Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Quiet Campaign Against Birth Control
At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman's ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports teaching only abstinence to teens.
But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.
One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions." In fact, he told the crowd, he already had some practice redefining contraception: "I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent."
No matter that emergency contraception has the same mode of action as the birth control pill and every other hormonal method of birth control. To the anti-abortion movement, contraception is the ultimate corruptor. And so this year, the unspoken rule for candidates seeking the support of anti-abortion groups is that they must offer proof they're anti-contraception too.
Unannounced candidate and former Sen. Fred Thompson at first denied he had been a lobbyist for the contraception advocacy group the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. Until billing records materialized proving he worked for the group, he somehow had "no recollection of it."
Presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, beefed up his anti-contraception resume by co-sponsoring a bill to de-fund the nation's largest contraception provider, Planned Parenthood, by excluding it from Title X family planning for the poor. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.
Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo, like Mr. Romney, has ventured far into the "contraception-is-abortion" territory. According to Mr. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, emergency contraception "cheapens human life and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor." By the same logic, so do the birth control pill, the contraceptive patch, the IUD, the NuvaRing, and the Depo-Provera shot - which, it's worth noting, together account for 40 percent of the birth control American women use.
The American public is unaware of the new wave of anti-contraception activism by opponents of abortion, which makes it much easier for politicians to appease the anti-contraception base. Take, for example, President Bush. While he has delivered some big anti-abortion victories for the religious right in the last seven years (Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., and the so-called partial-birth abortion ban), anti-contraception work has taken up more of his energy. He attempted to strip contraceptive coverage for federal employees; appointed anti-birth control leader David Hager to the FDA panel that approves and expands access to contraceptive methods; chose another contraception opponent to oversee the nation's contraceptive program for the poor; defunded international family-planning programs, and invested unprecedented sums into sex-ed programs that prohibit mention of contraception.
For now, the candidates vying for the Right to Life endorsement are doing their best to avoid directly answering mainstream voters' simple questions on the subject, such as, "Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception?" Considering that even 80 percent of self-described "pro-life" voters and a majority of Republican voters strongly support contraception, it's no wonder why.
Cristina Page, author of "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex," is spokeswoman for birthcontrolwatch.org. Her e-mail is cristina@prochoicemovement.com.
© 2007 The Baltimore Sun
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
75 Comments so far
Show Alldamon13-The majority of the people are pro-choice and pro-birth control. As long as the people vote, I think we can keep this sort of thing at bay. But like the author of the piece said, most of them don't know about the attacks on contraception, something that many, many people take for granted. I think it's a merely a matter of informing the public and getting them to vote.
If they start banning condoms and diaphragms, the people will raise hell. Maybe I just have too much faith in the people, but I doubt that the Right will get that far. In fact, they may have won some battles, but I don't think they'll succeed in outlawing abortion. That's not to say I'm complacent, or that I don't think people shouldn't be worried. I just don't think the Right will win this battle.
I think one reason why there isn't a whole lot of furor from the public about keeping abortion legal is that quite frankly, a lot of people don't think the issue will ever effect them. I could be wrong, but I doubt most women wonder whether or not they'll ever want or need to have an abortion. It's like divorce. Many people get married without ever thinking that they will ever need to get divorced. And like I said with birth control, they think it will always be there if they need it.
Personally and morally, I think we should ban together to stop all this banal arguing over how screwed up this and any government is; and post are comments collective. And tell the editors and writers what we want to be informed about the truth and more IMPORTANTLY what we can do about it. All those who say "yes" let me know.
yep iwarrior i totally agree, family oriented voters are going to vote for family oreinted legislation. Sadly people don't vote for over-all good ideas but instead always comes down to if affects me. The craziness is that YES it will effect me, plain and simple, and what's worse, after an unwanted pregnancy, which they would hope for an abortion, they still continue to vote for anti-abortion laws. There is a psychological dilemma. This needs to be addressed.
I blame the Republican sex skills. To suggest that abstinence is the only form of birth control that you can use indicates that they have no idea how to do it.
