Weekly Poll: Do People Have a Right to Use Contraception?
Contraception has been a constitutional right for some time, but it is also being debated more than ever. Most Americans insist, or by now simply assume, that they have a right to privacy which includes the ability to use contraception. What these Americans don't understand is that there is a growing movement among anti-abortion activists to move against contraception as well. Right-wing religious authoritarians regard standard forms of contraception as nearly or just as bad as abortion itself.
Some conservative Christians actually argue that all the sins and evils in society can be traced back to the availability and use of contraceptives: they diminish love, increase selfishness and lust, promote sex-education, encourage the corruption of youth, and lead to things like abortion, sterilization, and euthanasia. There are anti-abortion activists who don't have a problem with contraception, but thus far most seem to regard preventing pregnancy to be just as much of a problem as terminating one. It may not be murder and not draw the same large demonstrations, but it is a sin.
Conservative politicians who oppose abortion also pursue policies that lead to increases in unwanted pregnancies (and thus demand for abortion) by opposing public funds for contraceptive services. Such services are labeled an "inappropriate use of tax dollars." It's "inappropriate" to help poor women avoid getting pregnant; and of course the state will do everything possible to prevent these same women from getting abortions if they do end up getting pregnant. The goal? To keep them from having sex, at the very least. Sex is bad in and of itself; it's made worse when humans dare to separate it from procreation.
Consider, for example, the fact that Bush tried to slash the budget for Title X, a program the funds family-planning services for low income women. About 95% of these funds go to contraceptive distribution. One of Bush's earlier nominees to lead the FDA, Lester Crawford, opposes birth control because he believes that it encourages promiscuity. These moves are hardly surprising because the anti-abortion movement was only ever partially or even marginally about the fetus.
Restricting sexual behavior and women's autonomy have always been at the heart of religious authoritarianism and religious authoritarians are the heart of the anti-choice movement. Furthermore, the constitutional right to an abortion in America is based on the exact same legal arguments as the right to contraceptives and even contraceptive information. If the Christian Right is successful in overturning the basis for legal abortion, they will also necessarily overturn the basis for legal access to contraceptives.
Who really believes that if they achieve the first, the second won't immediately follow?
Comments
The only reason for it to “follow automatically” is because too many people are embracing a false dichotomy.
I support contraceptives. There does not exist a being that they harm. The government has no business prohibiting actions that harm no one and no non-human being. (I do support laws that protect dogs and cats, for example.)
A right to privacy is for the purpose of preventing officials from going on a fishing expedition against someone they consider a rival. It prevents learning about an act. It does not, in itself, justify an action.
I will give a (hopefully hypothetical) example of the principle of which I speak. Child abuse is illegal. If someone were to find a way to abuse children that left no verifiable mark after the fact, it would still be wrong. It is only that it would also be wrong for police to put cameras in people’s homes for the purpose of finding out if anyone is doing such a thing.
You are, once again, ignoring the context: the legal right to abortion is based on the same constitutional foundations as the legal right to contraceptives. If you eliminate the first, the second is eliminated as well. Given the growing political and social opposition to legal access to contraceptives, it’s reasonable to think that the second will follow the first.
It really doesn’t matter if you personally wouldn’t approve of such a development. You’ll be knowing helping it occur, though.
Austine Cline:
And you ignored my entire argument. A right to privacy does not justify any action. It only means law enforcement cannot come into your home looking for illegal activity on a whim. An argument that contraceptives should not be illegal can be made independently of right-to-privacy and abortion. The all-or-nothing attitude hurts society. Yes, there are people on the other side with the same all-or-nothing attitude, but they do not represent the general population.
You did not offer any argument, just an assertion.
Feel free to actually make a legal argument here. FYI, this is an assertion, not an argument.
Any “argument” can be made for or against anything. The fact is, though, the constitutional basis for a right to contraception is the same as the constitutional basis for a right to abortion. This is the way matters currently are, not a proposal or opinion on my part. If you wish to construct a new constitutional basis for contraception that doesn’t also support abortion, feel free.
In the meantime, don’t try to pretend that any efforts on your part to undermine or attack the current constitutional basis for abortion doesn’t also negatively impact the current constitutional basis for contraception. If you actually care about people’s legal right to obtain contraception, maybe you should consider ensuring that it is protected before you undermine it.
You don’t have a ‘right’ to contraceptives anymore than you have the right to Pepsi. The government should neither ban nor sanction the use of contraceptives. Let people trade freely.
If the government doesn’t have the authority to ban contraceptives, then you have a right to contraceptives. They are two sides of the same coin and it’s incoherent to assert one while denying the other.
Correct. I meant no one has the right to stop you freely associating, including buying contraceptives.
If it did happen in the US it would be a big backward step in allowing religions to dominate public morality. It is only around 10 years ago that the Irish allowed the sale of contraceptives previously banned under Roman Catholic influence. We have recently seen the Spanish send the Catholic Church packing and Mexico is now doing the same.
I hope your article is an exaggeration of the position.
Your argument or opinion is absolutely exagerated and false. You have jumped to false conclusions. You athesists are liars and almost violent in your hatred of people who believe in God. Keep quiet, you don’t believe in God, so what, who cares. Again, I say, Live and Let live.
Prove it.
Provfe it.
Those are serious accusations. Please support them.
Why should we keep quiet when you don’t?
Well, you don’t “live and let live,” so why should we? Or is it only atheists who should keep quiet so you aren’t disturbed by others disagreeing with you?