodies
well
settled
rule
existing
law
girl
ten
years
age
incapable
giving
consent
act
intercourse
reduce
grade
rape
code
commissioners
note
subd
following
cal
penal
code
ed
mention
whatever
pregnancy
prevention
see
also
note
forcible
statutory
rape
exploration
operation
objectives
consent
standard
yale
past
decisions
california
courts
confirm
law
designed
protect
state
young
females
uninformed
decisionmaking
people
verdegreen
cal
example
california
stated
obvious
purpose
statutory
rape
law
protection
society
protecting
violation
virtue
young
unsophisticated
girls
insidious
approach
vile
tampering
persons
primarily
undermines
virtue
young
girls
eventually
destroys
prevention
much
principal
act
must
undoubtedly
intent
legislature
presumed
innocent
naive
understand
implications
nature
act
law
concern
capacity
lack
thereof
understand
explained
part
popular
conception
social
moral
personal
values
preserved
abstinence
sexual
indulgence
part
young
woman
unwise
disposition
sexual
favor
deemed
harm
social
mores
community
conduct
patterns
established
hence
law
statutory
rape
intervenes
effort
avoid
disposition
justice
stevens
dissenting
local
custom
belief
rather
statutory
laws
venerable
doubtful
ancestry
determine
volume
sexual
activity
among
unmarried
teenagers
empirical
evidence
cited
plurality
demonstrates
futility
notion
statutory
prohibition
significantly
affect
volume
activity
provide
meaningful
solution
problems
created
nevertheless
matter
constitutional
power
unlike
brother
brennan
see
ante
doubt
validity
state
law
prohibiting
unmarried
teenagers
engaging
sexual
intercourse
societal
interests
reducing
incidence
venereal
disease
teenage
pregnancy
sufficient
judgment
justify
prohibition
conduct
increases
risk
harms
conclusion
nondiscriminatory
prohibition
constitutional
help
answer
question
whether
prohibition
applicable
half
joint
participants
conduct
also
valid
true
validity
total
ban
adequate
justification
selective
prohibition
otherwise
constitutional
objection
discriminatory
rules
meaningless
question
case
whether
difference
males
females
justifies
statutory
discrimination
based
entirely
sex
fact
immediately
acknowledge
capacity
become
pregnant
primarily
differentiates
female
male
impeach
validity
plurality
newly
found
wisdom
think
plurality
quite
correct
making
assumption
joint
act
law
seeks
prohibit
creates
greater
risk
harm
female
male
plurality
surely
believe
risk
pregnancy
confronted
female
risk
venereal
disease
confronted
males
well
females
provided
effective
deterrent
voluntary
female
participation
conduct
yet
plurality
decision
seems
rest
assumption
california
legislature
acted
basis
rather
fanciful
notion
judgment
fact
class
persons
especially
vulnerable
risk
statute
designed
avoid
reason
making
statute
applicable
class
argument
special
need
protection
provides
rational
explanation
exemption
one
simply
comprehend
case
fact
female
confronts
greater
risk
harm
male
reason
applying
prohibition
reason
granting
license
use
judgment
whether
assume
risk
surely
examine
problem
point
view
society
interest
preventing
conduct
occurring
irrational
exempt
potential
violators
see
dissent
justice
brennan
ante
view
government
interest
parens
patriae
seeking
protect
subjects
harming
discrimination
actually
perverse
rational
parent
making
rules
conduct
twin
children
opposite
sex
simultaneously
forbid
son
authorize
daughter
engage
conduct
especially
harmful
daughter
effect
statutory
classification
pregnancy
special
harm
suffered
one
two
participants
prohibited
act
special
harm
doubt
constitute
legitimate
mitigating
factor
deciding
punishment
might
appropriate
given
case
standpoint
fashioning
general
preventive
rule
indeed
determining
appropriate
punishment
neither
party
fact
suffered
special
harm
regard
total
exemption
members
endangered
class
utterly
irrational
opinion
acceptable
justification
general
rule
requiring
disparate
treatment
two
participants
joint
act
must
legislative
judgment
one
guilty
conduct
statute
designed
prevent
requires
participation
two
persons
one
male
one
female
many
situations
probably
true
one
aggressor
either
unwilling
least
less
willing
participant
joint
act
statute
authorized
punishment
one
participant
required
prosecutor
prove
participant
aggressor
assume
discrimination
valid
although
question
less
clear
also
assume
purpose
deciding
case
permissible
punish
male
participant
one
element
offense
proof
aggressor
least
respects
responsible
participant
joint
act
statute
issue
case
however
requires
proof
question
raised
statute
whether
state
consistently
federal
constitution
may
always
punish
male
never
female
equally
responsible
female
responsible
two
seem
impartial
lawmaker
give
one
answer
question
fact
california
legislature
decided
apply
prohibition
male
may
reflect
legislative
judgment
typical
case
male
actually
guilty
party
judgment
must
turn
assume
decision
engage
conduct
always
least
typically
male
decision
assumption
valid
statutory
classification
also
valid
support
assumption
contained
record
case
legislative
history
scholarly
study
called
attention
think
supported
extent
traditional
attitudes
toward
relationships
possibility
habitual
attitude
may
reflect
nothing
irrational
prejudice
makes
insufficient
justification
