Protecting life or regulating sex?
Despite the culture-war rhetoric on both the left and the right, there’s mostly agreement in the abortion debate. The American Enterprise Institute’s Karlyn Bowman has spent decades analyzing public opinion on this topic, and in her most recent dispatch she wrote, “Most Americans do not want to repeal Roe v. Wade. At the same time, however, they are willing to put significant restrictions on abortion. Majorities of Americans favor notification of spouses, parental consent, and 24-hour waiting periods. They support first-term abortions, but oppose second and third trimester ones.”
Even libertarians argue about it. It’s an issue that, for most Americans, is colored in shades of gray.
But what about those who protest? Is it really just a battle between those who want to protect the “right to life” versus those who want to protect a woman’s “choice?” Or are the loudest culture warriors using pro-life rhetoric as a veil for the regulation of sex?
In recent weeks, a series of articles and medical reports have built up the evidence for the latter.
First came Russell Shorto’s brilliant cover story in the New York Times Magazine, where he compellingly demonstrated that for many opponents of abortion, the war on contraception is of equal importance.
“For the past 33 years,” Shorto wrote, “American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception.”
From birth control pills to condoms, from emergency contraception to sex education, this battle–waged by just a few–has manifested itself in so many facets of the American polity that it can only be described as a War on Sex. At the urging of these culture warriors, the Bush administration has politicized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), shortchanged funding for condoms in Africa, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on abstinence-only education in American schools. Never mind the fact that many of these efforts have brought about disastrous outcomes.
In April 2004, the FDA’s own advisory council voted overwhelmingly to support over-the-counter status for Barr Laboratories’ emergency contraceptive Plan B. Despite that recommendation, however, the FDA denied that status. Although it is theoretically possible for Plan B to prevent a fertilized egg from making it to the womb, the drug usually works–just like birth control–by preventing ovulation. Experts cited by Planned Parenthood estimate wider access to Plan B could prevent 800,000 abortions each year. Inflated? Surely. But preventing even a fraction of that figure should be a worthy goal.
When it comes to AIDS relief in Africa, American money is allocated according to a very specific formula, which mandates that at least 33 percent of all money dedicated to preventive efforts must be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. A moral aversion to condoms has arguably contributed to the deaths of countless Africans. Even the Catholic Church, citing the prevalence of AIDS in Africa, may be modifying its position in the condom debate.
And when it comes to abstinence-only education, millions are spent on a program that, as we learned in 2004, teaches such nuggets as “a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms”; “‘in heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31 percent of the time”; and “forty-one percent of heterosexual teen girls and 50 percent of homosexual teen boys have HIV.” As one could probably guess, most studies suggest that condoms are effective in preventing pregnancy and protecting against HIV at least 98 percent of the time. And those HIV figures are laughable.
Soon after Shorto’s New York Times Magazine essay, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) launched a campaign encouraging women to ask their doctors for advance prescriptions for emergency contraception. Needless to say, ACOG’s crusade has infuriated many cultural conservatives. At Townhall.com, commentator Nathan Tabor wrote, “what’s to prevent the pill from getting into the hands of the woman’s impressionable 13-year-old daughter, who sees the pill as a good excuse to ‘hook up’ with a boy she barely knows?”
Longtime political analyst Norm Ornstein–a radical centrist, if there is such a thing–blames these trends on “a sliver of the pro-life movement” that is “[most] interested in seeing sex as something that should be sharply discouraged and punished.” Thus, he went on to say, “any moves made that could encourage people to have sex–even if the process of doing so would substantially reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies–are going to result in a sharp, visceral, emotional opposition from a core group of conservatives.”
Ornstein was most passionate when discussing Gardasil, a vaccine for cervical cancer that works by effectively blocking the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease that afflicts at least 50 percent of sexually active men and women at some point in their lives. Leading, in rare cases, to cervical cancer, Gardasil was finally approved by the FDA this past week. But the drug caused much consternation among culture warriors, because, as Steven Groopman of the New Republic wrote, “the Christian right [seems] to view the vaccine as a license for promiscuity.”
But the battle over the cancer vaccine is just beginning. While public health advocates are already lobbying for Gardasil to be added to the list of mandatory inoculations, many social conservatives stand ready to wage war.
In a carefully worded statement issued earlier this year, Focus on the Family offered their support for “widespread” availability of the vaccine, but announced their strong opposition to “mandatory HPV vaccinations.” As their statement argued, “the seriousness of HPV . . . underscores the significance of God’s design for sexuality to human well-being. Thus, Focus on the Family affirms–above any available health intervention–abstinence until marriage and faithfulness after marriage as the best and primary practice in preventing HPV[.]”
