On June 7, 2008 you can march to protest . . . the voluntary use of birth control pills . . . Huh?

May 7, 2008 | By | 7 Replies More

The “American Life League” is putting out this silly garbage. They are trying to make it illegal for anyone to purchase birth control pills. This would put us back to the 1965 case of Griswold v Connecticut.

Consider some of the this wacko group’s talking points:

Q: Is it OK to take the pill for my acne or other health reasons?
A: Although the pill may have some minor benefits, the fact that it can kill preborn babies and cause harmful side effects for the woman outweighs its minor benefits. Because the pill weakens the immune system, it can cause bacterial infections and can make a woman more susceptible to the AIDS virus. It can also cause the following side effects: pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, cervical cancer, ectopic pregnancy, shrinking of the womb, breast cancer, blood clots, birth defects in children conceived while their mothers are on the pill, stroke, weight gain and much more. 2,3,4

Q: Isn’t it better to be on the pill when you
are sexually active?
A: Better for whom? The pill does not prevent you from getting a sexually transmitted disease, it is not 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and you could conceive a child who gets chemically aborted before the baby’s presence is even known to you. Moreover, sexual activity outside of marriage is seriously wrong.

These are not new tactics (these arguments have been used by “pregnancy resource centers” for years), but it’s as stupid as it’s ever been. These “conservatives” want to government to have the power to dictate private sexual behavior between consenting adults (including married consenting adults). Unbelievable.

The media needs to hit McCain in the head with this blunt question: “Do you support the right of American adults to freely choose from all available birth control pills and devices, without any interference from the government?” Make McCain decide if he wants to publicly assume the looney side of this issue too.


Tags: , , , , ,

Category: Health, Medicine, Reproductive Rights, Sex

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erika Price says:

    Waaait a second here…the pill is not advisable because it fails to do something that it doesn't purport to do? And if it isn't a 100% perfect way to prevent pregnancy, it's no good at all (ignoring that perfect use is associated with 99.9% efficacy)? Hm…You know, I'm starting to suspect these folks don't care about the logic of their arguments at all! Ain't that the darndest thing.

    Oh that McCain. I don't envy his position in the slightest. To be marketable to religious conservative voters, he'll have to adopt some really ridiculous positions, at the risk of losing that illusion that he is "moderate". Or maybe he'll just take a breathtakingly conservative running mate? That seems like the politically "wisest" choice to me. VPs can take more flak than presidents.

  2. Erich Vieth says:

    Erika, check this out: McCain says that he doesn’t know whether condoms reduce risk of HIV. If the mainstream media has any inkling to show the public who McCain really is, his whole campaign will be topedoed. About 10 years ago, I thought McCain was one of the more reasonable members of Congress. Nothing like a bunch of Neocon money pouring into your campaign to warp your views. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/03/16/john-

  3. Erika Price says:

    McCain also falls on the kooky side of the vaccine-causing-autism myth. Issues like this have me convinced that we do, in fact, need a Science Debate between the candidates. At present I see no concern in basing scientific/public health positions on actual fact. McCain is not the only one, but he is certainly the worst offender of the mainstream candidates.

    The science debate movement, of course, is here: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com

  4. Dan Klarmann says:

    How does this tie in with the right of pharmacists to override the rights of doctors and patients in regards to filling birth control prescriptions?

    More obliquely: How does this tie in with the needs of the prison lobby, who know that the majority of violent offenders start out as unwanted children?

  5. Vicki Baker says:

    shrinking of the womb

    I thought it was higher education that did this. You know, broaden your mind, narrow your uterus.

  6. Erika Price says:

    I'd like to discuss something related to Dan's comment, even at the risk of being slightly off-topic. Should pharmacists be able to refuse "plan B" pills, or even birth control pills to patients with prescriptions? Some extreme conservatives think so.

    BUT, many of these extreme conservatives, most of them religious Christians, oppose Scientology. Scientologists don't believe in psychiatric drugs. Should a Scientologist pharmacist have the right to refuse a depressed person their Prozac, or even a bipolar person their lithium? Based on the logic of Christians' anti-birth control arguements, they should. But I doubt very many Christians would support such Scientologists in practice. (Though it is very unlikely that Scientologist pharmacists exist in large numbers).

  7. grumpypilgrim says:

    If someone works in a convenience store and objects to the girlie magazines being sold, she doesn't unilaterally refuse to sell the magazines: she quits her job and finds work that doesn't conflict with her religious beliefs. Likewise, if someone works in a liquor store, and converts to a religion that bans alcohol, he doesn't continue collecting his liquor store paycheck while refusing to sell booze: he quits working in liquor stores, because taking the money would be immoral. It's the same logic for pharmacists: those who object to selling Plan B because of their religious beliefs should quit their jobs if they have genuine moral outrage. Continuing to collect a paycheck (some of which is generated by the sale of Plan B), while unilaterally refusing to fill prescriptions for Plan B, is pure hypocrisy. If someone truly had a moral problem, he'd resign.

Leave a Reply