The Argument for Birth Control

Birth control has been a topic of contention on socioeconomic, religious and racial platforms. Birth control, contrary to right-wing rhetoric, is fundamentally a woman’s right and a responsible avenue of choice for a woman to utilize when engaging in sexual activity. However, there are arguments against birth control and these arguments deserve to be looked at and analyzed to see if they are valid and accurate. For the most part, these arguments: the fear and prevention of big government and the violation of religious freedom, twists the overall purpose of birth control while misrepresenting the ideas of limited government and religious freedom. More disturbingly, access to birth control is sometimes a trap for women of lower classes.

In addition to birth control being a woman’s right, Linda Gordon, NYU Professor claims, “…protecting birth control is no less important than the fight for unions, the environment, jobs and a fair tax structure” (60). The reason that the access to birth control is so fundamental is because it removes the cultural expectation that sex is for reproduction only. Women have just as much of a right as men in their sexual choices and not only does the use of birth control preserve the individual woman’s dignity, but it also prevents the conception of unwanted or unplanned children - especially regarding teen pregnancies.

The first argument from the anti-birth control side is that inevitably big government and tax hikes will occur if birth control is made available to all women. Ironically, the opposite is true. This argument also fails to take into account that as a national body of people, there is a mutual stake in the responsibilities of public health (62). Therefore, it is important that the right to birth control be a collective and, if necessary, government protected service.

The big government argument also carries over into the second argument against birth control which is the violation of religious freedom by the government. This argument claims that the contraceptive provision option on insurance is a direct attack on religious expression. This issue came to the forefront between President Obama and the Catholic Church, “They [the Catholic Church] don’t want employees of such institutions as Georgetown University or Notre Dame to have access to contraception at all.” It is also important to note that President Obama attempted to reconcile the issue with the Catholic Church by offering birth control through separate plans (63). There is a fundamental lack of understanding of the Affordable Health Care Act which supports this ill-conceived argument. The Catholic Church, in this case, is dictating their tenants onto people who may not even belong to the church (Corbin 1470). This lack of compromise on the religious side shows what religious freedom really means. The other side, which is equally as important, is freedom from religion. Women have the choice to follow whatever practices they want and also the right to reject certain practices, especially if they are non-Catholic employees.

Thankfully, despite the misleading arguments, the birth control movement started gaining traction in the 1960s. The reasons for this availability, however, are misleading. Cloaked in the fight for women’s rights, birth control was fought for with a special fervor for poorer women in the state of Arkansas. In taking a closer look at Arkansas, it is obvious that socioeconomic status is blended with racism, as then congressman George H. W. Bush stated, “our national welfare costs are rising phenomenally [and] that [blacks] cannot hope to acquire a larger share of American prosperity without cutting down on births” (Welch 221). Although it is great that birthcontrol was extended to poorer women; it needs to be for the right reasons. Women’s rights and respect needs to be at the forefront, otherwise the service is tainted in its purpose.

The attack on birth control is rooted in misconceptions and a lack of respect for women. The arguments used against a woman’s right to birth control are misleading and twist the actual purpose of contraception. To deny a woman’s right is to demean the public as a whole. While religious freedom and the idea of limited government are paramount to the American way, they do not apply in this case because they have been altered to fit a biased agenda. What does apply is a woman’s right to choose and to use birth control as she sees fit.

Works Cited

Corbin, Caroline M. "The Contraception Mandate." Northwestern University Law Review 107.3 (2013): 1469-483. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.

Gordon, Linda. "Citizenship and the Right to Birth Control." Dissent 59.4 (2012): 60-64. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

Welch, Melanie K. "Not Women's Rights: Birth Control as Poverty Control inArkansas." Arkansas Historical Quarterly 69.3 (2010): 220-44. Academic SearchPremier. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.