Great blog entry on birth control

[lowrioh]

I think that this is a great argument for women's rights to access birth control. This could have been written about me and DH.

http://open.salon.com/blog/froggy/2012/02/19/birth_control_made_me

[Kindra178]

Thank you for posting. So well said.

[buddyleebaby]

I think every woman should have access to birth control if she so chooses but I have to admit this paragraph made me cringe:

"Because of birth control, my husband and I are better taxpayers. I hope we are net contributors to the system and not drains on it. Because our kids were planned, wanted, and controlled in number, we don't need free school lunches, Medicaid, government cheese, clothes from the Salvation Army bin, WIC, food stamps, or used glasses from the Lions club. Because an unplanned baby didn't upend our lives, we can pay our own way."

The need for public assistance or thrift shop clothing is usually not because of a lack of planning, or irresponsible behavior. Life is unpredictable, and there are deaths, and lay-offs, and cancer diagnoses, and fires, and unplanned pregnancies while using birth control. Lots of people go to school and work hard and pay their taxes and still need help. The fact that she doesn't, doesn't make her better than anyone.

[american_mama]

I did like that article and agree with her point, but there is a slight tone of self-congratulations to it. Apparently, both her children were planned and appeared at just the desired time, and she sees how much better and easier that made her life. Great. I tend to see child planning in that way too in the abstract. But many people do not share that tightly planned approach to children, nor do they see a surprise pregnancy as ruination.

Even me, who believes in the author's point, has had more than one surprise pregnancy, including one when DH and I were dating (she is now our DD1). Lots of women have surprise pregnancies, including married ones. If there is one thing my reproductive years have taught me, it's to not overestimate your control over life. When you do, it's easy to edge towards the slight sense of superiority that I get from this article.

[ourbabygirl]

:yeahthat:

[Kindra178]

I did like that article and agree with her point, but there is a slight tone of self-congratulations to it. Apparently, both her children were planned and appeared at just the desired time, and she sees how much better and easier that made her life. Great. I tend to see child planning in that way too in the abstract. But many people do not share that tightly planned approach to children, nor do they see a surprise pregnancy as ruination.

Even me, who believes in the author's point, has had more than one surprise pregnancy, including one when DH and I were dating (she is now our DD1). Lots of women have surprise pregnancies, including married ones. If there is one thing my reproductive years have taught me, it's to not overestimate your control over life. When you do, it's easy to edge towards the slight sense of superiority that I get from this article.

I totally get your point. Surprise twins would certainly count as having less control over your reproductive life! I don't see it as a sense of superiority, though, more like the control allowed her to be more the person she wanted to be.

[lowrioh]

What I got from the article was the authors retrospective on how her life would have been so much harder had she not had access to birth control. I think a lot of people need a reality check, especially when it comes to teens and young women. Yes, I was taught abstinence. Yes, I'm sure my parents would have sworn on a bible that I was practicing it. But no, I was doing what so many other high school/college girls did and because I was able to get BC I was able to make choices about my future without taking the needs of another human being into consideration. I know that if I had gotten pregnant in HS that I would have been fine but I wouldn't have been able to do many of the things that have shaped me into the adult I am.

[marymoo86]

The tone that I get from her post is that birth control is the end all, be all solution. It isn't 100% effective and it isn't 100% safe. I always deal in exceptions so perhaps that is just my perspective and others don't read into that.

I do however agree with her larger point that she planned her family and thankfully birth control worked in her case so that she could have the family she wanted. It does seem as though she is chiding others that do plan for larger families without the resources to support them - this may or may not be intended.

[MissyAg94]

I don't like the tone of her writing at all. At all.

My question is who is trying to outlaw birth control?

[citymama]

I don't like the tone of her writing at all. At all.

My question is who is trying to outlaw birth control?

Contraception has been under attack for a long time, but some of Rick Santorum's views, I suspect, are what spurred the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-santorums-very-catholic-birth-control-beliefs/2012/02/16/gIQALczyHR_blog.html

[MissyAg94]

That blog confirmed what I knew: Santorum does NOT want to outlaw birth control.


