Skip to comments.
Is Contraception the Hill We Want to Die On?
Crisis Magazine ^
| february 14, 2014
| Austin Ruse
Posted on 02/16/2014 2:09:51 PM PST by NYer
Using artificial contraception to avoid pregnancy is a mortal sin, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
While only the Catholic Church maintains this teaching on contraception, it would be a better world if everyone did.
Paul VI was a prophet when he told the world that great societal evils would follow upon the widespread use of contraception: a loosening of morals, an objectification of women, family breakdown and all the rest of the pathologies that have visited us like furies.
Many of us also hold that contraception also leads inevitably to abortion. After all, according to national statistics, 94 percent of the women getting abortions have used contraception at some point in their lives. Meaning they know what it is and how to get it. Contraception is a promissory note that is cashed by abortion when it fails.
Contraception was made a constitutional right in this country by the Supreme Court in two cases, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird. Griswold gave married people the right to use it and the decision was based on the sanctity of marriage. Eisenstadt kicked over that rationale by making it a right for single people, too. And then came the deluge.
According to the United Nations the US has one of the highest incidents of contraceptive use in the world. Anybody who wants it can easily get it, including abortifacient contraceptives like Plan B that are now available over-the-counter. Bowls of condoms adorn the entrances of clubs and the desks of school administrators. A months supply of the pill can be had for as little as nine bucks a month at your local Wal-Mart. And the Obama administration has now made it federal law that all women get it for free.
The abortion crowd knows that Americans love their contraceptives and that Americans would fight tooth-and-nail against anyone who might try to take them away. Thats why the abortion crowd loves to make the abortion debate all about contraception. This is why the war on women rhetoric has been so effective. They have been able to convince a significant portion of the electorate that pro-lifers want to take away their contraceptive pills.
But do we?
Serious Catholics understand the evils associated with contraceptives, including the medical dangers to women who take them, and we tell that story. But I am not aware of any campaign to ban contraceptives. In order to do that, we would need to overturn not one but two Supreme Court decisions. I have never seen a bumper sticker that says, Overturn Griswold
and Eisenstadt, not even on Judy Browns car. Think Roe has been hard to overturn? Try Griswold.
Not even the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has made banning contraceptives a part of its lobbying program. Their spokesman, my wife, told the New York Times in 2003, while the church does not lobby to ban contraception, it does oppose policies like coercive government birth-control programs or laws that force individuals or institutions with moral or religious objections to provide contraceptives.
And by the way, when was the last time you heard a sermon from your priest about contraception, let alone a statement by your Bishop?
A Catholic politician in Northern Virginia has come under fire from a primary challenger and LifeSiteNews for asking the Federal government to allow adult women to buy oral contraceptives without a doctors prescription. She is being accused of being a bad Catholic and questions are being raised about whether faithful Catholics can support her.*
This letter came at a time when contraceptives are already available in drugstores all over Virginia. You see racks and racks of condoms everywhere. Whats more, there are 136 federally funded Title X family planning clinics in Virginia where poor women can get contraceptive pills for free and virtually instantly, as many have doctors on site who write the prescriptions.
I must admit if I was in her place, I would not have sent the letter, but then I could never be elected to this most liberal part of Virginia, the tony suburbs of Washington DC where she is the only Republican of any kind elected to the Virginia House of Delegates from inside the Beltway.
Even though she represents a profoundly pro-choice area, where abortion is practically a sacrament, she has a stellar pro-life record, voting against state funding of abortion, against abortion funding in a proposed state health exchange, in favor of ultrasound, and she even voted in favor of something that many pro-lifers oppose for prudential reasons, personhood for the unborn child. She voted a single time against an amendment to cut abortion funding from Obamacare but, according to pro-life watchdog Family Foundation of Virginia, she did so as a vote against Obamacare and not as a vote in favor of abortion. And one of her Republican challengers runs on this, and on contraception?
Such charges tend to be made in desperation and truth be told, the primary opponent making these charges has about as good a chance to win in this district as I do.
But her challengers chances aside, the more interesting question is what is the duty of the Catholic politician when it comes to contraceptives?
There is no question that the Catholic politician is duty bound to limit and then to stop legal abortion. After all, abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Protecting the innocent from abortion is not a uniquely Catholic matter. Is contraception the same as abortion, or is it more like divorce, a fundamental Catholic teaching but one that we do not seek to impose on others. We may seek to convince others but we do not seek to impose it on them through public policy.
There are good public health reasons to be against contraception. Hormonal birth control pills can cause cancer, for instance. And this is a very important point to make when we properly try to undermine public confidence in contraceptives. But this is not a Catholic reason to vote against them and Delegate Barbara Comstock is being attacked on Catholic grounds. We do not see any great Catholic campaigns against smoking and smoking probably causes more cancer than the pill.
Comstocks letter should be seen in the context of where we are in our new Obamacare world. Contraception was universally available before Obamacare, but now every person in America gets it for free, either through employer insurance or the healthcare exchanges. They have utterly won and somewhere in the pits of hell, sitting in the cocktail lounge, drinking a celebratory martini is Margaret Sanger.
Heres an irony: the policy change Comstock called for could actually reduce the use of contraception, because women would actually have to reach into their own pockets to buy it. Are free pills paid by tax dollars the purer Catholic position than making women pay for it themselves?
Abortion advocates everywhere are eager to use contraceptives as a cudgel to beat us with and they would love nothing more than for us to actually fight on that ground. Comstock declined. In one fell swoop she took the cudgel away from them.
As for her critics, do they really want us to charge up Contraceptive Hill, flying our flags high and singing Te Deums? Must we now launch campaigns to ban contraceptives? And condoms, too? Must we make overturning Griswold and Eisenstadt a litmus test for candidates and judges?
Certain defeat awaits us up Contraceptive Hill. We should not fight there.
___________________________
* In the spirit of full disclosure, my wife and I, along with former US Ambassador to the Holy See Jim Nicholson and other serious Catholics, have endorsed Barbara Comstocks candidacy to replace retiring Congressman Frank Wolfe in Virginias 10th Congressional District.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: abortion; austinruse; catholic; catholicpoliticians; contraception; crisismagazine; moralabsolutes; planb; prolife; va; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
1
posted on
02/16/2014 2:09:51 PM PST
by
NYer
To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...
2
posted on
02/16/2014 2:10:22 PM PST
by
NYer
("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
To: NYer
I’m not Catholic and don’t face the same religious restrictions on contraception but hope Catholics will stand firm.
Courage of his convictions on this issue was one of the reasons I voted for Rick Santorum in Michigan in 2012.
3
posted on
02/16/2014 2:15:13 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: NYer
Just because it may be a losing battle does not change the fact that it is a battle worth fighting.
Fight Griswold. Can you imagine how many of God’s intended creatures are never born because of this abomination?
4
posted on
02/16/2014 2:16:33 PM PST
by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: NYer
the article stated “She is being accused of being a bad Catholic and questions are being raised about whether faithful Catholics can support her.”
She is not just a “bad Catholic” if she support contraception - she is a Catholic who definitely doesn’t get it and as such needs to be defeated so she rethinks her beliefs.
AMDG
Lurking’
5
posted on
02/16/2014 2:19:13 PM PST
by
LurkingSince'98
(Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
To: NYer
This is conservatives once-again playing whack-a-mole. But you can ask this very same question not just contraception - but on every economic/social issue there is. The pundits’ question always is:
Is XXXX (debt, obamacare, social security, food-stamps, abortion, extended unemployment benefits, IRS, EPA, affirmative action, voter verification, debt ceiling etc....) a hill you want to die on? Of course, the pundits’ answer is invariably “No.”
6
posted on
02/16/2014 2:20:15 PM PST
by
PGR88
To: NYer
It's not the hill to die on.
Making arguments against contraception, which involves gaining the voluntary cooperation of people? OK.
Making noises about banning contraception, or otherwise restricting people's access to it? That will make us lose elections, real big.
7
posted on
02/16/2014 2:22:34 PM PST
by
PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
To: NYer
What kind of authority can be claimed when it is nearly universally ignored?
To: LurkingSince'98
how many “good Catholics” supported Obama?
9
posted on
02/16/2014 2:22:57 PM PST
by
chae
(I was anti-Obama before it was cool)
To: chae
“how many good Catholics supported Obama?”
actually not many Good Catholics supported obummer, but millions of badly catechized, social justice, Christmas and Easter Catholics love and voted for the guy.
