OPINION: Birth Control is not Abortion

By Broadside Correspondent Sabra Hayes

The newly proposed bill by the Bush Administration redefines abortion as “any of the various procedures—including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” Basically, this rule is stating that several types of birth control, including the Pill and Plan B (also known as emergency contraception), is the same as abortion.

Birth control is not abortion. The problems are not only in the wording, but also in how the bill will affect those using birth control. The rule change is supposedly intended to prevent discrimination against health care workers that are pro-life because of moral or religious reasons from doing procedures that conflict with these values. But the proposal would allow for insurance companies to refuse paying for contraceptives because the definition of abortion has changed to include birth control. Confusion has occurred because birth control is a preventative method of avoiding pregnancy and by avoiding pregnancy people are avoiding abortion.

Birth control is defined by Medicalnet.com as “the use of any practices, methods, or devices to prevent pregnancy from occurring in a sexually active woman. Also referred to as family planning, pregnancy prevention, fertility control, or contraception; birth control methods are designed either to prevent fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.” The entire purpose of these methods of birth control is to avoid getting pregnant. But the proposed bill is trying to put pregnancy prevention in the same category as ending a pregnancy.

This issue on the morality of birth control and of abortion is another step in limiting the choices women have for healthy sexual lives. This proposal was originally intended to protect the rights of doctors and nurses from doing procedures that they felt were against their morals and religions. However, the lack of clear definition and purpose of the bill has created a loop hole for the ideologies of some to be forced on others.

For example, this bill would allow hospitals to refuse to give a rape victim Plan B, which is the most effective method in preventing pregnancy when taken as soon as possible after unprotected sex or rape. If a rape victim is refused Plan B because it is considered an “abortive service” and becomes pregnant due to the inability to obtain the contraceptive, is that a better option? No woman should be forced to carry out a pregnancy that was the outcome of a rape.

It is the right of every woman to be able to have access to contraceptive methods of her choosing. You could argue that condoms are a form of abortion because they kill the sperm. The whole argument of this proposal has a double standard which alienates the female population that is currently using contraceptive methods. With the insurance and pharmaceutical companies being able to state that hormonal contraceptive methods are against their morals, they can stop production of these female methods of birth control at their leisure.

However, the use of Viagra is another issue that has not been brought up in this discussion. The use of Viagra is not harmed by this new bill. Why does our government allow for men to have the right to have sex by medicated means but challenges the rights of women to have the protection they need from getting pregnant?

Women have the right to protect their bodies however they choose. It is not the morality of the government that decides the morality of the people. Individuality is a principle that our country is founded on. The no longer separation of church and state has begun the journey of limiting the rights of citizens of the United States. Where does the government draw the line in “protecting” its citizens from the choices of others?

In the Roe v. Wade decision, the courts ruled that abortion was the choice of the woman. Now the current Administration is trying to eliminate the choice of preventing many pregnancies which could result in abortions. These contraceptive methods are being used to prevent pregnancy, balance hormones, or even to prevent some medical complications. The usage of this medication should be left up to the discretion of the doctor and patient, not to the government. It was Hillary Clinton who said “Keep abortions safe, legal, and rare.” I find it ridiculous that those who oppose abortion also oppose birth control. Abortions will not be rare if women are denied access to contraceptives that prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.