Well, I — what I’ve talked about it with respect is my Catholic faith, which, you know, I, I agree with the Catholic Church on the issue of contraception. But as you know, I mean, I — that’s, that’s a different position than I have with respect to public policy. You know, public policy, women should have access to contraception. I have no problem with that at all.

So much to debate on the economy and foreign policy in this election and people are using scare tactics about birth control. Pathetic.

[marymoo86]

Contraception has been under attack for a long time, but some of Rick Santorum's views, I suspect, are what spurred the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-santorums-very-catholic-birth-control-beliefs/2012/02/16/gIQALczyHR_blog.html

I thought it was in response to the issue with the President's plan for Catholic institutions to provide employees with birth control coverage in their health insurance policies? At least that is the first thought that popped into my mind.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/11/us-usa-contraceptives-obama-idUSTRE8191GY20120211

[lowrioh]

Contraception has been under attack for a long time, but some of Rick Santorum's views, I suspect, are what spurred the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-santorums-very-catholic-birth-control-beliefs/2012/02/16/gIQALczyHR_blog.html

There has also been a lot of outrage from the conservative movement because the recent health care regulation requires that health insurance policies cover family planning services.

[lowrioh]

So much to debate on the economy and foreign policy in this election and people are using scare tactics about birth control. Pathetic.

Elections are almost never won by talking about what I consider the most important issues. Both sides of the aisle are guilty IMO.

[ha98ed14]

I think every woman should have access to birth control if she so chooses but I have to admit this paragraph made me cringe:

"Because of birth control, my husband and I are better taxpayers. I hope we are net contributors to the system and not drains on it. Because our kids were planned, wanted, and controlled in number, we don't need free school lunches, Medicaid, government cheese, clothes from the Salvation Army bin, WIC, food stamps, or used glasses from the Lions club. Because an unplanned baby didn't upend our lives, we can pay our own way."

The need for public assistance or thrift shop clothing is usually not because of a lack of planning, or irresponsible behavior. Life is unpredictable, and there are deaths, and lay-offs, and cancer diagnoses, and fires, and unplanned pregnancies while using birth control. Lots of people go to school and work hard and pay their taxes and still need help. The fact that she doesn't, doesn't make her better than anyone.

Me too, me too, me too!!!!! I cringed! Even though I HATE Rick Santorum. He frightens me. But this part, yeah this part went to far for me. LOTS of once-middle-class people fell on hard times and needed the cheese. Attributing her comfortable economic position to birth control is a bit much IMO. She could just have easily lost her job while her DH was in school and be unable to pay her own way! It didn't have to be an unplanned baby to derail her American Dream. It could have been a job loss, a terminal illness, death of spouse, a divorce. Assuming that people who do need public assistance are in that position because they had too many or unplanned children is insulting.

ETA: BUT I do completely support the position of the author: Women should have access to as much birth control as they need for as long as they want.

[wellyes]

Santorum gets no points for not trying to BAN birth control. Gee thanks Rick.

What he & the RC church want to do is allow employers to exclude it from standard health insurance coverage (and amnios too) on moral grounds. I consider my IUD a medical, not moral, choice and I resent this being a topic of debate.

I think the article writer isn't comparing herself to modern big families - more our grandparents generation where 9-13 kids was common (at least in Catholic families in my family tree).

[ha98ed14]

It does seem as though she is chiding others that do plan for larger families without the resources to support them - this may or may not be intended.

I agree. But *we* too have chided people (in the abstract) who plan large families that they do not have the resources to care for. There has been much debate over the years I've been here on what constitutes "support". Is it dance, gymnastics, soccer and piano lessons? Is it an all-expenses-paid college education? Is it the basics of food, clothing and shelter? Some people value siblings over soccer. But on the point raised above, where people PLAN large families with full intentions of using the public dole, then yes, I think that is worth chiding. Life happens; I believe in the welfare state. I just don't think people should count it among their own "resources" when deciding how many children to have.

