Opinion ID: 1697290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Right to Privacy Includes Access to Sexual Devices

Text: ¶ 10. We find that there is no independent fundamental right of access to purchase [sexual devices], just as the United States Supreme Court found that there was no independent fundamental right of access to purchase contraceptives. Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 688, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2018, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977). [4] However, the plaintiffs argue that such access is essential to the exercise of the constitutionally protected right [of privacy to engage in adult consensual sexual activities]. Id., 97 S.Ct. at 2018. ¶ 11. Indeed, the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama, in finding that a similar statute was unconstitutional, concluded that the prohibition of the sale of sexual devices imposes a significant burden on the right of married and unmarried persons to sexual privacy, in that it severely limits their ability to access, and thus to use, sexual devices within their sexual relationships. Williams v. Pryor, 220 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1298 (N.D.Ala.2002). We find persuasive the decisions of the Georgia, Louisiana and Texas courts which have explicitly rejected attempts to redefine expand the right to privacy to include the commercial distribution of sexual devices. See Pierce v. State, 239 Ga. 844, 239 S.E.2d 28, 29 (1977); State v. Brenan, 772 So.2d 64 (La.2000); Yorko v. State, 690 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). The Alabama federal court compared access to sexual devices to access to contraceptives. Williams, 220 F.Supp.2d at 1298. We disagree and find that society's interest in protecting the right to control conception is of greater magnitude than the interest in protecting the right to purchase sexual devices. ¶ 12. People who are sexually dysfunctional (presumably those people who cannot achieve sexual enjoyment and fulfillment without a sexual device) should be treated by a physician or a psychologist. [5] Sexual dysfunction may be caused by medicinal side effects, diabetes, hormonal problems, endocrine problems, cardiovascular illness, neurological impairments, psychological problems or hypertension. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-29-107(1)(b) (Rev.2000) expressly provides that physicians and psychologists may prescribe sexual devices for their patients, and the patients may purchase the sexual devices from the physicians and psychologists. The novelty and gag gifts which the vendor plaintiffs sell have no medical purpose. ¶ 13. The only conclusion we can reach is that the sale of or access to sexual devices sold by novelty stores is not protected under the right to privacy guaranteed under the Mississippi Constitution. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs contend that we must apply the strictest level of scrutiny when we analyze § 97-29-105. Because we conclude that access to sexual devices is not protected by the constitutional right to privacy, this issue is moot.