Social conservative darling and faithful Catholic Bobby Jindal has a piece in the Wall Street Journal (behind a pay-wall) this morning agreeing with the recent pronouncement of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that birth control pills should be available without a prescription and bought over the counter. He says the issue should be taken out of the political arena and that such a potent weapon would be taken out of the hands of Democrats:
As a conservative Republican, I believe that we have been stupid to let Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend, during debates about health-care insurance, that Republicans are somehow against birth control.
He says women have to go to a doctor for a prescription because “big government says they should, even though requiring a doctor visit to get a drug that research shows is safe helps drive up health care costs.” He also says big pharmaceutical companies benefit from such an arrangement. “They know prices would be driven down if companies had to compete in the marketplace once their contraceptives would sold over the counter.”
He does say that those with religious problems with contraceptives should also be protected and should not be forced by the government to pay for contraceptives for others.
Not long ago my wife, who works as a spokesman for the Family Research Council, was asked to do an interview on this topic. She asked me one morning, “what is our position on this?” That is a good question.
Pro-lifers tend to believe that contraception is the root cause of many societal evils; divorce, rampant misuse of sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion. Mary Eberstadt wrote an important book called Adam and Eve After the Pill, which is a persuasive case that the pill has done humongous damage to men, women, children, families, and society. Perhaps, though, the toothpaste will never get back in that tube.
I hope that other First Things and First Thoughts contributors weigh in on Jindal’s piece and his controversial proposition.
December 14th, 2012 | 9:16 am
Full disclosure: I worship within a community that is broadly considered evangelical; I’m sure (without personal knowledge) that most marriage couples in my congregation use or have used different forms of birth control. My tradition is also sectarian, this also means that I do not feel the same responsibility for the morality of the whole community that, say, a Catholic committed to a natural law ethics would feel.
I tend to follow a “Daoist” line in morality: morality arises “naturally” out of the moral and spiritual experience of the individual and community. To try to “enforce” a morality that a person does not “naturally” recognize is counter-productive. (Standard illustration: the “war on drugs” and the resulting distortions in the judicial and penal systems.)
So Jindal’s proposal makes preeminent sense: allow people to choose for themselves. They have to bear financial costs and moral consequences. Only when they do so will they change their lives.
I agree with Eberstadt on the social consequences of artificial contraception. Society is bearing those consequences anyway. Jindal’s proposal has a twofold merit: removing birth control from political debate; and placing the moral responsibility where it belongs anyway, on the individual and couple.
December 14th, 2012 | 9:56 am
I’ve just one question about this: when are they going to allow boys to take steroids without prescription?
Apparently it’s okay to ingest steroids if you’re a girl and want to pretend sex doesn’t make babies but not if you’re a boy and want your football team to take state.
December 14th, 2012 | 10:49 am
Jindal is a smart guy but doesn’t seem to understand that the question wasn’t whether contraceptives were available, but provided at public cost.
Assuming we put the pill on retail shelves, does he really think the political impulse to provide “bread and circuses” will be stopped or that Eve won’t be seduced by the serpent with another fruit from the forbidden tree?
Removing the prescription requirement will produce a backlash from the prescribing physicians, dispensing pharmacies and all the other entities that make money on Sanger’s legacy.
You would think Obama received 71% percent of the vote, not 51% the way the GOP is attempting to find ways to cloak capitulation in some grand principle. I wonder what these guys would have done in the 1930′s when FDR was not only winning by bigger margins but taking huge majorities in Congress.
The interesting thing about contraceptives is that for all the language of “choice”, they remove choice from procreation. Widespread use results in competitive procreactive limitation among those who are actually economically responsible for the care and upkeep of children. (Not so among those who rely on state-provided resources)
Even if a couple has an income to support a larger family, there are myriads of social pressures against large families, whether is some comic making a joke about people with all those kids or the disapproving stares thrown freely in stores when more than two kids are in tow.
I first noticed this nearly a decade ago, I worked for a man who then had six children, and his staff included many young, single, upwardly mobile, college educated professionals.
He had to repeatedly explain that he enjoyed the constant company of his kids, to befuddled twenty-somethings who thought anything more than an heir and a spare was indulgent irresponsibility and that they key to raising children was carefully scheduled and implicity limited “quality time” with them, but plenty of spontaneous “alone time” for the parents.
December 14th, 2012 | 11:44 am
Do murderers recognize the law against murders as applicable them?
Did segregationists not have their law arise out of their community and experience?