[marymoo86]

I think every woman should have access to birth control if she so chooses but I have to admit this paragraph made me cringe:

"Because of birth control, my husband and I are better taxpayers. I hope we are net contributors to the system and not drains on it. Because our kids were planned, wanted, and controlled in number, we don't need free school lunches, Medicaid, government cheese, clothes from the Salvation Army bin, WIC, food stamps, or used glasses from the Lions club. Because an unplanned baby didn't upend our lives, we can pay our own way."

The need for public assistance or thrift shop clothing is usually not because of a lack of planning, or irresponsible behavior. Life is unpredictable, and there are deaths, and lay-offs, and cancer diagnoses, and fires, and unplanned pregnancies while using birth control. Lots of people go to school and work hard and pay their taxes and still need help. The fact that she doesn't, doesn't make her better than anyone.


I wonder what the response would be if this type of statement in bold would have come from a conservative viewpoint not in the context of birth control? Just from a viewpoint on planning in general "to not be drains on the public system"?

I have a feeling it would not be as generous as the comments are on Salon.

[swissair81]

She had me until this:

"Just have a cold, loveless, frustrated marriage, or have nine children you can't afford on a planet that's already overcrowded."

People who have large families have a cold loveless marriage? People have large families should be worried because the planet is overcrowded? Maybe she should get out more and meet some people. I'm pregnant with my 5th child. I guarantee her that my children are not loved, wanted, and cherished any less than hers. My marriage is not cold or loveless. If you want to end the birth control debate, do your part and stop the sniping from the pro side. It is okay to want birth control AND it is okay not to use it. Don't make everyone else who doesn't use it seem selfish because that plan doesn't work for you. Stepping off the soapbox now.

[lfp2n]

I dont think she meant that- I think she meant that as 'she' didn't want any more children, and without birth control they then couldnt have had sex- hence cold loveless etc. I also dont read this the way other people do- I dont think she is criticizing big families or other peoples choices, I think she says birth control let her make her own choices and people on the right who hate welfare ought to 'congratulate' her as she hasn't need to use it and they are always going on about people standing on their own 2 feet but at the same time supporting policies that make birth control harder to come by- ie personhood bills.

[MissyAg94]

Santorum gets no points for not trying to BAN birth control. Gee thanks Rick.

What he & the RC church want to do is allow employers to exclude it from standard health insurance coverage (and amnios too) on moral grounds. I consider my IUD a medical, not moral, choice and I resent this being a topic of debate.

No, it isn't moral grounds. It's that part of the Constitution that covers the free exercise of religion.

[niccig]

No, it isn't moral grounds. It's that part of the Constitution that covers the free exercise of religion.

Yes, and a Catholic person doesn't have to use BC, they make their own choice. I think the current controversy is that many Catholic affiliated institutions, like hospitals and universities deny coverage of BC to all their employees and many are not Catholic. So the Catholic faith is saying what they can/can't have for medical care. And not everyone uses BC for birth control - a friend uses if to cystic ovaries.

Should an employer (any employer) say what medical procedure/care you can't have?

Well the current set-up actually does this I think. So many employer insurance plans have limitations or don't cover certain things. You can still get the care, but have to pay OOP for it. But those decisions aren't made on religious grounds, but on financial grounds - the plan costs too much if it's included. I think it's the religious underpinning of their decision that is the issue.

I too have read statements about birth control being bad and shouldn't be available. Some of the personhood bills would outlaw many forms of BC - so yes, there are attempts to ban it. But based on any polls, majority of Americans support access to BC - so running on it as political policy isn't going to succeed.

[wellyes]

No, it isn't moral grounds. It's that part of the Constitution that covers the free exercise of religion.

Catholic employers have all kinds of restrictions on that expression - they can't fire someone for promiscuity or divorce or coming out as gay. The protections are for the employees, not the employer.