Shocking Developments

I, for one, am absolutely shocked to see a pro-life administration taking action to reduce the availability of contraceptives. Up until now, I had always thought that the pro-life movement was a totally sincere effort to reduce the incidence of abortions by any means necessary. This makes it look like their convictions about the metaphysical status of the fetus are really just of a piece with a whole set of reactionary attitudes about women's sexuality and gender roles.

Meanwhile, does anyone else find it interesting that yesterday's Washington Post poll showed that people prefer Obama over McCain on "Social issues, such as abortion and gay civil unions" by a gigantic 56-32 margin? That's not even close, but the conventional wisdom usually holds that these topics give the GOP an edge. Social conservatives like to say they do, of course, but economic populists tend to say the same thing, too. But that's a bigger lead than Obama has on, say, "the economy" as an issue.

Comments

I look for Obama to issue a policy statement supporting Griswold and a woman's right to choose. He'll follow up on those promises 6 months later with support for limits on both (see FISA).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama Statement on FISA
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Michael Ortiz, 202 228 5566
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Earlier today, Senator Obama voted in favor of the Dodd-Feingold amendment to repeal retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies (S. Amdt. 3907). He also supported other amendments to improve the bill, including the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment to protect Americans from unwarranted surveillance (S. Amdt. 3979), and the Feingold amendment to protect Americans from the bulk collection of communications (S. Amdt. 3912).

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.

"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."

Posted by steve duncan | July 16, 2008 3:38 PM

So why does Marc Ambinder have the scoop on your own blog that you are leaving the Atlantic???

Posted by Jared | July 16, 2008 3:39 PM

I'm sure the Democrats will beat McCain over the head with "social issues," constantly tarring him as anti-woman and anti-gay. Right? (Crickets.) Oh wait, wrong party.

Posted by some guy | July 16, 2008 3:43 PM

Um, the conventional wisdom holding that social issues play better for the GOP has nothing to do with poll results. On the contrary, the idea is that while the majority of poll respondents tend to favor liberal positions -- far more conservatives are single-issue voters when it comes social issues.

Gun rights are probably the classic illustration of this concept. While polls will often show that respondents favor various gun control measures by a 55-45 or so edge (depending on how the question is phrased), far more anti-gun control voters choose candidates primarily by their stance on guns, whereas very few pro gun control voters actually base their vote primarily on this issue. Feeding the one-issue zealot is at the heart of the GOP strategy: what is the modern Republican base, after all, if it's not a coalition of minority one-issue voters: NRA types, pro-lifers, supply sider, property rights types, etc.

Posted by Ryan W. | July 16, 2008 3:45 PM

Um, the conventional wisdom holding that social issues play better for the GOP has nothing to do with poll results. On the contrary, the idea is that while the majority of poll respondents tend to favor liberal positions, far more conservatives are single-issue voters when it comes social issues.

Gun rights are probably the classic illustration of this concept. While polls will often show that respondents favor various gun control measures by a 55-45 or so edge (depending on how the question is phrased), far more anti-gun control voters choose candidates primarily by their stance on guns, whereas very few pro gun control voters actually base their vote primarily on this issue. Feeding the one-issue zealot is at the heart of the GOP strategy: what is the modern Republican base, after all, if it's not a coalition of minority one-issue voters: NRA types, pro-lifers, supply sider, property rights types, etc.

Posted by Ryan W. | July 16, 2008 3:48 PM

You say "reactionary attitudes about women's sexuality and gender roles" and they say "obeying God's law".

Name calling isn't going to change anybody's mind.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 16, 2008 3:49 PM

Ryan W., I think that this is the sort of social issue that works in the Dems' favor: while many Republican pro-lifers might state, in principle, that they are against contraception, they won't turn out to vote based on their opposition to it. However, plenty of voters WILL defect to the democrats if they're worried about access to contraception being stymied by Republicans.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2008 3:51 PM

Um, the conventional wisdom holding that social issues play better for the GOP has nothing to do with poll results. On the contrary, the idea is that while the majority of poll respondents tend to favor liberal positions, far more conservatives are single-issue voters when it comes social issues.

Gun rights are probably the classic illustration of this concept. While polls will often show that respondents favor various gun control measures by a 55-45 or so edge (depending on how the question is phrased), far more anti-gun control voters choose candidates primarily by their stance on guns, whereas very few pro gun control voters actually base their vote primarily on this issue. Feeding the one-issue zealot is at the heart of the GOP strategy: what is the modern Republican base, after all, if it's not a coalition of minority one-issue voters: NRA types, pro-lifers, supply sider, property rights types, etc.

Posted by Ryan W. | July 16, 2008 3:51 PM

"obeying God's law".

God has a law about contraception? Who knew?

It's not in the 10 I read about.