In an elementary school, is it proper to punish the unpopular kids for being bullied and not the popular kids for bullying? It certainly arises out of the community there, with both the kids and the teachers behind it.
December 14th, 2012 | 12:31 pm
I think Kamilla has a good point. Somebody should mention this to Gov. Jindal.
December 14th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
I read Jindal’s op-ed this morning.
I think he overlooks real concerns about the safety of the hormones involved, both to women and to the environment. Requiring a doctor’s prescription limits the damage.
And, I somewhat doubt that people who can’t find and use condoms responsibly are going to use the pill responsibly. What is the target market?
The political target is low-information women voters who were scared silly by the Democrats working in concert with Planned Parenthood this past election season.
December 14th, 2012 | 1:31 pm
Kamilla –
“Steroids” are a class, “anabolic steroids” are a sub-class. Cholesterol is a steroid, too, and we allow people to cook with canola oil without a prescription.
The same way, Islam and Christianity are both types of monotheism. Differences matter on occasion.
December 14th, 2012 | 1:36 pm
Adam Baum –
My wife and I have four kids. I have never encountered “disapproving stares”. Some people express amazement, but that’s not the same as disapproval. And the last joke along those lines I can recall of was a subjoke in Monty Python’s “Every Sperm Is Sacred” back in 1983. I still find it funny.
December 14th, 2012 | 1:37 pm
The idea of making some oral contraceptives available over the counter is obviously worth discussing. But I don’t see anything but partisan and/or populist posturing in the Jindal piece. What is the point of trying to blame “big government” for the fact that women need a prescription for oral contraceptives? If requiring a prescription for oral contraceptives is big government intrusion into women’s lives, why haven’t Republicans been on this from the beginning. The idea was seriously put forward as early as the early 1990s. Also, is there any sign that Big Pharma would oppose the sale of some OTC oral contraceptives? I don’t think it is OTC sales that cut into drug company profits. It’s the fact that bestselling drugs eventually go generic. Selling certain oral contraceptives OTC would not mean that all oral contraceptives would become available without a prescription.
I am not sure, by the way, how Jindal reconciles this position with his Catholicism. What about the Catholic claim that these drugs act as abortifacients? Has that suddenly become a nonissue?
December 14th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
Austin Ruse, I can’t help but be a little surprised at your remarks. Here is how it looks to me:
Some methods of contraception are abortifacient. The destruction of innocent human life, especially that of a newly conceived, innocent human child, must be prohibited by law.
In a civilized society the law is there to be the advocate and protector of the rights of humans who cannot effectively be their own advocate due to their being less powerful than others; it is contrary to the law’s very purpose for it to sanction the oppression, abuse or destruction of the weak, which most certainly includes newly conceived children.
In so far as contraception is abortifacient, it must be opposed based on the principle that the human right to life is inalienable, intrinsic and not dependent upon a human’s size, age, stage of development or status as a “legal person.” Simply being human is all one needs to possess the intrinsic, inalienable human rights the protection of which is the primary reason humanity brings the state into being, as is pointed out in our own Declaration of Independence.
The state may justifiably not grant all the rights of citizenship to legal aliens who it still recognizes as “legal persons.” Similarly, the state may justifiably not grant all the rights of “legal personhood” to a particular segment of the human family. For example, the Supreme Court could make a decision regarding whether or not the child in the womb can inherit property or be the beneficiary of a life insurance policy, but this does not mean the state no longer has the obligation to protect the inalienable, intrinsic human rights of this segment of the human family. It still has that obligation because to do just that is its primary reason for being according to America’s Founders. Americans, soon after they outlawed slavery, outlawed abortion as well in consideration of every human being’s inalienable right to life and the very purpose of the law; they did this without explicitly declaring the child in the womb was a legal “person” in the whole sense. They didn’t have to do that. These children were human and the primary purpose of our government is to protect the inalienable rights of humanity.
Methods of contraception that are not abortifacient – that truly prevent the conception of a separate, innocent human being – are another matter. As for these methods of contraception, Mary Eberstadt is absolutely right that, as you put it, contraception has “done humongous damage to men, women, children, families and society,” yet there are many forms of immorality that are not prohibited by the laws of the state simply because, for all practical purposes, the prohibition of such behavior is unenforceable.
Those for whom even the use of non-abortifacient contraception is an immoral abuse of human sexuality should not expect the state to outlaw its use, just as they do not expect the state to outlaw and then enforce laws prohibiting adultery by consenting adults. Yet there is no doubt that adultery “has done humongous damage to men, women, children, families and society,” leading as it so often does to broken homes, and then to the poverty frequently associated with fatherless households, and from that prisons filled with the adult children of fatherless homes. In spite of all that, we don’t outlaw adultery. Doing so would not be prudent or enforceable.
