March for Life Opposes Contraception

The March for Life Education and Defense Fund, which organizes the annual March for Life, has removed the mask and revealed their real goal, which is to get rid of contraception. This is something I’ve been arguing for many years, that the real target is not abortion but birth control itself.

Each year on January 22—the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade—the March for Life draws thousands of protesters to Washington, DC, for what organizers bill as “world’s largest anti-abortion event.” But this year, there’s an added wrinkle: Organizers of the march have spent the past six months arguing that birth control pills are a form of abortion.

March for Life Education and Defense Fund, the nonprofit that organizes the annual protest, identified oral birth control as a form of abortion in a lawsuit filed in July. With the suit, which is ongoing, March for Life is fighting for an exemption from the Affordable Care Act mandate that all private employers provide contraception coverage.

March for Life argues that covering drugs or medical devices that cause abortions would violate its founding principles. And it places hormonal birth control, which includes things like oral contraception and vaginal rings, squarely within that category. In its lawsuit, the group refers to these as “abortifacients,” a characterization with which most physicians strongly disagree.

Polls consistently find that a majority of Americans who oppose abortion have no moral objections to birth control. Most of those planning to attend the march probably have no idea that March for Life views birth control as immoral: March for Life doesn’t advertise its opinions on birth control in its promotional material for the protest, and the group’s website simply bills the march as a mass demonstration against “legalized abortion on demand.”

As I’ve said many times, if the “pro-life” people actually wanted to reduce abortions, they would support the universal availability of birth control. But they don’t, because abortion isn’t what they really want to eliminate. What they really oppose is women having control of their reproduction, not to mention their sexuality.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    What they really oppose is women having control of their reproduction, not to mention their sexuality.

    Wrong. We Conservatives aren’t against them having control of those things. We just want them to have to check with their husbands, fathers or ministers first and then obey them.

  • eric

    What they really oppose is women having control of their reproduction, not to mention their sexuality.

    Poor women, Ed. As well as dark womem. Rich white women get to use birth control and have abortions when needed. Because Jesus spoke unto his disciples: “yea, and I say unto you verily, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than to apply equal rule of law to rich white people.”

  • sugarfrosted

    Why is it that American far right Christians end up wanted something like what was the case in Communist Romania. I’m surprised they aren’t proposing a tax on people choosing not have children.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Pro-life group, huh? I look forward to their march against capital punishment. Let me just check their schedule and see when it is planned…

  • sugarfrosted

    @3 to follow up: They’d probably see this as Utopia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Romania

  • mkoormtbaalt

    If you think about it, it’s sexist to allow abortions. Why should only women get to have control over women’s bodies? I’ll let them decide that I (as a man) can’t have abortions either! /s

  • culuriel

    They don’t oppose birth control. They just oppose women actually being able to afford birth control. I’m sure there’s a distinction in there somewhere.

  • scienceavenger

    They can’t stand the thought that people are having a lot of sex for no reason other than enjoyment and they aren’t. That’s really what it boils down to. If voluntary sterilization became a cultural norm, they’d oppose that too.

  • eric

    If voluntary sterilization became a cultural norm, they’d oppose that too.

    It’s not just against sex for pleasure, it really is about women. Things like long-term hormonal patches are a form of voluntary, reversible, steriliztion. AFAIK, they oppose those drugs…yet not vasectomies.

  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    The right goes on and on about personal responsibility. Yet here we have them wanting to take away a tool for personal responsibility, the ability to control when one has children.

  • dugglebogey

    They are actually opposed to anything fun, and especially anything sexually fun. And double especially for OTHER PEOPLE. Because when you look closely at them, you’ll discover they’ll fuck anything that isn’t nailed down.

  • tbp1

    Least surprising headline in quite a while…

  • nemistenem

    Least surprising to those who actually follow the news and have a sense of what these folks are really up to, but “mainstream ‘mercans” don’t know and would probably be quite surprised.

    Hey Modusoperandi – you related to Stephen Colbert?

  • Jesper Both Pedersen

    You guys have surrendered. There’s no hope. Get it over with. You fucking pussies.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake Zaraeric, #2:

    Poor women, Ed. As well as dark womem. Rich white women get to use birth control and have abortions when needed.

