If You’re Against Abortion, You Should Support Contraception. Duh.

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.

  • Arcnor

    It becomes much easier to understand conservative rhetoric when one views it through the proper lens; they’re actually quite consistent within their own desperate denial of reality. But attempting to judge them based on what words one actually hears them utter in public is a waste of time.

    For example, if one was approaching the whole question of abortion and contraception and reproductive rights from the standpoint of trying to be consistent and working to eliminate abortion as much as possible, then one would have to support contraception — legal, easily obtained, and effective — with widespread and accurate sex education for all children backing it up.

    This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the actual conservative stance on the issue, which was, is, and will remain pushing to control the reproductive organs of women. Period. And the most extreme, the most visible and total way of controlling said organs is to sharply proscribe everything that might allow them to be used for any purpose other than the production of more human beings. From that perspective, all contraception (not just the morning-after pill), all sex education, and practically all obstetric care (not to mention LGBT rights) is anathema.

    Why women still support the Republican party and social conservatives in general in this day and age is absolutely beyond me.

    • StephenMeansMe

      Yeah, it’s important to not underestimate the scope of this worldview. It has pretty much everything to do with a cosmic hierarchy that goes (in descending order) God above man above wife above children above other animals above plants above minerals. Each lesser thing exists pretty much to serve the greater things.

      It also explains some of the anti-LGBT rhetoric: many conservative Christians see it as a permutation of this natural hierarchy (i.e., a man in the “wife” tier, or a woman in the “man” tier), which is why they talk about homosexuality as a choice and in the same category as transgenderism, which it’s completely not (outside their worldview).

      I think this could even loop around and connect to the common rhetoric about a belief in the theory of evolution as leading to moral nihilism (“If we all came about by RANDOM CHANCE who’s to say anything is right or wrong?”)… again it violates that natural hierarchy (wherein morality is dispensed from above).

    • Christopher Foxx

      if one was approaching the whole question of abortion and contraception and reproductive rights from the standpoint of trying to be consistent and working to eliminate abortion as much as possible, then one would have to support contraception

      This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the actual conservative stance on the issue, which was, is, and will remain pushing to control the reproductive organs of women.

      Exactly. Their goal is NOT “protecting the lives and rights of the unborn”. It is NOT following some religious dictate about the sanctity of life. It is NOT any of the good-sounding cliches they give lip service to to justify their actions.

      The hypocrisy of their actions, their willingness if not outright eagerness to ignore the health of women and the traumas of rape victims, to support killing doctors and deny support to children after they are born are overwhelming testimony that they aren’t motivate by concern or compassion of any kind.

      They want to control other people. Period.

    • j hentai

      that’s why they get so het up about “sharia law”. they want to impose their own pure-d, all-american, slain in the spirit, christian version.

      • Christopher Foxx

        “How dare you impose your beliefs on me! It gets in the way of me imposing mine on you!”

        • j hentai

          amen brother!

  • Schneibster

    Billy Clinton said “Safe, legal, and rare.” I was always clear he meant rare because there was effective contraception and it was therefore normally unnecessary for women to have an invasive medical procedure.