My first hope would be they see the light and become protestant; second and even more unlikely, they have a real conversion of heart and faith and be true Catholics.
AMDG
Lurking’
10
posted on
02/16/2014 2:29:31 PM PST
by
LurkingSince'98
(Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
To: PGR88
RNC committeeman Dave Agema says the GOP has a really bad habit of running for cover at the first sign of trouble.
The simple fact is that you just can’t promote or sell your ideas from under a rock.
11
posted on
02/16/2014 2:29:32 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: LurkingSince'98; yldstrk
She is not just a bad Catholic if she support contraception - she is a Catholic who definitely doesnt get it and as such needs to be defeated so she rethinks her beliefs. Did you factor this in from the above post?
Heres an irony: the policy change Comstock called for could actually reduce the use of contraception, because women would actually have to reach into their own pockets to buy it. Are free pills paid by tax dollars the purer Catholic position than making women pay for it themselves?
12
posted on
02/16/2014 2:32:56 PM PST
by
NYer
("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
To: LurkingSince'98
“millions of badly catechized,”
I hear this a lot here.
Why so many worldwide?
To: aMorePerfectUnion
the 60’s generation of groovy priests and nuns who as some one recently said “wanted to appear a little protestant’ to be ecumenical.
60s parents who were too busy to personally teach their children to love their faith and left it up to to “religious ed” instructors on Sunday or lay teachers in parochial school.
the 60s idea that true love and understanding of the Catholic faith would just flower in the children without constant feeding, watering and pruning.
60s gay priests and nuns who were interested in ‘loving one another’ and some altar boys.
it is something we will be working for generations to correct.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Lurking’
14
posted on
02/16/2014 2:49:41 PM PST
by
LurkingSince'98
(Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
To: NYer
then why does she crow the fact that she is Catholic?
Does she not get that protestants, Catholics and others look for our faithful TO BE FAITHFUL!
So the ‘irony’ is she supports something that is not Catholic to end up with something which may actually be marginally more Catholic - i.e. the end justifies the means???
AMDG
15
posted on
02/16/2014 2:54:16 PM PST
by
LurkingSince'98
(Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
To: NYer
What Catholics must keep in mind is that they are a 2000 year old Church tasked with handing down the faith to each generation. Democrats are not. Americans are not. The Church will still exist long after America is gone.
And what will cause the destruction of America? It will be the same destructive policies the Democrats are trying to infect the Church with. While it is hard to fathom overturning Roe or contraception, culture changes dramatically over time. We are already on the cusp of a population collapse, which will cause severe economic problems. The Russians, one of the first to legalize abortion, are now rewarding births and considering restricting abortion. Russia has already had a demographic collapse, and sees things much differently than we do. Ukraine as well is restricting abortion. There is no reason to think that during our own demographic implosion that we will keep the same attitudes towards contraception and abortion. At that point, the Church will be there to lead us back.
To: NYer
Can you separate contraception hill and religious liberty?
17
posted on
02/16/2014 2:55:48 PM PST
by
ThomasThomas
(It is your fault that I blame others for my actions!)
To: NYer
Warning! Warning! Straw man alert! Straw man alert!
18
posted on
02/16/2014 3:00:35 PM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Islam is a religion of peace, and Moslems reserve the right to behead anyone who says otherwise.)
To: NYer
While only the Catholic Church maintains this teaching on contraception, it would be a better world if everyone did.
_________________
Ms. Comstock ought to avail herself of some in-depth study of history and science. ALL Christians historically held contraception to be evil until fairly recently. How has the world become better for its use? I think the evidence will show it to be a lot worse ...with some studies directly correlating negative results to the use of artificial contraceptives.
19
posted on
02/16/2014 3:03:58 PM PST
by
SumProVita
(Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
To: NYer
dear NYer,
It sounds like you may support this woman for the elective office.
Someone, maybe her father early on, should have taken her out to the woodshed when she was a young one and straightened her out before going off the rails.
It may not be too late a committee of supports, sponsors and financial backers could show her the light.
AMDG
20
posted on
02/16/2014 3:04:42 PM PST
by
LurkingSince'98
(Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson