The War on Contraception
The War on Contraception By: Renee Lewis In 1965 the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. This decision struck down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court found that the right to use contraceptives fell under the right to privacy. Four decades later, the war on contraception continues. While abortion has generally been at the forefront of the debate surrounding reproductive rights, the link between abortion and contraception has become more defined by conservative anti-choice groups. The fight is not just about abortion—it is about the use and access to contraceptives. “The linking of abortion and contraception is indicative of a larger agenda, which is putting sex back into the box, as something that happens only within marriage.” (Russell Shorto, Contra-Contraception, NY Times, May 7, 2006, quoting William Smith, Vice President for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). While the Supreme Court debates on whether or not to uphold a Federal Abortion Ban, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003, state legislators are reviewing bills regarding emergency contraception and whether or not pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for “moral” or “personal” reasons. Moreover, state legislators are facing legislation that would not require insurance companies to cover birth control for women. And equally important, the Bush administration has pushed millions of dollars into abstinence only education—limiting medically accurate sex education in our classrooms across the nation. Even though the majority of Americans support the access to and use of contraceptives as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy, the Bush administration and anti-choice organizations have pushed through various legislation that directly and indirectly attacks the right to access and use contraceptives. Since the approval of Plan B last August by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the war on contraception has taken the media spotlight. Plan B is the brand name for emergency contraception. This pill contains the same hormone found in ordinary birth control pills, and if taken within 72 hours of having sex, can prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Plan B is not the same thing as the “abortion pill,” which can induce an abortion up to 49 days after the beginning of the last menstrual period. (Jon Platner, The War on Contraception, Planned Parenthood.org). Plan B, before its approval by the FDA, could only be dispensed by prescription. In April 2003, the manufacturers of Plan B applied for approval from the FDA. Three long years later, Plan B, which has been available in some European countries for over 20 years, was approved for women and men 18 years or older. The approval of Plan B has added more fuel to the anti-choice agenda. Eighteen states are not considering legislation that could allow pharmacists the right to refuse to fill women’s birth control prescriptions. (Platner, The War on Contraception, Planned Parenthood.org). There have also been some incidents with pharmacists requiring women to give personal information before being able to pick up their supply of Plan B. The battle over emergency contraception continues, but it is not the only battle being waged over the use of contraception. Many reproductive health organizations have been fighting for contraceptives to be fully covered by insurance companies. The fact that Viagra is covered by almost all insurance companies, while birth control for women is denied is clearly gender discrimination. “Senate anti-choice leaders are trying to pass legislation that would, among other things, nullify state laws that ensure insurance plans cover birth control in the same way they cover other prescription medication like Viagra. If Congress and the President enact this law, 25 states’ laws that protect women’s access to birth control could be overridden” (www.prochoiceamerica.org). While the battle against insurance companies and anti-choice politicians has proved to be successful over the year, there are still a number of insurance companies that have not added contraceptives to their coverage plans. Not only has there been a fight over access to and use of contraceptives, but the Bush administration has been pushing for and funding abstinence only education throughout our nations public schools. These programs do not just talk about abstinence but actually prohibit the discussion of birth control methods. The Bush administration’s 2007 budget calls for $204 million to support abstinence programs, which is an increase of $80 million from 2001. States can refuse to sign onto the abstinence only education, but at a high cost. Most states need the funding, and therefore are more or less forced into accepting abstinence only education plans. Equally important, the Bush administration has placed extreme anti-choice men and women into positions of great political power. “What’s notable about the war on contraception today is that several anti-contraception hardliners, long on the fringes of mainstream public opinion, are now in positions of great political influence and power. As a result, American society has already embarked on a steady regression to Pre-Griswold days, when birth control was largely inaccessible, even for married couples” (Platner, The War on Contraception, Planned Parenthood.org). An example of this is the Bush administrations recent appoint to oversee family planning programs. Bush’s appointment, Keroack, is an obstetrician-gynecologist that worked at a Christian pregnancy counseling organization that “regards the distribution of contraceptives as ‘demeaning to women.’” (Christopher Lee, Bush Choice for Family-Planning Post Criticized, The Washington Post, November 17, 2006). Keroack will now advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on issues surrounding reproductive health. “He will oversee $283 million in annual family planning grants that, according to HHS, are ‘designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons.’” (Lee, The Washington Post, November 17, 2006). The effects of the war on contraception are mostly felt by the young and low income people, which in turn have the highest rates of abortion. (Platner, The War on Contraception, Planned Parenthood.org). Not only is access to birth control and EC restricted, but it is costly especially if insurance companies do not cover contraceptives. For example, EC can cost up to $40 for one pill. Guttmacher Institute, in a recent study Abortion in Women’s Lives, found that there has been a 29% rise in unintended pregnancies and abortions since 1994 among low-income women. (http://www.alternet.org/rights/38285/). The rise in abortion rates among low-income women can be linked to the attacks on access to contraceptives. “Funding for Title X of the Public Health Services Act—the backbone of subsidized family planning health services for low-income uninsured women—is less than half what it was in 1980 when adjusted for inflation” (http://www.alternet.org/rights/38285/). With the democratic and pro-choice victory in the November elections, there is hope that Congress will protect the access and use of contraceptives, but it is an uphill battle to fight with the Bush administration’s political appointments. In order to ensure our rights to contraception are protected, we need to make our voices heard. We must continue to lobby for insurance companies to cover contraceptives. We must be active in the debate over access to emergency contraception for all women. We need to make sure that pharmacists are not permitted to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions—or at least make sure there are legal safeguards to ensure that women receive their prescriptions without delay. And we need to lobby for medically accurate sex education in public schools. “A woman’s bodily integrity, her moral autonomy, her health, her very life depend on whether she has access not just to the right to reproductive freedom but also to the health care and education services that make rights meaningful. Circumstances do not change that principle. Nor is the human right to reproductive self-determination divisible. You either have it or you don’t. There’s nothing mysterious about that.” (http://www.alternet.org/rights/38285/). It is time for both men and women to stand up for their right contraception! The war on contraception is not new, but the anti-choice agenda is growing. In order to protect our legal rights to reproductive freedom and autonomy, we all need to stand up and make our voices heard.
|
