"Post Fertilization Effects"
While checking out issues raised in a guest post by Djinn at Feminist Mormon Housewives warning about government efforts to redefine most *effective* forms of contraception as abortion I ran across a couple of cool posts and articles.
First, this cool NYT article, "Contra-Contraception" by Russell Shorto back in 2006. Shorto begins with a quote by Robinson Crusoe author Daniel Defoe to the effect that sex with contraception makes women, even married women, "whores." He then quotes a number of Bush administration appointees and backers who couldn't agree more with Defoe.
Oh, why not just restate the comment I left there?
While support for birth control among people of deep faith is far higher overall there’s a strong (and heavily recruited by control-women types) contingent that’s uncomfortable with non-barrier, non-”rhythm” types. For instance while the Christian Medical and Dental Association pretty clearly endorses combined estrogen/progesterone contraceptives they object to IUDs, progesterone-only contraceptives such as the “mini pill,” and emergency contraceptives might somehow have what they call a “post-fertilization effect.”
And on *that* side of the debate they're actually the good guys! There are others who believe, passionately (as “Robinson Crusoe” author Daniel Defoe did) that unless it’s strictly for reproduction then even sex in marriage is "Conjugal Lewdness: or, Matrimonial Whoredom!"
This nearly 300-year-old opinion wouldn’t be at all relevant except that President Bush keeps appointing adherents to that view like Eric Keroack (deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services) or Joseph Stanford (F.D.A.’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee) who both insist that contraception is “disrespectful” of women. Stanford’s concern was that men might begin to see their wives as “objects of sexual pleasure.” Oh, he also appointed the passionately conservative Leon Kass to a bioethics panel on reproduction. This would be the Leon Kass who’s written “when we are sexually active we are voting with our genitalia for our own demise” so you can imagine how he feels about contraception!
Again, this wouldn’t be an issue if, you know, people like George Bush, his backers, and his appointees weren’t persistently trying to make that position federal policy.
The upshot? If Djinn at fMh overstated her case she merely overstated it, she isn’t just crying “wolf.” The wolves are real.
There was also a solid article on this at Salon that came out around the same time as the NYT piece.
This stuff is all part of a consistent pattern: The idea that fertilization occurs when egg meets sperm is what underlies "pro-life" opposition to Plan B as well. Of course, since medically there's no real difference between Plan B and other hormonal forms of birth control, pro-life extremists view *all* of them as abortifacients. Never mind that by the medical definition, conception occurs when the zygote implants.
Also, if you read the NYT article, you see people popping up who've shown themselves to be extremists in other areas as well. Take Leslee Unruh, who was also one of the driving forces behind the almost-total abortion ban in South Dakota that was eventually nullified by the voters.
These are also by and large the same people who are trying to redefine abortion as an act that exploits passive and ignorant women. And anyone who imagines this is still a fringe view should read Justice Kennedy's opinion (for the majority) in Gonzales v. Carhart.
The wolves don't represent the majority of "pro-life" Americans who in fact support birth control (including the hormonal methods) - but if they are few in number, they are large in ambition and energy. And while I'm willing to believe some of them are legitimately motivated to "save babies," *all* of them see sexuality and liberated women as dangerous and in need of control.
As for me, I kind of like the sound of "conjugal lewdness." :-)
[Yeah, it's kind of a cool concept... except, of course, for the 24/7 "missionary" fetishists for whom lewdness would be as out of place as polka music at a BDSM party. Levity aside, though, you're right that neither the NYT piece, the Salon piece, my post, nor perhaps any other single source is likely to catalog the full array of opponents of contraception. Thanks, Sungold. --fl]
My point isn't that you failed to catalog the full array of these people - but rather that the same names keep coming up again - such as the charming Ms. Leslee Unruh (who I suspect is acting out against being saddled with a silly spelling of her name). This is a relatively small group of people with monstrous influence.