    This isn’t mentioned often enough. The war on women’s reproductive freedom is absolutely classist — the unspoken reality is a sufficiently affluent woman will still be able to see a discreet doctor about “painful and irregular menstruation” (wink, wink) and get a prescription for those little pills.

  • Acolyte of Sagan

    Jesper:

    Miaow. Purr. Hiss, etc.

    (trans) Who the hell fucks cats? Apart from other cats, of course. Oh, and trucks.

  • congenital cynic

    The religious are always fucked up about sex. What screwed up person wants to live in a world where human sex acts are only for procreation purposes? Hell, my wife and I refer to intercourse as “having communion”. And mean it in the most serious of ways, but also in a mocking of the “communion” practice of her very religious parents.

    It would be nice if the religious were satisfied with just following their beliefs and enforcing their bullshit in their own tribe, but it’s really tiresome when they try to shove their beliefs down the throats of those who don’t share them. Most couples don’t want 12 or 14 children, and they want to have sex. So fuck the Life Education and Defence Fund. Seriously, bonobos are more highly evolved than these idiots.

  • pixiedust

    @ 11 dugglebogey

    “…they’ll fuck anything that isn’t nailed down” reminded me of Emo Philips line:

    “My classmates would copulate with anything that moved, but I never saw any reason to limit myself.”

  • grumpyoldfart

    Is celibacy a form of birth control? What will the Christians do about that?

  • laurentweppe

    What screwed up person wants to live in a world where human sex acts are only for procreation purposes?

    Any aristocrat raised to believe that the hoi polloi are inherently lazy and depraved and will stop working to spend their whole days fucking over and over and over and over again instead of working to sustain their lords and masters’ existence if granted the opportunity.

    As pocketnerd mentioned: opposition to reproductive freedom always reeks of classism.

  • congenital cynic

    Any aristocrat raised to believe that the hoi polloi are inherently lazy and depraved and will stop working to spend their whole days fucking over and over and over and over again instead of working to sustain their lords and masters’ existence if granted the opportunity.

    I guess that given the choice between time at work, and time back home with the girlfriend or wife (depending on which time in life) fucking, I’d have spent less time at work and more time home. I’d have still got work done, but not as much.

    I’m one who thinks that young people need more education about sex (not porn, most of it is so lame) and relationships and should be having more consensual sex in good relationships with consideration for their partners. Oh yes, and with reliable birth control. This would drive the fundies nuts, but we’d have a lot less problems if this were so. Anybody read Aldous Huxley’s book “Island”? It’s been years since I read that, but as I recall, I quite liked the model in there for teaching the young about sex.

  • pacal

    Jesper np. 14:

    You guys have surrendered. There’s no hope. Get it over with. You fucking pussies.

    In the context of this post your comment makes little sense; or are you trying to tell us that you support the banning of contraceptives.? In which case you are a idiot in favour of surrendering to big theocratic government like a bunch of pussies.

  • notruescott

    Well, if you can redefine a zygote as a baby, why can’t you redefine contraception as abortion? It’s just common sense.

  • Pseudonym
  • marcus

    pixiedust @ 18 “I loved her from the top of her head to the tag on her toe.” Emo Philips

  • illdoittomorrow

    In its lawsuit, the group refers to these [contraceptive methods] as “abortifacients,” a characterization with which most physicians strongly disagree.

    Yeah, because it’s all just a matter of opinion anyway. Balance! Who knows what the truth is anyway?

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake Zarailldoittomorrow, #26:

    Yeah, because it’s all just a matter of opinion anyway. Balance! Who knows what the truth is anyway?

    Welcome to the age of postfactual politics, where there are no objective facts, just competing opinions. “On my left, I have a developmental biologist, medical doctor, and spokesman for the American Medical Association, representing the overwhelming scientific consensus that contraception is not abortion

    … and on my right, an angry reactionary with no scientific or medical qualifications whatsoever, who says it is! I GUESS WE CAN NEVER KNOW FOR SURE!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    And the Supreme Court already ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that it doesn’t matter whether or not contraceptives cause abortion, only that the plaintiff has a “sincerely held belief” that they do. Truthiness is now embedded into our legal system.