Contra-contraception: An Opening For the Democrats?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There was a disturbing article in the New York Times magazine recently:

Contra-Contraception

I think this is a prime opportunity for Democrats. They've already been trying to figure out how to handle the pro-choice issue, and one idea I have seen and really like is to put energy into reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancies. Nobody is really pro-abortion; everyone would prefer that abortions were rendered moot. Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by preventing them from happening rather than doing something about them after they happen is a win-win proposition.

And, it backs the increasingly radical wing of the Republican and pro-life faction into a corner, because evidently the next battle is over contraception. Not even RU-486 or whatever (though that too), just plain ol' condoms and pills and the like.

Quote:

"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

I don't think that will fly with mainstream voters.

What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,765 • Replies: 54

No top replies

I think you slipped your gravitational connection to mother well and went spinning out of orbit when you attempted to tie it into politics.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think this is a prime opportunity for Democrats

Aren't they the ones with the largest families and the greatest number living in poverty?

0 Replies

Why?

Have you read the article?

The pro-life/ pro-choice battle has been very much at the center of politics for many years now. Lots of things have shown that the Democrats have been hurt by their hardline stance on abortion (legal, completely, all types), but backing down isn't really an option, either.

Focusing on contraception/ prevention would seem to be a good way for them to make some headway on this issue.

What, exactly, do you disagree with there?

0 Replies

Miller, I don't know. What I am talking about is in terms of platforms; in terms of helping the Democratic party do well politically.

0 Replies

The article is rife with explicit and implicit connections to politics; this is just a sample:

Quote:

Democrats, meanwhile, have had their difficulty with the abortion issue, and their new hopes are pinned to a strategy that focuses on contraception as a way to reduce unintended pregnancy. Last month, Senators Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton an anti-abortion Democrat and an abortion rights Democrat introduced legislation that would require insurance companies to cover contraceptives. In part, the idea is to force Republicans to support contraception or be branded as reactionaries. The conservative counter was that giving even more government backing to emergency contraception and other escape hatches from unwanted pregnancy will lead to a new wave of sexual promiscuity. An editorial in the conservative magazine Human Events characterized the effect of such legislation as "enabling more low-income women to have consequence-free sex."

0 Replies

I'm not sure why this would be a big issue for anyone except the radical fundamental religious folks, which I think are in far smaller numbers (in comparison to non funamental religious folks) than people think they are.

I would certainly hope that teaching contraception and preventing unwanted pregnancy is more than a political talking point.

0 Replies

Certainly.

Political talking points and platforms do exist, however, and one would hope that they even are a major consideration for voters (as opposed to, say, tone of voice or warmth of smile...)

I don't know how big of an issue this is -- the article seems to indicate that it's not insignificant. I encourage you to read it, if you haven't. Random-ish factoid:

Quote:

If there is a place where anti-birth-control conservatives speak their subtext regarding sex, it is in the abstinence movement, where the message is "just don't do it." Federal support for abstinence education in schools which teaches kids the benefits of saving their virginity until marriage began in 1981, but the program muddled along for years and was tangled for a time in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that charged that it was explicitly Christian in context. Under President Bush, spending increased significantly: the 2007 budget calls for $204 million to support abstinence programs (up from $80 million in 2001).

0 Replies

Sex and all of it's flavors is very much a political issue: birth control -- look at the whole FDA nonsense re: Plan B a few months back - gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion.

Birth control has been a huge talking point on both sides for a long time. Remember Joycelyn Elders? She lost her job for talking about birth control and mastrabation.

This is really just my long bookmark because I need to find time to read the article first....

0 Replies

I think they'll have a hard time overturning Griswold vs. Connecticut, see a summary of the Griswold case. My favorite part is Justice Stewart's dissent (he actually would not have found the prohibition against birth control for married couples to be unconstitutional, but his dicta are priceless): "Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine."

Anyway, I'm doubting any ban on contraception will fly (hoping it won't fly) because I think most conservatives will rightfully equate it with too much governmental interference in their private lives. After all, if you don't want the government to tell you whether you can have certain guns, I gotta figure you don't want the government to tell you what you can and cannot put in or on your body if you're over 18 and not hurting anyone else.

You can have my diaphragm when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

0 Replies

"...or even asinine."

Love it.

Yeah, that's kind of the center of what I'm getting at. The article indicates (and may be wrong, I'm willing to listen, seemed pretty convincing though) that it's where a lot of the politically active religious right that Bush and the Republicans have been courting want to go... and if they want to go there, I think that'll only help the Democrats.

0 Replies

Disclaimer: I didn't read the full article yet.