Maybe that is why they keep getting caught with hookers and boys. They can only get laid if they pay for it or force it.
iwarrior
Indeed, it was of the religious fanatics I was writing.
The neocons: their only beliefs are world domination and increased profits (for the chosen few, of course), and they'll lie to and manipulate anyone they can to attain their goals. Did you catch Bill Moyers asking how the religious right feel noe that they've learned Rove is, in fact an agnostic?
I have a friend who insists that religious loons and neocons *are* arguments for birth control and abortion.
Probably the reason that Bush feels so strongly about using abstinence instead of contraception is that he no doubt held that opinion since he was a cheerleader in college.
Future me-- very good discussion of the subject, you seem to have a good grasp on reality. Run for office.
Seems to me that being against both abortion and also contraception is insane if the right-wingers are serious about their beliefs. Some must not bother to think, and as someone said, maybe others want to go back 100 years to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Great idea!!
Why was Repub Bob Dole pushing Viagra pills for men? Would not that have led to the need for contraception and possibly even abortion? Would God approve of such perversion coming from a Repug? They have me totally confused.
judi
"How can Congress allow such criminal behavior to continue?"
You answered your own question in the previous sentence: the rich have benefitted. To which class do the members of Congress belong? And the members of which class support them, from lobbying and campaigns to giving them lucrative jobs when they decide to go through that revolving door?
If the Dimocrats think they have to support Bush`s so called war on terror to get votes, then why don`t they also throw in with the Repugs on abortion, gays, birth control, stem cells, and get lots more votes? Besides, think how that would befuddle the Repugs if the Dims got moral also.
If you women are getting tired of all the old men figuring out your private lives for you, why not propose the men help out and get castrated? That would take care of all the sinning at one crack and we could stop all this useless chatter. I don`t know what the Repubs would use to get votes then but they would no doubt come up with something the Dims are wrong on.
shakker: "They can only get laid if they pay for it ..."
And given their enthusiasm for paying workers as little as possible, it must gall them to no end to have to pay someone a nice chunk of change for 2 minutes work.
Thr Right to Life ends at Birth
This is nothing new. Remember a few years ago the big hooplah about Pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control on religious grounds? Yes, they want us breeding more little corporate slaves and cannon fodder to feed the machine...
I wonder if these people have ever once stopped and thought about what kind of a world they are going to be creating with their policies? I don't really think they have or they wouldn't be doing it. There belief's are guided by a unrealistic religious belief that is going to destroy the earth! I simply do not believe this is what God wants! I don't believe he gave us this earth to destroy in such a cruel fashion. We are populating ourselves into oblivion now! In another 150 years population is render this planet inhabitable. What is it going to be like when they have finally succeeded in their policies????? Abandoned children on every street corner, people starving, people living on the streets and every form of human misery known to man???? Not enough fresh water for everyone to drink and the list goes on. These people claim to be 'right to life' but I do not see them as even remotely cherishing life. About all they are going to do is destroy the Christian religion! A lot of us have developed a terrible attitude toward so called 'Christian's'! We are sick to death of having their religious belief's rammed down our throats in the form of religious laws. I know this I have stopped going to church due to these people. I find myself detesting everything religion stands for anymore.
"Religion" simply makes people feel better about not accomplishing anything worthwhile while on earth AND of course, that dying thing. Not so comforting to think when you die, you...well, just die.
Republicans are quite the breeders, aren't they. Ever notice how generously the fascists/right-wingers duplicate themselves, e.g., Mitt Romney has quite a few children as does Rick Santorum, to name a couple.
Now some pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions! What business is it of these people to try to impose their choices regarding the number of children a person chooses to have on others? It's okay with them to kill living, breathing Iraqi and Afghani babies and soon Iranian babies, however. Such hypocrisy!
With the U.S. population over 300 million and the world's population over 6 billion, why do they obsess about reproducing?
Ascott:
About your earlier comment about original sin: While the bible does talk about original sin, it never, ever says that humanity is forever cursed because of it. It does not say we are born sinners. This was created by one of the very early church fathers, Saint Augustine. He is also the one who created the "justified war" nonsense. The world would have been a better place without him. But still, it is now 1600+ years later, why do we still believe that crap.
