Birth Control, Revisited

A few months ago I wrote a post about birth control, where I tried to outline what it represents on a social and societal level. There is a central piece to that argument that I want to try and make clearer, if I can. In that entry, I said: "...while the hormone pills used for birth control are chemically acting on the woman's body alone and for the purpose of preventing ovulation, that's just not the point. The point is about broader social consequences of not providing people with the tools they need to plan their families carefully, safely and responsibly." 

I was recently reading this article about Sandra Fluke and representative Joe Walsh, and there was a quote from Mr. Walsh at the bottom that got me thinking about this argument all over again: "We’ve got parents in this country who are struggling to buy sneakers that their kids can wear to school that just started," Walsh said. "We’ve got parents up and down my district who are barely keeping their house. And, and, and, we have to be confronted by a woman, the Democratic Party this is what they stand for. They're going to put a woman in front of us who is complaining that the country — you, me and you — won’t pay the 9 dollars per month to pay for her contraceptives."

I want to revisit my original argument by breaking down Mr. Walsh's comments for you. In doing so, I hope to shed some light on why there is suddenly such heated debate about birth control among politicians lately. 

There are many groups (Planned Parenthood, in particular) that have worked to bring the cost of birth control down for some time. But President Obama has made the issue a lot more public with his new legislation regarding health care and health insurance. Obama - along with what seems like the majority of the democratic party - believes that birth control should be widely available and as near to free as possible, at the very least, extremely affordable. I think this sudden popularization of the subject has brought up some deep rifts that weren't previously obvious - but why? It seems an innocuous subject, after all 99% of women of child-bearing age in the United States use birth control. It's not exactly a politically safe topic to oppose. But I think the issue of access - of tax dollars paying for it - brings to the surface some differences in the way people view birth control. In particular, there are two main paradigms that attempt to define just what birth control is, and what it means for women, for men and for families. I'd like to compare and contrast these two views.

The first is the view held by Mr. Walsh and others who - on average- tend to be on the far right end of the political spectrum. That is that birth control is medication for women. It enables a certain lifestyle for women (that is to say, the ability to be sexually active, possibly outside of the bounds of committed relationships, without the fear or concern of pregnancy). It is, in their minds, a women's issue. Birth control is women's business, and furthermore, there is some implication that it's frivolous to boot. It's a luxury - after all, you don't have to be sexually active. Abstinence is still an option. Because you have made a choice to be sexually active, then it only makes sense that you should pay for the luxuries that make this lifestyle possible out-of-pocket.

There is a certain aspect to this argument that brings the speaker's own opinions into play. I would personally describe a sexually active lifestyle as "modern," but many people view a modern lifestyle as luxurious. So I think this is a personal distinction that doesn't have any place in politics. It's not the place of politicians to push their beliefs on the populace (despite the fact that they do it regularly). But I digress, because I also find the heart of this paradigm - idea that birth control is only for the benefit of the woman - to be incorrect. To understand why, let's examine the other side.

What Mr. Obama, Ms. Fluke and others who share their ideology would rather discuss, as opposed to hormonal birth control for women, is the idea of family planning. This is more of a blanket concept that refers to the freedom to reproduce when, where, how, and with whom you choose. I like this part of the argument because it remembers to acknowledge that we are discussing nothing less than the ability to create life. Heavy stuff.

But the next step in this argument is notably more political. Because true, modern family planning necessitates a certain level of control over one's own biology, and this brings into the picture a host of resources developed by modern medicine that cost money. The assumption that people should simultaneously be able to live a modern (read: sexually active) lifestyle and still plan their families with a staggering level of control implies that a massive health infrastructure needs to be in place in order to bring those resources to the public. In this way, Obama's recent actions on this topic make sense. It's a logical consequence of his personal view on family planning.

This part of the second paradigm brings me back around to my original point. Hormonal birth control for women is simply one of a suite of tools in the family planning tool belt. It's the most powerful mechanism currently available for preventing pregnancy without necessitating abstinence. It happens to be used by the woman, but that's just the biological reality of the drug, and it doesn't change its broader social purpose. Men have the right to control over their reproductive activities, too. Which is why condoms are so cheap and commonly available; at present, it's the greatest tool a man has to protect himself against accidental pregnancy. But birth control is far more effective when used properly, and I think men have the same right to the peace of mind it provides as women do.

In closing, the two lenses through which people view hormonal birth control are as follows: it is either medication for women, or it is a social tool that, by necessity (because we cannot change biology) must be employed by women in order to work. These two views are obviously in direct conflict with one another, and tend to drive very different political actions with regard to birth control. It's probably obvious that I tend to align with Mr. Obama on this subject. But I don't blame people like Mr. Walsh for making this type of error. Birth control is a singular drug in that it has such strong social implications, and it can be difficult to see beyond the basic chemical mechanism to the larger role in people's lives and in society.

Now, if you're concerned that my attempt to paint hormonal birth control as a tool for the benefit of all people overlooks some very large feminist issues, you'd be right. And that's something I'd like to address in my next entry, which will be on the male birth control pill. I'll try to get it posted soon.