If You’re Against Abortion, You Should Support Contraception. Duh.
FILED TO: Politics
It seems obvious, doesn’t it? Contraception, and easy access to it, prevents unintended pregnancies and, therefore, abortions. So why is it that the anti-choice movement is also opposed to women having access to free contraception via the Obamacare health insurance plans — I mean, other than the word “Obama” in there?
There are lots of explanations for these conflicting views, and hardly any of them make sense. As we’ve discussed before, too many people on both sides of the debate mistakenly believe that the so-called “morning after” contraception covered by the Affordable Care Act prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. It doesn’t. It, in fact, prevents ovulation. So the belief that the contraceptive coverage “finances” abortions is false and, in some cases, an outright lie.
A new study released today appears to confirm the fact that access to new forms of contraception has helped to reduce the abortion rate to its lowest level since Roe v Wade legalized the medical procedure in 1973.
The authors of the study reported that a chief contributor to decline in abortions has been a “greater reliance on new kinds of birth control, including intra-uterine devices such as Mirena, which can last for years and are not susceptible to user error like daily pills or condoms.” They also credit an improved economy, because “people tend to adhere more strictly to their birth control during tough economic times.”
The study’s authors didn’t, however, cite new state-level paleoconservative, misogynistic abortion laws since those laws mostly went into effect after the study had concluded. Clearly, no one can suggest that laws preventing abortions reduced the rate.
So we can only conclude that in addition to the existence of new forms of contraceptives, making contraceptive coverage free-of-charge would only enhance the rate of reduction. But the loudest voices against abortion are peddling misinformation about the contraceptive coverage and used it as a cudgel against the policy.