To Debbie and Future,
Have you ever heard of Lysistrata? It is a play about the women of Greece attempting to end a war by withholding sex.
According to Mr. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, emergency contraception "cheapens human life and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor."
Say one of these assclowns does, indeed, win the presidency and overturns Roe and criminalizes abortion.
Do we then get women who've had miscarriages (as happens in 30% of all pregnancies) being arrested and being accused of committing abortion?
The Nation had an interesting article in one of its November 2006 issues on the movement to repopulate the country with as many "white Christians" as possible. It was called "Arrows for the War."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce
It's about the Quiverfull movement and seems largely about expressing a return to domineering, patriarchal families with men having the last word and women reconciling with the "fact" that their bodies are not their own, but that of the property of their husbands and God--with which to implant as many "seeds" as possible...
The title seems to have a double meaning: Arrows for the War--those who partake in the movement believe they're doing their part to repopulate the Earth with right-thinking Christians to make way for the "end times"...or perhaps more fodder for ongoing wars against "nonbelievers."
What I see is the wealthy, political elite seizing on the anti-contraceptive movement as another means to further their one-world global vision that is really a return to the feudalism of old: of submissive slave workers/warriors. Keep people poor and in debt; but give them their breads and circuses in the form of mass-produced food, drugs and entertainment.
Oh yes! I just can't add up all the fathers who are fighting to support, care for, and love the babies they have made, but are kept from this noble mission by vindictive women and their handmaiden state. Why, there must be at least three!
Not to mention all the women I have known who wait until the seventh or eighth month to abort, just for the fun of a late-term abortion. I can't count that low.
I'll just add those to all the teenagers who become pregnant just to get the liberal welfare benefits.
What a gender-neutral ideology the right-wing has! Speaks very well of them. They give equal opportunity to straw-men and straw-women.
I'm for killing them now better than latter in some other war with some country that can't defend itself.
No man may say anything pertinent about abortion. It is an issue to be decided by women only. Period.
Recommended reading: A Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood. Domination of women for reproductive purposes. Well worth reading. I would say more, but it would ruin the story. It is one incredible book. Once you start reading, you won't put it down.
Future.me: This abstinence strike would have to be an open-ended thing. You can't let the enemy know when you're planning to withdraw, after all. Just ask Mr. Bush about that one.
newordan: Yeah! The play also addresses the contributions women could make to society and to policy making, but cannot because their views are ignored as all such considerations are the prerogative of men only. A modern version was performed in 2005 substituting the Iraq occupation for the Peloponesian Wars.
frankchat & pdj: I came back to the United Methodist Church as an adult and was charmed by the notion that the UMC stood for social justice. Then I was horrified to learn that Bush & Cheney say they are Methodists (also Ken Lay) and that Garrison Keillor was told to watch what he said when speaking at "Bush's church' down in Texas. Haven't been back to church since. Used to think Bush was stupid, but have since changed my mind. The man is pure evil. I'm saddened that "my church" won't throw those two bums out.
skystone: Thanks for the reminder on A Handmaid's Tale. It's a great cautionary book.
Men can say things that are pertinant to the topic of abortion and birth control. I'm a man and will do so. Abortions happen for many reasons, one of the reasons for a late term abortion that hasn't been mentioned above is that the fetus would not survive the birth. It's not just about the health of the mother. Banning abortion won't work, never did; never will.
I can also see another reason for the fundies to want to ban contraception, think how many gay men will die from AIDS if there's no condoms available for us to use. I'm over 40, gay and thanks to the proper use of condoms (and a good bit of luck I suppose) have never had an STD.
What about ejaculation that does not result in pregnancy? Will they ban masturbation also?
By their reasoning, a man commits 'abortion' every time he ejaculates without impregnating a woman. This is nonsense. Why do Repubs care so much about a sperm and egg that might possibly potentially one day become a person but as soon as that person is born.. to hell with them? More than that, they have no problem with the death penalty or killing millions of already born people in unprovoked wars of aggression. I do not get their logic.