As Ornstein explained, “The tradeoff on the cervical cancer vaccine is that many, many women die unnecessarily because the vaccine may prevent a tiny number of adolescents who otherwise wouldn’t have sex from doing so. No reasonable person can accept that as a trade off.” Just like condoms in Africa and emergency contraception in the U.S., Ornstein continued, “you’ve got people that are just blind to the notion that there are tradeoffs here.” By ignoring “the real trade offs” in order to “promote a greater morality,” he argued, “tens of thousands of people die.”
As a nation that enshrines the “pursuit of happiness” in our founding document, it’s hard to contend that there’s any place for the regulation of sex. And considering that 98 percent of women who have ever had sex used contraception, it’s hard to imagine that many Americans disagree.
That “sliver of the pro-life movement,” however, wields an outsized political clout, and their pro-choice counterparts on the far left of the spectrum find it difficult to focus on anything but Roe v. Wade. But there is still a chance for sanity.
Late last month, London School of Economics philosopher Luc Bovens published a paper that took direct issue with those who condone the rhythm method as a form of birth control. Because that method is successful due to less viable embryos, Bovens argues that the pro-life line of reasoning should find that the rhythm method is even more deadly than condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, and emergency contraception. The blogosphere erupted upon its publication, because besides banning sex, there’s not much left for the culture warriors to lobby for.
And in last Sunday’s Washington Post, an anonymous, married, 42-year-old mother penned an op-ed about her recent abortion. As she explained, “One Thursday evening this past March, [my husband and I] managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm.” Unable to purchase Plan B over-the-counter, and with a gynecologist who wouldn’t prescribe the drug, the op-ed’s author took her chances–and wound up pregnant. She decided to have an abortion.
As Norm Ornstein explained, “[this abortion] would be decried by the very people who made sure she didn’t have Plan B available. As you see more stories like that, I think it’s going to change the nature of the debate.”
Or so one can hope.
David White, a former assistant editor at The American Enterprise, is a writer in Washington.
12 Comments - add your own
Tim Carney — June 19, 2006 at 11:12 am
A few questions for the author:
1) Do you believe Griswold was rightly decided?
2) Do you believe the government should mandate HPV vaccine?
3) Do you believe the gynecologist should have been required to prescribe Plan B?
4) Do you believe “Dana L.’s” gripe is legitimate?
Tim Carney — June 19, 2006 at 11:15 am
p.s. As a culture warrior, it even deepens my worry about our culture that the author doesn’t seem to consider for a moment that there is a moral distinction between married sex and extra-marital sex.
David White — June 19, 2006 at 11:46 am
Tim –
1) Yes.
2) The government currently mandates DOZENS and DOZENS of vaccines. With HPV, between 50-80% (I used the smaller number to be safe) of sexually active men and women contract it at some point in their lives. Every once in a while, HPV results in cancer. Is there a public health imperative that the HPV vaccine be included with all the others? I’d argue there certainly is — as for the reason, I agree with Ornstein’s sentiments.
3) No. A doctor shouldn’t be treated too much differently from other service providers. If I go to a mechanic to get my transmission replaced, and the dealership says “We don’t want to give you a transmission,” that’s their prerogative. That’s also where (to answer #4) I think Dana L. could have pursued many other avenues prior to getting an abortion. Alas, getting an abortion (sadly) is easier than finding a few different gynecologists. Nonetheless, if our mutual goal is to reduce the number of abortions, then we would find much greater success if Plan B were more widely available.
And that’s where Dana L.’s piece hit the hardest.
As for your postscript, of course there’s a moral difference between marital and pre-marital sex. But — and please don’t pull out cries of relativism ÃÂââ?ìâ?? a.) that’s a moral difference you and I see, and b.) the government is in no place to impose morals upon anti-theists, atheists, agnostics, religious groups that don’t see a difference, individuals that don’t see a difference, etc. People have sex. And there’s nothing you or I (or the government) can or should do about it. As members of a free society, we should recognize the value of a country that doesn’t regulate the type of sex people have. Is it realistic to ban (or otherwise regulate) pre-marital sex?
To argue on behalf of government regulation would establish yet another precedent to curtail our civil liberties and would exemplify the principles of a Loco Parentis government. Is there a government role to play? Removing, for a moment, the precedent of spending yet MORE taxpayer dollars (where I would take issue), then sure, the government can ENCOURAGE people to make wise decisions. Hell, have an ad campaign.
