MyDD :: The War on Contraception and American Theocracy

The War on Contraception and American Theocracy

by John Mills, Mon May 08, 2006 at 12:28:01 AM EST

I just finished reading the NY Times article on The War on Contraception and must admit it was one of the most frightening things I have read in a long, long time. I am not much of a moralist and have no problem with consenting adults having sex outside of marriage. However, as a recently married person I had a whole new reaction to this article - HOLY CRAP THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WANTS TO TELL ME AND MY WIFE HOW MANY KIDS WE SHOULD HAVE AND WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE THEM. In their world, we should have lots and have them immediately.

We both love kids and want to have them, but we want to make the decision on the right time and the number of children we want. The wonderful thing about living in the 21st Century is that the technology exists that allows us to do this. IT USED TO BE CALLED FAMILY PLANNING.

If Focus on the Family, the American Life League and other organizations of this ilk want to believe every sperm is sacred, that is their right. However, they no right to impose that view on me and my wife.

It is very clear from this article that the religious right will try to focus this fight on promiscuity but the impact will be far more reaching. Since the average number of children per family in an American is 2.2, you can conclude that married couples are using birth control before having children, between having children and after they have decided to have no more children. If you take the goal of these organizations to its logical conclusion, they would stop all couples, married or not, from using birth control to plan families. A poll by the Catholic Church in 2005 found that 93% of Americans use birth control so in effect 7% of Americans want to tell the other 93% how to live their lives.

This is an important issue in terms of personal liberties. It is also an incredibly powerful political issue. The religious right is completely out of step with mainstream America on this matter and we must point this out.

Scott McCellan ducked repeatedly when he was asked if Bush supported contraception. He has never responded to letters from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney asking the same thing. Basically the President of the US is unwilling to say whether or not he supports birth control. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

This is a political gift of huge proportions. If the Republican party wants to get into bed with James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc, let's make them pay for their extremist views.

The Democrats should use this issue by

1 - Stating their support for birth control and family planning for married couples and everyone else and demand the Repub candidate for every office in every state do the same. The married couples part is very important because it takes this argument beyond the promiscuity meme and shows how radical it is.

2 - Requiring that every pharmacist be required to fill any legally written birth control prescription and demand the same of Repub candidates.

3 - Placing ballot initiatives ensuring access to legal methods of birth control. If the Repubs want to use gay marriage as an issue, let's start our own wedge issues such as stem cells and birth control.

The American people are clearly with us on this issue. Let's learn from the Terri Schiavo mistake and be out front on something for a change.

Tags: Bush, right wing, american taliban (all tags)

Permalink :: 8 Comments :: Post a Comment

The market can take care of #2. (none / 0)

I don't think access to legal birth control is going anywhere. Even the Republican party knows that actually doing any more than token gestures will kill them at the polls. (Remember, 40% of Republicans are pro-choice, and an overwhelming majority of them support contraception.)

That being said, there is a chance that point #2 will backfile on libertarian grounds. Basically, given the competition in the pharmacy market, the market can solve the problem without getting government involved.

But if a pharmacist doesn't want to fill a prescription, that is between him and his employer. If he believes it is morally wrong to fill him, he shouldn't be legally required have to fill him. If he gets fired because of this, then that's the price he pays for standing up for what he believes in.

No laws mandating pharmacists fill presciptions, no "conscience protection" clauses. No reason to get Government involved either way.

If a pharmacy does not want to carry certain drugs, that is their business. If Wal-Mart doesn't carry them, Walgreens will. People who want to buy this item can take their business elsewhere.

If a Catholic pharmacist opens his own store that doesn't carry birth control pills, that's his business. Nobody HAS to shop there.

by wayward on Mon May 08, 2006 at 10:49:18 AM EST

Re: The market can take care of #2. (none / 0)

The point is to beat them over the head with their radical right. We need to show how out of step they are with mainstream America and stem cells and birth control off that opportunity.

by John Mills on Mon May 08, 2006 at 11:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The market can take care of #2. (none / 0)

They have been doing stuff like this for years with us and I just think it is time to push back.

by John Mills on Mon May 08, 2006 at 11:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The market can take care of #2. (none / 0)

Let's take this beyond birth control and go to stem cell research. Should a pharmacist have the right to deny filling a prescription because it was developed through stem cell research which he or she objects to? What if someone dies because of the failure to fill that prescription? Who is to blame?

This is a very dangerous precedent especially if this pharmacy is the only one in a small town. That pharamcist is forcing his/her religious believes on the rest of the community and denying approved medical treatment to people who have a right to receive it.

Pharmacists are licensed medical professionals and as such have an obligation to fill all legal prescriptions. If you are concerned about your moral believes getting in the way, you shouldn't become a pharmacist.

by John Mills on Mon May 08, 2006 at 01:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The market can take care of #2. (none / 0)

A pharmacist should have a right to set up a Christian Science or Amish drugstore for all I care. I just won't shop there.

The "only one in a small town" is a red herring. First of all, very few towns are so small that they have only one pharmacy. Second of all, in those that are, residents generally have to go to other towns to get most other items. Some people don't get out much.

Even if all pharmacies in an area decide to not carry certain items, the market will provide a way to get the goods to people who want them.

You have a problem with forcing his/her religious beliefs on the community, yet you have no problem forcing your beliefs on the pharmacist AND his employer. If the pharmacy has a problem with this, they should be able to deal with it by ending the pharmacist's employment. If the pharmacy does not, that is their business. If you don't like this, don't shop there.

There is simply no good reason to get the law involved.

by wayward on Mon May 08, 2006 at 09:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The War on Contraception and American Theocrac (3.00 / 1)

Your head is in the sand, Wayward. People have been saying for years that access to abortion "wasn't going anywhere." But they kept chipping away until there as no access for young women and poor women and military women and women in rural communities and then, South Dakota passed a law saying virtually no access at all except to save your life and now Ohio is making noises that say even saving your life isn't enough, and that you will be a felon for having an abortion if a doctor tells you an abortion will kill you.

They're doing the same thing with birth control and ultimately it doesn't matter if technically well-heeled upper-middle-class and wealthy couples can still get it (they'd get it illegally anyway and never be prosecuted). When the hoops for other to jump through are too many, it's the same as legally denying accessble and this is what is happening. The "market" cannot take care of this without brutally punishing the usual people, the "least of these."

by anastasia on Mon May 08, 2006 at 11:15:03 AM EST

Re: The War on Contraception and American Theocrac (none / 0)

Agree. This is less of a problem in urban and suburban areas since you can go down the block to another drug store but in rural towns where there may only be one pharmacy, letting a pharmacist not fill birth control prescriptions or carry contraceptives is dangerous. That one person is imposing their views on the rest of the community.

I also think letting pharmacists decide what they will and won't prescribe is a very slippery slope. With the changes in medical research there will undoubtedly be medications which are developed through stem cells and other methods that the religious right objects to. Do we give pharmacists the right to deny prescribing those medications? Where do you draw the line?

I think pharmacists have an obligation to the public to fill any legal prescription that is presented to them. If they have moral objections to this, they should find a different profession.

by John Mills on Mon May 08, 2006 at 12:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The War on Contraception and American Theocrac (none / 0)

Where are these mystery small towns with only one pharmacy anyway?

And who is to say that another pharmacy can't set up shop there?

by wayward on Mon May 08, 2006 at 09:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.