Opposing birth control coverage should be as ridiculous as hating puppies

A while ago, a friend on Facebook shared an article about a politician who was opposed to an anti-puppy mill bill. It didn’t really matter if you knew any details of the legislation—obviously, the expected reaction was: “OMG, can you believe someone would be against puppies??? LOLZ!!”

This week, a special panel convened by the Institute of Medicine held its first meeting to determine if birth control will be included among the preventive services that should be covered at no cost under the new health reform law. While it didn’t make the cut the first time around, there’s still hope that contraception could be free for every woman in the U.S.

You’d think a proposal like this would have widespread support. (You might even wonder why we need an expert panel to determine if birth control is a preventive service.) And you’d be very right. According to a poll by Planned Parenthood, 71% of voters believe birth control should be fully covered. That’s a lot. I mean, seriously, you can’t get 71% of Americans to agree that the sky is blue. Only a slight majority believes that global warming is real and just 74% think that the U.S. got its independence from Great Britain.

That ample public support—which includes 72% of Republican women, 77% of Catholic women, and 60% of men—should be entirely unsurprising given just how common contraceptive use is. According the Guttmacher Institute, more than 99% of women use birth control at some point in their lives, making it virtually universal. Perhaps the only thing more widespread is having sex. Even puppies have their detractors after all (I myself am more of a kitten person). But preventing pregnancy when you don’t want to get pregnant? Everyone does it!

Of course, even if the voters didn’t totally love it, it would still be a good idea with an impressive array of support. As Andrew Sullivan noted yesterday, fiscal conservatives should be on board since “publicly funded contraception saves taxpayers about $4 for every $1 spent” and environmentalists recognize that better access to birth control ultimately means fewer greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the Center for Reproductive Rights argues that, “human rights law requires that contraception and family planning services be widely available.” (Ya know, if you care about that kind of thing…) And Planned Parenthood says that, “making birth control available at no cost is the single most important step we can take to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.” Anti-abortion groups are leading the charge, noting that preventing unintended pregnancies is the surest way to reduce the abortion rate and save countless unborn babies. Oh right, nevermind…

In any rational political environment, opposing full coverage of birth control would be considered a laughably out-of-touch position. But we live in the United States. Where birth control regularly gets rolled up with abortion—and anything related to women and their ladyparts—into a radioactive ball of “controversy” that politicians squeamishly bat around. Where the U.S. Catholic bishops, who don’t seem to wield much influence with the more than 95% of Catholic women who ignore their teachings on contraception, somehow have a lot of political clout. Where Republicans are determined to do anything they can, including staging a fit about birth control coverage, to throw a wrench in health care reform.

This proposal should be a no-brainer—and the fact that it isn’t says a lot about how pathetically and dangerously disconnected from the realities of people’s lives our political debate has become.

New Orleans, LA

Maya Dusenbery is an Executive Director in charge of Editorial at Feministing. Maya has previously worked at NARAL Pro-Choice New York and the National Institute for Reproductive Health and was a fellow at Mother Jones magazine. She graduated with a B.A. from Carleton College in 2008. A Minnesota native, she currently lives, writes, edits, and bakes bread in Atlanta, Georgia.

Maya Dusenbery is an Executive Director of Feministing in charge of Editorial.

Read more about Maya

Join the Conversation

WASHINGTON - JANUARY 22:  Pro-choice advocates participate in protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building January 22, 2010 in Washington, DC. Activists from across the nation gathered to commemorate the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which decriminalized abortion in all fifty states.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

No Bernie, There’s No Economic Justice Without Abortion Access

On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders flew to Nebraska to campaign for Health Mello, a Democrat running for Mayor of Omaha. The stop is part of Bernie’s “Unity Tour” with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez — the beginning of a national effort to rebuild and unite Democrats around a shared vision for the party’s future.

Here’s the catch: Heath Mello is a longtime opponent of abortion access who sponsored a 20-week abortion ban in 2010. It contained no exceptions for rape or incest. Mello has also co-sponsored legislation requiring doctors to perform medically-unnecessary ultrasounds, and he voted for a bill to

On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders flew to Nebraska to campaign for Health Mello, a Democrat running for Mayor of Omaha. The stop is part of Bernie’s “Unity Tour” with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez ...

Humphrey2-640x380

Oklahoma Lawmaker Considers Pregnant People “Hosts” in Anti-Abortion Bill

In this week’s edition of cringy, oppressive legislation, Oklahoma lawmakers have introduced a bill which would require pregnant people to obtain written permission from the father of the fetus in order to receive an abortion.

The bill would also require pregnant people seeking abortions to submit their sexual partner’s name to their doctors in writing. The identified person could then challenge and demand a paternity test, which would delay the abortion procedure. The only exceptions to this law would be in the cases of incest or rape, threat to the pregnant person’s life, or should the father be deceased – in which case, the pregnant person would be required to sign a notarized affidavit confirming the death.

While this bill is certainly alarming, it ...

In this week’s edition of cringy, oppressive legislation, Oklahoma lawmakers have introduced a bill which would require pregnant people to obtain written permission from the father of the fetus in order to receive an abortion.

The bill would ...