But if conservatism is about personal responsibility ÃÂââ?ìâ?? a positive goal ÃÂââ?ìâ?? then the state should leave people alone to decide moral values for themselves.
Tim Carney — June 19, 2006 at 12:14 pm
David,
Thanks for the response. I agree that the government should leave us alone mostly when it comes to sex. I think I believe that more than you do.
I imagine you used the term “regulate sex” as intentionally provocative, and I (of all people) can’t blame a writer for that. But I believe you cloud the issue by overusing the term.
If I oppose over-the-counter availability of an abortifacient, am I regulating sex, or regulating abortion?
If I oppose the use of my taxpayer money for condoms or education that endorses (and I went to NYState Public schools, and so I know “endorses” is not an overstatement) premarital sex, which side is regulating sex?
Not everyone on my side in the culture war will agree, but I fight it in a defensive posture. The other side wants to use my money to teach my children modern secular liberal morality. It wants to force all pharmacists to prescribe abortifacients or find another line of work. And in Griswold and Roe, it wants to use illegitimate means to overturn our Constitution and our tradition of local control and states’ rights.
It’s not a war on sex, David. It’s a war on traditional morality.
The beautiful irony is that the “anti-sex” side will be aided immensely by our huge families.
Matthew Mehan — June 19, 2006 at 2:07 pm
“When it comes to AIDS relief in Africa, American money is allocated according to a very specific formula, which mandates that at least 33 percent of all money dedicated to preventive efforts must be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. A moral aversion to condoms has arguably contributed to the deaths of countless Africans. Even the Catholic Church, citing the prevalence of AIDS in Africa, may be modifying its position in the condom debate.”
David, you need to keep up better with your sex war because you have managed to accidentally perpetuate very daffy inaccuracies by having failed to do so. Here are two examples from just the one paragraph quoted from your piece:
1) Abstinence education ups the AIDS epidemic: false…
http://www.mercatornet.com/content/view/86/0/
2)the Catholic Church is changing its stance on condoms: also false…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI5ZGZlN2YxNTgzNWNhOTdiMzY1ODc3ZGMzZjk2YmM=
The links are to very clear refutations: The first is bpacked with the stats you need to be convinced you are wrong and the second is from a satisfactory authority, Father Thomas D. Williams, LC, a moral theologian and dean of the theology school at Rome’s Regina Apostolorum University, who also serves as Vatican Analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.
as an aside, you may also want to revise the list of allies and enemies in your sex war after reading these two pieces.
Matthew Mehan — June 19, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Your words: [And when it comes to abstinence-only education, millions are spent on a program that, as we learned in 2004, teaches such nuggets as "a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms"; "'in heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31 percent of the time"; and "forty-one percent of heterosexual teen girls and 50 percent of homosexual teen boys have HIV." As one could probably guess, most studies suggest that condoms are effective in preventing pregnancy and protecting against HIV at least 98 percent of the time. And those HIV figures are laughable.]
My words: Here is another outmoded weapon from your sex war. You’ve no doubt pulled this from the Rep. Henry Waxman(D) report that tried to humiliate the absitinence programs. My guess is you stopped at the Washington Post coverage of this old issue. The following link is a solid debunking of the Waxman report as wildly inaccurate in its claims of inaccuracies in the abstinence programs of the 2004 plan. No one wants to go to bat for every single program that was UP for approval, but Waxman is not a trusted informant in your sex war. And agreed, the Heritage Foundation has its biases too, but at least Heritage provided facts and footnotes, Waxman did not.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm615.cfm
David, if you are going to claim that abstinence programs mislead people with lies, it is recommended that you get your facts straight. Please forgive my open irritation, but your work in this regard is, as you put it, “laughable”, and I, like you, do not find the death of millions in Africa and thousands here at home a laughing matter.
Matthew Mehan — June 19, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Also:
This will correct a egregious error in your piece regarding the false rumor you claim is true: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI5ZGZlN2YxNTgzNWNhOTdiMzY1ODc3ZGMzZjk2YmM=
And this may go some length to disproving the outrageous slander you lay at the foot of those who would recommend abstinence for Africa:
http://www.mercatornet.com/content/view/258/0
http://www.mercatornet.com/content/view/86/0
David White — June 19, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Matt:
Although I sincerely appreciate your response to my piece, I’m not sure how a Heritage study regarding teen sex and suicide relates supports the specific claims I was debunking (condom failure, gay teens, etc).
Since 1996, when a provision in the welfare reform bill stipulated that states match federal funds for abstinence-only programs, the federal government has spent around $1 billion on abstinence-only education.
Considering that it is nearly impossible to find a single study proving the effectiveness of abstinence-only education (for a quick example, read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/) ÃÂââ?ìâ?? any there are many studies that illustrate it doesn’t work ÃÂââ?ìâ?? one would hope that, if tax payer dollars have to be used, we could at least be pragmatic about it.
What does that mean? ABC ÃÂââ?ìâ?? Abstinence before contraception.
Why? Because when it comes to sex ed, we do know a few things: When teens who have only received abstinence-only education have sex, they’re less likely to use condoms or other contraceptives. And ÃÂââ?ìà?abstinence-onlyÃÂââ?ìÃÂàteens do have sex. Studies suggest that nearly 90 percent of teens who pledge virginity in middle school and high school have sex before they marry.
And, because of their education, they don’t know about STDs, they don’t know about contraceptives, etc. And that, in a nutshell, lends quite a bit of evidence towards those who point to abstinence-only education as one reason why the U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world and an astounding number of abortions.
Listen: I hate taxes. And I don’t like federally-funded programs. But if we’re going to have a behemoth state throwing money at everything under the sun, let’s at least make sure our money is being used on programs that work.
Finally, if you’re looking for sources regarding abstinence-only education, check out NIH’s ÃÂââ?ìà?Interventions to Prevent HIV Risk BehaviorsÃÂââ?ìÃÂà(1997). The NIH, just like the American Medical Association, has denounced abstinence-only education. Can abstinence be taught alongside contraception? Of course. But let’s not ÃÂââ?ìà?teachÃÂââ?ìÃÂàignorance.
Matthew Mehan — June 22, 2006 at 12:06 pm
“Considering that it is nearly impossible to find a single study proving the effectiveness of abstinence-only education (for a quick example, read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/) ÃÂââ?ìâ?? any there are many studies that illustrate it doesn’t work ÃÂââ?ìâ?? one would hope that, if tax payer dollars have to be used, we could at least be pragmatic about it.”
1)Uganda (here is how ABC actually works on the ground. It is the exact reverse of your claims in this piece: http://www.mercatornet.com/content/view/258/0 )
and 2) all Western societies before the (poorly named, of course) “sexual revolution”. Your quest for data ignores not just present cases but the entire past of world experience.
As for the Heritage bit, I wanted you to have just one example of how the critic (Waxman) you site as truth, uses the facts fast and loose to do a hit job in a politically pressured environment. It is not a thoughtful study. Ironically, your CDC hyperlink under “Laughable” does nothing to disprove those clearly skewed data that Waxman claims were prevalent portions of the abstinence program. Waxman’s rushed and sloppy claims are presented as fact in your piece, with no background. I realize this is an opinion piece, but you are making some massive claims.
Also, if you think that children who do not receive direct school sponsored education regarding contraception do not use contraception or learn from the families and outside sources then you see the entire country as a one size fits all demographic reality that is only the inner city. Only minority poor have that problem–so says your CDC figures actually, so nationalizing–and this is not to say I agree with you but for the sake of conjecture–this sort of contraceptives and condoms program would be a ridiculous misappropriation of funds, a waste of the tax revenues we both think are too high because they are too wasteful and overreaching as it is.
Also, with respect to facts: you slander abstinence programs as being responsible for the African situation, and then by way of association you slander the Catholic Church by implying they are in part to blame because their teachings on abstinence are hurting Africans. This is false on many levels, and they are important issues you ought not to get wrong. The only abstinence program with any actual funding and support in Africa, Uganda, has seen the only dramatic turn around of the AIDS epidemic. And also, the rumor, caused by a tricky question to an Italian bishop, that claims the Church thinks it made a boo boo in its sexual ethics because of Africa has been refuted multiple times in multiple places and should be a matter of public record… (Here is one such record: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI5ZGZlN2YxNTgzNWNhOTdiMzY1ODc3ZGMzZjk2YmM= and Here is data rich argument as well: http://www.mercatornet.com/content/view/86/0 )
…So repeating slander–lies–about a group that advocates what you do not is a major problem with your argument. The abstinence programs do work. Getting people to change their behavior through education so that they do not die by the millions is what is successfully taking place in Uganda, and to push it all aside is at least irresponsible, unless (joking now) you think people don’t read Brainwash so it doesn’t matter.
Have a look through the links I provided, I readily admit that they argue better than (you or) I. And thank you for responding. Over and above the argument itself, I am glad to see a healthy debate in this very important area of our common life. Thank you for responding.
Dave F. — June 22, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Shocking that someone teaching children would exaggerate the danger of HIV. AIDS activists would never do such a thing, nor would our government.
I’m glad you wrote this, because we need to spread awareness that the best way to look out for children’s psychological and physical health is to tell them to go out and explore sexually.
Fortunately, we can compel taxpayers to help cultivate a sufficiently permissive cultural environment by educating children properly about sex at a young age. If we must risk a minor epidemic of chlamydia, gonnorhea, syphilis, or herpes, it is regrettable, but it beats a return to past ages when people felt ashamed of self-expression with multiple partners. And at least people won’t get HIV, because they’ll always use condoms like they are told.
It is lamentable that some would blame our modern-day, sensible sex education for the fact that 20% to 25% of all teens today have some kind of STD. Nor can we blame the normal, healthy exploration we are encouraging for the proliferation of common STDs from two in 1960 to 50 today.
The real problem is the anti-sex pro-lifers who complain about this.
Fortunately, I don’t know any such people, but I think I’ve figured out where they all went. Who would have thought Japan, of all places?
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060622f2.html
“Japanese people simply aren’t having sex,” Dr Kunio Kitamura, director of the Japan Family Planning Association.
Theodore DeBettencourt — June 29, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I have been checking out AFF for a little while now and like some of the articles; I also think the events they throw are great.
(I am not going to comment on the article before me; too much of an uphill battle.)
I just want to give a little insight into the Pro-Life crowd. They (we) want the United States of America, and the world as a whole, to have less abortions. I think this idea may have been lost throughout the article. To achieve this goal of “Less abortions” Pro-Lifers do multiple things. Some of which include helping women who have had abortions tell their tale (Project Rachel) and some involve trying to cultivate a culture where there are less unwanted pregnancies to begin with. So how do Pro-Lifers do that? They (we) try to stop people from having unwanted pregnancies in the first place. We do not advocate unlimited condom use as the salve to this problem; we believe that this responsibility starts at home. I keep hearing 98% that’s the number for when condoms are used correctly, not total attempts at use. Let us admit that there is a difference in this percentage, albeit not acknowledged by some. Further if there are 100 million sexually active adults, and another 30 million sexually active children in a country and condoms work 98% of the time then that is still a ton of pregnancies. If you lower the rate of condom effectiveness as in being used correctly then this unwanted pregnancy number is evenly larger, obviously.
So now you know what Pro-Lifers want to achieve, and you now know that it is not just through activism by telling people with unwanted pregnancies that it is murder. Like any weed you have to attack the root, and that is what the Pro-lifers are trying to do.
I understand that these articles use provoking words to stir emotions as stated earlier, I am just wondering why this is needed for a Libertarian/Conservative audience?
A tad on the last post (to fun to pass up). Japan is probably having enough sex, but they are not mating. I can be over sexed but never have mated. I do not think that people in Japan are having less sex, they are just not reproducing. I would imagine Fornication numbers and having fewer children are more closely tied than the last poster tries to assume. Good try though.
I do think the term Anti-Sex is kinda funny though, consider how many children us ÃÂââ?ìà?Anti-SexersÃÂââ?ìÃÂàhave opposed to our libertine counterparts.
Kurt — July 23, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I have a business concept that I think represents a win-win solution so that we can all be happy.
There is one form of birth control that is 100% effective. It is vasectomy. Cryo-preservation techniques for ova have been perfected (sperm cryopreservation has been around for a long time).
Offer vasectomy/ova-sperm banking for young people who want the option of having kids later on in life. They cryopreserve their sperm and ova, then get the vasectomy. Later, when they are financially successful and want to have kids, they thaw out the sperm and ova and then use whatever reproduction technology available at the time to have the kid.
My wife (who is Japanese) assures me that this would be tremendously popular option in Japan (and other Asian countries). Perhaps it would be successful in the U.S. (and Europe) as well.
I also think that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade would be a tremendous marketing opportunity for this start-up opportunity. The reason being is that some of the state bans on abortion do not allow for the possibility of terminating a pregnancy as a result of rape. Imagine: You and your wife could be forced to bear and raise a child that resulted as a consequence of a rape, a violent crime that your wife certainly did not concent to. Imagine that! I consider such a scenario as an excellent feedstock for the marketing campaign for the start-up.
The only way to resolve the abortion/accidental pregancy issue is to allow science to complete the separation of sex and reproduction. My start-up idea is a good step in this direction.