Outlawing non-abortifacient contraception in our contemporary culture is simply not prudent, and certainly not enforceable. The task before Pro-Lifers is to educate the public regarding the distinction between abortifacient contraception and non-abortifacient contraception. As for abortifacient contraception, they need to make a principled case for outlawing the taking of all innocent human life, whether by abortifacient contraception or by surgical abortion. As for non-abortifacient contraception, they need to make clear they are not advocating outlawing its use, and at the same time explain that our right to religious freedom requires that those who consider certain behavior an abuse of God’s plan for human sexuality should not have to fund that behavior by others, especially when such behavior often results in the destruction of innocent human life.
Lastly, they need to educate the public regarding the fact that “the pill” can be abortifacient. The demand for guaranteed non-abortifacient birth control pills brought about by the outlawing of those that can be abortifacient would result in pharmaceutical companies making a fortune providing non-abortifacient pills, I think, because most people really don’t want to repeatedly conceive children who will then quickly die due to the hostile environment created by Mom’s birth control pills. What I suspect the vast majority of the contracepting public really wants are pills that truly prevent the conception of a separate, innocent human being. It is up to those whose religious beliefs consider even non-abortifacient contraception a rejection of God’s plan for human sexuality to evangelize those who don’t see it that way and educate them as to the benefits and effectiveness of natural family planning. Then the evangelized will freely choose to reject artificial contraception, just as they would then choose to reject adultery if they hadn’t already. We don’t need the law of the state to prohibit the use of non-abortifacient contraception or adultery. The rejection of such behavior must be one’s free choice.
December 14th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
I have to get a doctor’s prescription for my allergy medicine and for my psoriasis cream. Why should powerful hormones be sold over the counter? It’s a ridiculous suggestion.
December 14th, 2012 | 4:50 pm
“I think he overlooks real concerns about the safety of the hormones involved, both to women and to the environment.”
Yes. I was sort of open to this idea, puts it all on the individual and doesn’t force religious-ran organizations to support it, but birth-control does have some serious risks for many people. It being prescription makes it easier to restrict it from women with counter-indications. (Smoking, certain cardiovascular conditions, etc) So I’m not sure.
As for just ending it or declining its use I’d say that genie is out of the bottle. Contraception prevalence is at least 79% in the US. It would be like thinking you can end the use of Social-networking, DVRs, or anti-depressants. Won’t happen. Better to focus on protecting the rights of those who maintain Christian tradition.
December 14th, 2012 | 5:01 pm
Mr. Ingles,
Canola oil, being derived from plant sources, doesn’t contain any cholesterol. Neither do those fearsome tropical oils like palm oil.
Comparing OTC birth control to say, the free availability of lard (which makes for excellent pie crust) is a little like comparing sudafed to meth. Or Digoxin to Foxglove.
Yes, classes of drugs matter. Little things like chemical make up distinguishing life-sustaining water from poisonous hydrogen peroxide.
But that is also what separates lard from his cousin Yaz and her chemical sisters.
One, as I said, helps make excellent pie crust. The other helps girls pretend that sex doesn’t make babies. And when that lie fails to cover up the truth? Well, there’s always Plannec unParenthood. It also has a host of short term and long term health risks and consequences that are rarely discussed honestly. Just one of those being the Factor V Leiden mutation which is normally silent, but greatly increases the likelihood of serious/fatal blood clots when taking hormonal birth control and is carried by some 7% of Caucasian women.
And, with the news of a French study (lower sperm counts in men linked to hormonal birth control use in women), it looks like the more girls use birth control to pretend sex doesn’t make babies, the fewer boys there will be to make babies with them when the girls decide they want babies after all.
December 14th, 2012 | 5:59 pm
Plan B, which is basically a massive dose of the hormone used in daily birth control pills is offered OTC. Why not regular birth control? Jindal puts forth a good strategy and ultimately a good compromise. The only down side is not the pills, but the public policy/religious liberty argument this HHS mandate allows us to have. In the long run, all but the big Catholic orgs would cave to the mandate. The upside is that this puts Dems in the awkward spot of defending Big Pharma.
The culture war is such that we need to pick our battles and where we will position ourselves. Right now we are losing on this badly and Jindal’s proposal will give us much better position.