I definitely see it as a potential wedge. How many times have we seen in politics a good idea get torched by associating it with a radically related one. Healthcare is one example -- attempts to improve the system through governmental means are tied to the one or two people who want a complete government takeover. Gay marriage advocates are portrayed as wanting to destroy marriage and "normalize" homosexuality (ie. make others accept it). Gun control legislation = they want to take our guns. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Democrats to portray the anti-abortion movement as anti-birth control and anti-women (which is essentially what anti-birth control is). The public is only slightly anti-abortion, generally opposing late term and repeat abortions but recognizing the social importance of it remaining legal. If you threw birth control in the pot you'd see a pretty big shift to pro-choice.

0 Replies

I doubt the can over turn Griswold vs Connecticut but the can conduct a campaign similar to the anti smoking campaign that would end government funding of any sort and attempt to make contraception socially unacceptable.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

How many times have we seen in politics a good idea get torched by associating it with a radically related one. [..] I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Democrats to portray the anti-abortion movement as anti-birth control and anti-women (which is essentially what anti-birth control is).

But vice-versa of course, religious conservatives apparently will be trying to "torch" anti-conception (make it less socially acceptible again) by associating it with abortion...

0 Replies

Maybe, but I don't think they'll get too far with that. Religious conservatives by themselves are still a minority in this country. Pushing on the contraception issue would be a mistake on their part as it would cause a rift between them and the rest of the Republican party, as well as a popular backlash. Contraception is widely used and appreciated by the nation's women, and any attempt to restrict its use will be perceived as a push to return to the days of women as second class citizens. If they want to tie the albatross of anti-contraception around the neck of the pro-life movement, well, that would be great.

0 Replies

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean proclaim that abortion has actually gone up since Bush took office in 2001.

Dean says by as much as 25%.

I guess they figure it's easier to just lie.

0 Replies

I suppose - and I'm not even being sarcastic at all - that there are numbers which show this is not true, which you will be glad to present, Sierra?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Mostly reading along here, but I thought I'd post a link to Polling Report's page of opinion polls about abortion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

The ghist of it seems to be this:

(a) To the extent that Americans express an opinion, they are split more or less 50:50 between 'pro choice' and 'pro life'.

(b) A majority of Americans wants tougher legislation on late term abortions.

(c) A majority of Americans -- certainly not the same as in b) -- wants to uphold Roe v. Wade. This Supreme Court decision permits curbs on third-trimester abortions, regulations for the mother's health during the second trimester, but no regulation during the first trimester, when most abortions occur.

(d) A majority of Americans opposes a recent anti-abortion law in South Dakota, which prohibits all abortions, except those saving the life of the mother.

(e) It isn't clear which way the trend goes. Some polls find a trend towards pro-life over the last 10 years, others find one towards pro-choice. The most likely interpretation, in my view, is that Americans have made up their minds about the issue, and they aren't changing them much over time. Independent of that, there is something unexplained going on at the pollsters to make them find trends that aren't there.

***

Putting all this together, I can see the Republicans winning elections by advocating incremental restrictions on abortion. But I just don't see how advocacy against contraceptives can possibly do them more good than harm.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Why?

Have you read the article?

The pro-life/ pro-choice battle has been very much at the center of politics for many years now. Lots of things have shown that the Democrats have been hurt by their hardline stance on abortion (legal, completely, all types), but backing down isn't really an option, either.

Focusing on contraception/ prevention would seem to be a good way for them to make some headway on this issue.

What, exactly, do you disagree with there?

What i disagree with is what i see as the rather quixotic contention that the Democrats can make a productive and useful issue for themselves out of this, politically speaking. It's either gonna be a yawner and a big "Huh?" for most voters, or its gonna piss off the religious right. It's not as though the Democrats need to hunt up issues on which to piss off the religious right; it's not as if this would fire up the voters who haven't the same prejudices as the religious right.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What i disagree with is what i see as the rather quixotic contention that the Democrats can make a productive and useful issue for themselves out of this, politically speaking. It's either gonna be a yawner and a big "Huh?" for most voters, or its gonna piss off the religious right. It's not as though the Democrats need to hunt up issues on which to piss off the religious right; it's not as if this would fire up the voters who haven't the same prejudices as the religious right.

So what is the alternative - ignoring the issue? I dont see how, when you're being battered on an issue, pretending its not there is gonna help you in any way. (Remember Kerry's "rope-a-dope strategy"?).

Trying to find and push an alternative angle that might change the framing of the debate in your favour seems like a sensible enough thing to do.

0 Replies

Contra-contraception: An Opening For the Democrats?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know