Andrew Koppelman thought this post by him might be of interest to our readers. I agree; so here it is.
My recent post, “How
the Religious Right Promotes Abortion,” elicited a quick response from Michael
New of the Witherspoon Institute, which was just as quickly endorsed by Rick
Garnett and Thomas
Peters. Prof. New wants us to
believe that, even though a very large number of American women receive no
instruction about contraception before their first sexual experience, giving
them that information would have no effect whatsoever on the rate of unintended
pregnancy. Now June Carbone and
Naomi Cahn, on whose work I rely in that post, have written a response, which I
post below. They answer New’s
arguments better than I could.
I add only that it is astoundingly stupid and tragic that
this is what we are arguing about.
One of the rare areas of common ground between opponents and supporters
of abortion rights is that neither side thinks that unintended pregnancy is a
good thing. We should be able to
come together on measures that would actually reduce the rate of unwanted
pregnancy, and thus, inevitably, reduce the abortion rate. That might even help the anti-abortion
cause in the long run, because it would reduce the number of American women who
have had abortions (a risk that I, a supporter of abortion rights, am willing
to take). Yet instead, we are
having this silly argument. It is
dispiriting.
Here is what Carbone and Cahn write:
There are more than 66 million women of
childbearing age in the US, and 90% of them will use birth control at some
point in their lives.
Contraception is part of the fabric of women's lives from the beginning
of sexual activity through menopause.
Women use contraception so that they can delay pregnancy, or because
they want to space out their children, or because they don’t want any more
children.
We argued in our book, Red Families v. Blue Families, that if there is to be an approach
to family values that transcends the culture wars it should include a change in
emphasis from abortion to contraception.
The first is an intrinsically divisive issue; the second should not
be. Yet, every time legislators
advocate recognition of women’s needs, conservatives work to derail them. When President Obama proposed
strengthening family planning efforts in the stimulus package, Republicans blocked the
measure. When Senator Barbara
Mikulski suggested that health care reform address contraception, conservatives
falsely insinuated that the proposal would increase abortions. Most recently, Professor Andrew
Koppelman of Northwestern argued that the middle ground in the abortion fight
is greater support for contraception, and a prominent conservative blog
responded by rejecting the very idea that contraception could possibly have
anything to do with reducing abortions.
These assertions are
astounding. The most frequently asserted
half-truth making its way across the internet is that most women who have
abortions did use some form of birth control, therefore “there is relatively
little the government can do to increase contraceptive use among sexually
active women.” (Michael New, Witherspoon)
The veiled message, of course, is that the only way to prevent abortions
is prevent sex. We happily married
women who do not want ten children each should take note.
More critically, though, the
distortions threaten to widen the already huge gulf between rich and poor in
control of unwanted childbearing.
Here are the facts. Publicly
funded family planning services helped prevent almost two million unwanted
pregnancies that experts estimate would have resulted in over 800,000 abortions,
and improvements in contraceptive access and effectiveness are the single
biggest explanation for the drop in abortions in the nineties. It is also true,
as conservatives claim, that the majority of women who have abortions were
using contraceptives – and that is exactly the point. The government can
increase the effectiveness of contraceptive use, preventing even more
abortions, and it is time to
acknowledge that conservatives stand in the way of doing so.
First, let’s recognize what every
sexually active woman knows: contraception is a messy business. Yes, most sexually active women use it
and, yes, almost everyone can afford a condom. What pro-life conservatives rarely discuss is that long term
injectibles are easier to manage than the pill, women who have had a child find
diaphragms less reliable than those who have not, IUDs, which have become
substantially safer over the last two decades, require a doctor’s involvement
and monitoring, condoms, which women cannot control, are more effective when
used together with other methods, and a thousand other details exist that make
contraceptive use with consistent medical care much more reliable than
contraceptive use without such access.
The big story from the nineties is that doctors have finally come up
with safer and more effective contraceptives, and more consistent and effective
contraception explains 85% of the drop in teen pregnancies and the most
substantial part of the drop in abortions.
Second, we should recognize that improvements
in the sophistication and effectiveness of contraception have increased the
class-based disparities in unintended births. The overall unintended pregnancy rate has stayed about the
same, but in the nineties, it dropped 20% for college educated women and
increased 29% for poor woman. The
simple explanation is that avoiding unwanted pregnancy has become easier – but
only for those who have systematic access to medical care.
So why are conservatives so
reluctant to come on board? We
suspect that it is because doing so requires acknowledging a dirty little
secret. The unintended pregnancy
rates of college educated women have fallen in large part because of the
benefits of taxpayer subsided health insurance. The Republican party has been working overtime to make sure
that other women do not have access to the same benefits.
April 20, 2010
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-are-conservatives-so-afraid-of.html
http://lawreligionethics.net/2010/04/why-are-conservatives-so-afraid-of-contraception/
What a nutty conclusion! If crime rates fell by taxing honest citizens to pay criminals a monthly stipend, we could get crime under control.
Having an unwanted child is a crime against the child and antisocial behavior that should be taxed or punished, not subsidized by the non-breeders!
Posted by: jimbino | 04/21/2010 at 04:34 AM