discriminatory
treatment
otherwise
blatantly
unfair
read
statute
requires
one
one
two
equally
guilty
wrongdoers
stigmatized
criminal
conviction
accept
state
argument
constitutionality
discriminatory
rule
saved
assumption
prosecutors
commonly
invoke
statute
cases
actually
involve
forcible
rape
one
established
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
assumption
implies
state
legitimate
interest
convicting
defendant
evidence
constitutionally
insufficient
course
state
may
create
offense
authorize
punishment
guilty
party
surely
interest
obtaining
convictions
inadequate
proof
justify
statute
punishes
one
equally
less
guilty
partner
find
persuasive
suggestion
discrimination
adequately
justified
desire
encourage
females
inform
male
partners
even
concept
wholesale
informant
exemption
acceptable
enforcement
device
justification
defining
exempt
class
entirely
reference
sex
rather
reference
neutral
criterion
relative
innocence
indeed
exempt
class
composed
entirely
members
one
sex
support
view
statutory
purpose
better
served
granting
informing
license
females
rather
males
discarded
male
partner
informs
promiscuous
female
timely
threat
prosecution
might
well
prevent
precise
harm
statute
intended
minimize
finally
even
logic
faulty
actually
speculative
basis
treating
equally
guilty
males
females
differently
still
believe
speculative
justification
outweighed
paramount
interest
evenhanded
enforcement
law
rule
authorizes
punishment
one
two
equally
guilty
wrongdoers
violates
essence
constitutional
requirement
sovereign
must
govern
impartially
respectfully
dissent
common
sense
indicates
many
young
people
engage
sexual
activity
regardless
new
york
legislature
incidence
venereal
disease
premarital
pregnancy
affected
availability
unavailability
contraceptives
although
young
persons
theoretically
may
avoid
harms
practicing
total
abstention
inevitably
many
carey
population
services
international
stevens
concurring
part
judgment
million
teenagers
became
pregnant
see
ante
must
countless
violations
california
statute
statistics
cited
justice
brennan
also
indicate
correctly
observes
statute
seems
ineffective
deterrent
sexual
activity
see
ante
see
carey
population
services
international
supra
stevens
concurring
part
judgment
equal
protection
analysis
often
said
involve
different
levels
scrutiny
may
accurate
say
burden
sustaining
equal
protection
challenge
much
heavier
cases
others
racial
classifications
subjected
strict
scrutiny
presumptively
invalid
seldom
ever
legitimate
reason
treating
citizens
differently
race
hand
economic
classifications
presumptively
valid
necessary
component
regulatory
programs
cases
involving
discrimination
men
women
natural
differences
sexes
sometimes
relevant
sometimes
wholly
irrelevant
differences
obviously
irrelevant
discrimination
treated
presumptively
unlawful
way
racial
classifications
presumptively
unlawful
cf
califano
goldfarb
stevens
concurring
judgment
case
apparent
connection
discrimination
fact
women
become
pregnant
may
appropriate
presume
classification
lawful
presumption
however
may
overcome
demonstration
apparent
justification
discrimination
illusory
wholly
inadequate
thus
instead
applying
form
scrutiny
sex
discrimination
cases
perhaps
burden
heavier
others
nevertheless
previously
suggested
ultimate
standard
equal
protection
cases
essentially
see
craig
boren
stevens
concurring
professor
cox
recently
noted
however
level
scrutiny
described
final
analysis
always
deciding
whether
judgment
harm
done
disadvantaged
class
legislative
classification
disproportionate
public
purposes
measure
likely
achieve
cox
book
review
harv
rev
see
general
electric
gilbert
stevens
dissenting
hypothetical
racial
classification
illustrate
point
assume
skin
pigmentation
provides
measure
protection
cancer
caused
exposure
certain
chemicals
atmosphere
therefore
white
employees
confront
greater
risk
black
employees
certain
industrial
settings
rational
require
black
employees
wear
protective
clothing
exempt
whites
requirement
seems
greater
risk
harm
white
workers
reason
including
requirement
granting
exemption
light
indisputable
biological
fact
find
somewhat
puzzling
california
conclusion
quoted
plurality
ante
males
persons
may
physiologically
cause
result
law
properly
seeks
avoid
cal
emphasis
original
presumably
california
referring
equally
indisputable
biological
fact
females
may
become
pregnant
however
pregnancy
results
sexual
intercourse
two
willing
participants
california
statute
directed
conduct
find
difficult
conclude
pregnancy
caused
solely
male
participant
according
state
california
statute
commonly
employed
situations
involving
force
prostitution
pornography
coercion
due
status
relationships
state
interest
situations
apparent
brief
respondent
justice
rehnquist
justice
blackmun
apparently
attach
significance
testimony
preliminary
hearing
indicating
petitioner
struck
partner
see
opinion
rehnquist
ante
opinion
blackmun
ante
light
fact
petitioner
equally
guilty
crime
charged
complaint
whether
testimony
true
obviously
bearing
legal
question
presented
case
question
whether
facts
fit
crime
opinion
blackmun
ante
question
answered
trial
rather
whether
statute
defining
crime
fits
constitutional
requirement
justice
administered
evenhanded
fashion