December 14th, 2012 | 7:01 pm
I do not believe it is against Church teaching for Catholic politicians to be politically tolerant of artificial contraception so long as they are not approving of it or directly funding. I would hope that Bobby Jindal consulted with a theologian or canon lawyer prior to coming to that position. St. Thomas Aquinas explained how it’s not government’s role to punish most sins. Contraception does not directly destroy human life. Protection of human life from direct threats is the proper role of government. It would certainly be good and ideal if contraception were once again universally illegal, but education and conversion of hearts and minds must precede it first. Until a significant majority of people stopped personally contracepting or at least opposed it, then it is imprudent to address it politically. Only formal cooperation in the evil is what must be avoided. However, I admit I am ignorant about the safety of birth control pills, in my opinion it’s best to require a prescription because not all women are healthy for it nor informed about its effects.
December 14th, 2012 | 7:04 pm
Is Jindal joining up with Biden and Pelosi, and becoming Catholic in name only? That would be a shame.
The argument for or against contraception is not specifically about religion, though. It’s simply a matter of the refusal to acknowledge the necessary connection of sex with procreation. It does indeed exist, and there is a huge contraceptive industry which blindly demonstrates it.
Isn’t Jindal opposed to same-sex (so-called) marriage? Perhaps someone can point out to him that there is no legitimate way in a secular world to restrict it, as long as heterosexuals continue to likewise practice “sterile” sex.
Would that Jindal had the moral courage to pronounce the Truth. That’s what being a Catholic is about.
December 14th, 2012 | 7:05 pm
I think it’s obviously a bad idea to make oral birth-control over-the-counter. Their are scores of places where you can learn about the extreme side-effects many women suffer. It is commonly posited that the only reason oral male birth-control isn’t pursued (though initial attempts were promising) is that the vast majority of men would not put up with such a high price in side-effects (which would include, as it does for many women, decreased libido).
Having said that, it’s not like the doctors are really into restraint when it comes to prescribing birth-control. The only thing that keeps them from prescribing women a life-time supply are current regulations governing prescription medications.
December 14th, 2012 | 7:33 pm
I think it’s accurate to say that the toothpaste is out of the tube regarding the legalization and mainstream acceptance of contraception. If we accept that, then we can look at ways of managing contraception use.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, requiring a prescription for contraceptives actually has the effect of enshrining them as “important medical necessities.” It creates an aura of approval and even, perhaps, “sacredness” around them. A doctor’s prescription signals an approval from him or her that this drug is necessary. If we eliminate that requirement, we eliminate the chance for doctors to “bless” contraceptive use. Removing the Rx requirement could be a way of signaling that contraceptives aren’t really medicine at all.
And I think there is something to be said for the “big government” idea. The United States is one of only two countries in the world that require (through law) a doctorate for pharmacists. I think it’s pretty obvious that there are many drugs that pose no real heath risk, even if used improperly, yet require a prescription in order to support the power of health professionals. And the converse is true: you can easily kill yourself by consuming an entire bottle of Tylenol.
December 14th, 2012 | 10:47 pm
One major problem with his position – women need to see a doctor in conjunction with using artificial/chemical/hormonal birth control pills because they are not like Tylenol or some other relatively safe over the counter medicines. They can react very differently in different women. Some women have little to no side effects, some have serious and even life-threatening ones. What about counseling on proper usage (like not taking too many, what happens if you forget to take your pill every day, etc.)? This seems like a very bad idea just medically speaking.
The ethical considerations are important too (the consequences we have because of the whole culture of birth control used by non-married people), but “big government” is not the issue here!
December 14th, 2012 | 11:24 pm
David Nickol,
There was discussion about remote material co-operation, that there are some thing our taxes pay for that we have not control over. The contraception mandate made it direct material co-operation by getting Catholic institutions involved.
This would fall under remote material co-operation to the extent that the burden falls on the individual.
December 15th, 2012 | 12:53 pm
Kamilla – first off, yeah, you’re right, I shouldn’t have listed a plant-based source. But lard’s a perfectly good example, thanks.
If oral contraceptives are as bad as you imply. But there are some medical disputes over that. You originally compared anabolic steroids to oral contraceptives – which is just as false a comparison as oral contraceptives to lard.
December 15th, 2012 | 3:09 pm
Mr. Ingles,
Perhaps I should have compared them to Tobacco? After all, both are listed by the IARC as Class I carcinogens.
When a substance is recognized as a known human carcinogen, you can’t really claim there are legitimate medical disputes over safety.
December 17th, 2012 | 8:38 am
Kamilla – quoting your source, the IARC:
Perhaps they should be regulated like alcohol, with a minimum age?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact