Matt C. Abbott
The contraception controversy
By Matt C. Abbott
In recent weeks, the "Does contraception reduce the number of abortions?" debate has popped back up, thanks to two bills introduced in the House of Representatives, a recent conference sponsored by the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, and a commentary published in The Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle and other publications.
The commentary, by William Saletan, takes a positive view of contraception and a negative view of those who oppose it.
Writes Saletan:
"In short, the good news is that we no longer have to fight about abortion. The bad news is that we're now fighting about contraception. The old question was abortion as birth control. The new question is abortion or birth control. To lower the abortion rate, we need more contraception. And that means confronting politicians who stand in the way."
Saletan "answers" certain arguments put forth by contraception opponents in the following paragraph:
"The objectors make several arguments. They point out that birth control pills, like morning-after pills, can block implantation of an embryo. But there's no evidence this has ever happened. The chance is theoretical, and breastfeeding poses the same chance, so you'd have to stamp that out, too. Critics also note that many birth control methods can fail. That's true, but it's an argument for using two methods, not zero. Third, they protest that federal family planning money supports Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions. But only 14 percent of this money goes to the organization, and fewer than 9 percent of Planned Parenthood clients go there to have an abortion. Above all, the critics insist that contraception will backfire. As the Youngstown diocese puts it, 'Promotion of contraception leads to more extramarital sexual intercourse, which leads to more unwanted pregnancies, which leads to more abortions.'"
Saletan continues:
"The belief that you're protected does make it easier to say yes. But denying that contraceptives reduce your risk of pregnancy is as crazy as denying that an umbrella reduces your risk of getting wet. Does the increased risk from more sex outweigh the decreased risk from more protection? Do the math. On average, contraception lowers the odds of pregnancy by a factor of seven. If you're capable of having seven times as much sex, congratulations. The rest of us will get pregnant less often, not more."
But Father Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, strongly disagrees with Saletan.
"The pro-abortion side uses deceptive rhetoric and sometimes downright lies to make the case that contraception reduces the need for abortion, but we can counter their lies very easily with some common sense," says Father Euteneuer.
"If contraception reduces the need for abortion, then a contracepting society would have few or no abortions, right? Well, we are that society, so why do we still have 1.3 million surgical abortions per year? The answer is very simple: Contraception is abortion's best friend because it fails.
"Face the facts: Sixty percent of women going into abortion mills admit they are there because of failed contraception. That is a shocking statistic if you think about it, and it comes from the abortion industry, not any pro-life source."
But what about those in the abortion industry who continue to assert that contraception reduces the number of abortions?
"They are lying — as usual," says Father Euteneuer.
Indeed.
(Three essays on the subject can be found here, here and here.)
© Matt C. Abbott
In recent weeks, the "Does contraception reduce the number of abortions?" debate has popped back up, thanks to two bills introduced in the House of Representatives, a recent conference sponsored by the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, and a commentary published in The Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle and other publications.
The commentary, by William Saletan, takes a positive view of contraception and a negative view of those who oppose it.
Writes Saletan:
"In short, the good news is that we no longer have to fight about abortion. The bad news is that we're now fighting about contraception. The old question was abortion as birth control. The new question is abortion or birth control. To lower the abortion rate, we need more contraception. And that means confronting politicians who stand in the way."
Saletan "answers" certain arguments put forth by contraception opponents in the following paragraph:
"The objectors make several arguments. They point out that birth control pills, like morning-after pills, can block implantation of an embryo. But there's no evidence this has ever happened. The chance is theoretical, and breastfeeding poses the same chance, so you'd have to stamp that out, too. Critics also note that many birth control methods can fail. That's true, but it's an argument for using two methods, not zero. Third, they protest that federal family planning money supports Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions. But only 14 percent of this money goes to the organization, and fewer than 9 percent of Planned Parenthood clients go there to have an abortion. Above all, the critics insist that contraception will backfire. As the Youngstown diocese puts it, 'Promotion of contraception leads to more extramarital sexual intercourse, which leads to more unwanted pregnancies, which leads to more abortions.'"
Saletan continues:
"The belief that you're protected does make it easier to say yes. But denying that contraceptives reduce your risk of pregnancy is as crazy as denying that an umbrella reduces your risk of getting wet. Does the increased risk from more sex outweigh the decreased risk from more protection? Do the math. On average, contraception lowers the odds of pregnancy by a factor of seven. If you're capable of having seven times as much sex, congratulations. The rest of us will get pregnant less often, not more."
But Father Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, strongly disagrees with Saletan.
"The pro-abortion side uses deceptive rhetoric and sometimes downright lies to make the case that contraception reduces the need for abortion, but we can counter their lies very easily with some common sense," says Father Euteneuer.
"If contraception reduces the need for abortion, then a contracepting society would have few or no abortions, right? Well, we are that society, so why do we still have 1.3 million surgical abortions per year? The answer is very simple: Contraception is abortion's best friend because it fails.
"Face the facts: Sixty percent of women going into abortion mills admit they are there because of failed contraception. That is a shocking statistic if you think about it, and it comes from the abortion industry, not any pro-life source."
But what about those in the abortion industry who continue to assert that contraception reduces the number of abortions?
"They are lying — as usual," says Father Euteneuer.
Indeed.
(Three essays on the subject can be found here, here and here.)
© Matt C. Abbott
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