Posted by Joel | July 16, 2008 3:53 PM

Um, the conventional wisdom holding that social issues play better for the GOP has nothing to do with poll results. On the contrary, the idea is that while the majority of poll respondents tend to favor liberal positions, far more conservatives are single-issue voters when it comes social issues.

Gun rights are probably the classic illustration of this concept. While polls will often show that respondents favor various gun control measures by a 55-45 or so edge (depending on how the question is phrased), far more anti-gun control voters choose candidates primarily by their stance on guns, whereas very few pro gun control voters actually base their vote primarily on this issue. Feeding the one-issue zealot is at the heart of the GOP strategy: what is the modern Republican base, after all, if it's not a coalition of minority one-issue voters: NRA types, pro-lifers, supply sider, property rights types, etc.

Posted by Ryan W. | July 16, 2008 3:54 PM

"the conventional wisdom usually holds that these topics give the GOP an edge"

That is true, but what is also true is the fact that the conventional wisdom is often wrong - as it is in this case.

Posted by Aaron | July 16, 2008 3:54 PM

I, for one, am absolutely shocked to see a pro-life administration taking action to reduce the availability of contraceptives.

Of course, the only contraceptives the post is actually about is the morning-after pill. Since this "contraceptive" takes effect after conception, it's at least a bit of a gray area whether or not it is abortion or contraception.

Nothing in the linked post credibly suggests the administration is reducing availability of condoms, birth control pills, etc. It's a bunch of extrapolation based on paranoia.

Posted by right | July 16, 2008 3:57 PM

Jeez, Ambinder beats you on your own departure?

Going out as you came in.

Posted by James | July 16, 2008 4:02 PM

I, for one, am absolutely shocked to see a pro-life administration taking action to reduce the availability of contraceptives. Up until now, I had always thought that the pro-life movement was a totally sincere effort to reduce the incidence of abortions by any means necessary.

I assume your /snark is on.

Conservatives have never been interested in reducing the number of abortions except through making them illegal. They've always wanted to make sex as dangerous as possible, and for women to stay in their place as baby factories. Gotta' keep 'em under control. (See Promise Keepers or the YFZ Ranch.)

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 4:02 PM

Tyro, I'm sure certain social issues work to the Dems advantage (stem cell research, contraceptives, gay adoption probably) and some would work to the Dems advantage if the party can frame it correctly. I was just being pedantic about Matt's point: these kinds of poll numbers don't really rebut the conventional wisdom concerning the GOP advantage on social issues b/c their advantage has always relied on the depth, and not breadth, of support. A measure banning panda videos on YouTube is losing 80/20. However, none of the 80% consider this among their top 20 priorities, while all of the 20% supporting the ban consider it a top 3 priority. If we're only concerned with politics, a politician is well-advised to support ban even though it is widely unpopular.

Posted by Ryan W. | July 16, 2008 4:03 PM

You know, I like Matt's writing, but sometimes his sarcasm gets pretty old. If you use it every post, it loses any all humor and effectiveness. I'm pro-choice, but this post is a bit dishonest as well.

Posted by Scott | July 16, 2008 4:04 PM

Scott,

he's going, so you'll be ok.

Posted by James | July 16, 2008 4:08 PM

"only contraceptives the post is actually about is the morning-after pill."

Wrong. It is about birth control pills, the patch, IUDs too. All of these can act at the level of implantation, after the sperm enters the egg (which is the right's definition of when life begins).

Posted by Joel | July 16, 2008 4:14 PM

"So why does Marc Ambinder have the scoop on your own blog that you are leaving the Atlantic???"

Holy Hell, that's true. And that's 50,000 different ways of wrong. First, why is Ambinder scooping you on stories that involve you intimately. Audacious comes to mind, but not in a good way. Second, what other reason is there to hang out (read: lurk) here at the Atlantic. Sure, there's Sullivan, but he gets linked all over the tubes, so when he doesn't something interesting, I'm sure to hear about it.

The Atlantic obviously doesn't know what it'll be losing.

Hopefully, your next job won't have a broken comment feature.

Posted by dannity | July 16, 2008 4:16 PM

I'm pro-choice, but this post is a bit dishonest as well.

In what way, Scott? Matt didn't say all contraception would be banned. He said that they were taking steps to reduce availability. They do this by taking some contraception methods and defining them as abortion. Re-read this sentence (emphasis mine):

The regulations, which could go into affect in as little as two months, would also re-define abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing 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."

That would include the pill, the patch, Norplant, or any IUD, all of which prevent implantation, effectively killing off the fertilized egg. It still allows condoms.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 4:20 PM

The new Bush policy doesn't deny contraceptives. Way to completely take it out of context. It only applies to stopping the discrimination against doctors and nurses who don't want to do abortions and health care facilities that don't want them done on site. So unless oyu support forced abortions, you should support this policy proposal.

Posted by Steven Ertelt | July 16, 2008 4:31 PM

LFC,

I'm no doctor, but I was told that hormone based birth control like the pill and certain IUDs prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation. Are you sure about that implantation thing? And no links to crazy Catholic websites, B.S. propaganda is B.S. propaganda.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 4:32 PM

"That would include the pill, the patch, Norplant, or any IUD, all of which prevent implantation, effectively killing off the fertilized egg. It still allows condoms.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 4:20 PM"

It seems like they want to kill off all forms of birth control that don't have anything artificial between a man's and a woman's genitals while keeping one of the more mutually uncomfortable forms. I'm half-surprised they don't try to kill the sponge as well. They hate non-procreative sex so much they want to whittle away at its pleasure potential as much as possible.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 4:41 PM

Griswald, Bitches!

Posted by calipygian | July 16, 2008 4:43 PM

Freddiemac, what you say is partly true. Ovulation is often, but not always, suppressed. Here's the first site I found that mentions the blocking of implantation.

In my quick search, I've bumped into some references but no good summaries that state that the lower the dosage, the more likely estrogen is to prevent implantation rather than ovulation.

Additionally, here's a site that discusses the use of emergency birth control. This too would be considered an abortion under Bush's definition.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 4:46 PM

" I was told that hormone based birth control like the pill and certain IUDs prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation."

The pill prevents ovulation as well as implantation (in cases where the ovulation block wasn't complete). The IUD acts after conception.

"When used as ongoing contraception, the primary mechanism of action of the IUD is spermicidal/ovicidal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device

"Combined oral contraceptive pills were developed to prevent ovulation by suppressing the release of gonadotropins. Combined hormonal contraceptives, including COCPs, inhibit follicular development and prevent ovulation as their primary mechanism of action. . . . Other secondary mechanisms have been hypothesized. One example is endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus. Pro-life groups consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient, and the existence of postfertilization mechanisms is a controversial topic. Some scientists point out that the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. From this, they conclude that endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

Posted by Joel | July 16, 2008 4:48 PM

Freddiemac, here's a quote from the Mayo Clinic site concerning progestin contraceptives:

The fertilization of the woman's egg with her partner's sperm is less likely to occur while she is taking, receiving, or using a progestin, but it can occur. Even so, the progestins make it harder for the fertilized egg to become attached to the walls of the uterus, making it difficult to become pregnant.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 4:50 PM

The Atlantic obviously doesn't know what it'll be losing.
Hopefully, your next job won't have a broken comment feature.

I went to the Center for American Progress's site (http://www.americanprogress.org/) and it's predictably somniferous--acres of bland, tedious preaching-to-the-choir position papers, complete with bullet points on (yawn) "Restoring America's Global Leadership" and "Seizing The Energy Opportunity."

As far as I can tell, Matt will be their first blogger (if he is in fact going to blog for them.) I'm not sure how this bodes for my future as a devoted reader.

Posted by James Gary | July 16, 2008 4:50 PM

If life begins at conception, then why aren't Republicans against in-vitro fertilization, which creates and discards large numbers of embryos? Sure, some get frozen, but few of those are ever used. Do any pro-lifers object to IVF on moral grounds? This appears to be more about punishing promiscuity than any actual baby-saving.

Posted by Alistair | July 16, 2008 5:09 PM

If life begins at conception, then why aren't Republicans against in-vitro fertilization, which creates and discards large numbers of embryos?

They are. Just look at their arguments against stem cell research.

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 5:11 PM

Joel,

That's not true. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. From Mirena's website:
Q. How does Mirena® work?

A. There is no single explanation of how Mirena® works.
Mirena® may:
Block sperm from reaching or fertilizing your egg
Make the lining of your uterus thin (this may also result in benefits like less menstrual bleeding over time)
Stop the release of your egg from your ovary (but this may not be the way it works in most cases)

It is believed that all 3 of these actions may work together to prevent pregnancy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 5:13 PM

"Wrong. It is about birth control pills, the patch, IUDs too."

Unfortunately, LFC and Joel have accepted a pro-life talking point. Only IUD's prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation.

The claim that female hormonal contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized fetus is a pro-life myth aimed against the pill. It is a possible effect, but is estimated to occur at a minuscule rate.

It is very unfortunate that anyone with a pro-choice position would use this pro-life talking point in order to make the pro-choice claim that opposing pre-implantation contraception is equivalent to opposing the pill. Yes, the pro-lifers think this way, but that's because they've created a myth about the pill for the purpose of calling its acceptability into question.

As Joel's Wikipedia link says:

"Some scientists point out that the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. From this, they conclude that endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs."

This is a hypothesized mechanism and is very unlikely. No one talked about the pill/patch preventing implantation until the pro-lifers seized upon this possibility in order to present it as an abortifacient. Pro-lifers should not promulgate this view and should oppose it vigorously. There is a big difference between a hypothetical possibility and the known clinical history of the pill.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | July 16, 2008 5:13 PM

Obviously the penultimate sentence in my comment should have referred to pro-choicers, not pro-lifers. Although it's good advice for pro-lifers, too, not that they'll take it.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | July 16, 2008 5:24 PM

Unfortunately, LFC and Joel have accepted a pro-life talking point.

Wow. The Mayo Clinic is pro-life. Who would have thought. (Read my quote at 4:50.)

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 5:38 PM

I'd say this actually might become an issue for the GOP that Bush & CO did this considering that there are a number of even conservative Protestants out there who feel that because they "are members of the protestant reformed church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the papacy in the mid 16th century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue."

The only problem is that since what's affected is the access of poor people to b/c, many Americans won't care. Look at the rhetoric of the right about sex: it's very much "you should only have sex if you can deal with the 'consequences'" ... i.e. if you cannot afford to have kids, you shouldn't have sex ... i.e. poor people shouldn't dare have the luxury of having sex which is a privilege that should be reserved for rich people.

If anything, even the "I think I'll have a French Tickler for I am a protestant" crowd will support Bush & CO for doing something to stop encouraging poor, unmarried folk from having sex which is something that should only occur in the confines of marriage between upper class individuals.

Posted by DAS | July 16, 2008 5:39 PM

LFC, isn't that link about progestin only birth control pills? There are other variety besides those. Does that statement from Mayo hold true for all types?

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 5:43 PM

I'm also shocked to discover that many anti-torture people are also against the war.

The US only tortures because there are terrorist out there trying to kill us. If these people were really interested in decreasing the number of tortured detainees, it seems they would support the US pursuing victory so torture would be unnecessary.

---

The above is obviously hogwash. Opposition to torture isn't about reducing the number of instances of torture; it's about the moral unacceptability of any torture.

The same is true for the pro-life movement and abortion. No, it's not just about reducing the number of abortions, though that would be a welcome development, it's about the moral horror that our society deems a class of persons OK to kill.

Posted by JohnMcG | July 16, 2008 5:51 PM

We don't fully understand exactly how IUDs, birth control pills, the patch, or emergency contraception prevent pregnancy because we really don't understand how pregnancy is prevented.

Let me back up. Everyone knows once you're pregnant, you can't get pregnant again, no matter how much sex you have. (IE, nobody is simultaneously 8 months pregnant and 4 months pregnant).

But we don't fully understand the mechanism of how that works. Is pregnancy just inhibiting ovulation? Is it also preventing implantation? Does the fetus itself play a role, maybe absorbing a competitor if its implanted? We haven't disentangled these.

So, we know birth control pills prevent pregnancy by mimicing hormonal aspects of pregnancy--but since we don't fully understand exactly how a pregnant body keeps from getting pregnant again, we can't make a definitive statement on the causal mechanism that birth control pills, IUDs, etc use.

Which is why this language is so ridiculous and so dangerous. ALL non-barrier forms of birth control would be labeled potential abortifacients, because we can't conclusively prove their mechanism of action. Of course, by this same argument, pregnancy ITSELF would be an abortifacient!

And people like right are idiots who do not understand chemistry or biology. Emergency contraception is just a triple dose of regular birth control pills! It works the same way as birth control pills because it IS birth control pills! Saying this law would ban ec but not birth control is like saying a law would ban three aspirin but not one aspirin. It's EXACTLY that stupid.

Posted by anonymiss | July 16, 2008 6:55 PM

"Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia."

I don't. If you bother to read the link, you will find that, like many wikipedia entries, it provides references. Go read the references and judge for yourself the accuracy instead of reflexively pissing on wikipedia. In fact, wikipedia has this correctly.

" . . . Joel have accepted a pro-life talking point. Only IUD's prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation."

Wikipedia is pro-life? Who knew?

You are wrong, Keith. While the primary mechanism of birth control pills is to prevent ovulation (and I posted this), they don't always work that way, and a fertilized ovum would be prevented from implantation later by the action of the pill.

I'm pro-choice, of course, but that doesn't justify reflexively rejecting facts just because they fit the anti-choice line.

Posted by Joel | July 16, 2008 6:59 PM

Great post, anonymiss!

This is really not about the mechanisms of birth control. This is really about the definition of when the state's interest in protecting diploid human cells begins.

There is, of course, no "life begins at conception." The sperm and egg are alive, and coming from humans they are "human life." It is, from the scientific standpoint, arbitrary, to priviledge diploid over haploid human life.

There is no compelling scientific basis for making the point of sperm-egg union the beginning of the state's interest in preserving diploid human life. Why not when the nuclei fuse? Why not when parental imprints are erased? Why not when new imprints are established? Why not at implantation? Why not when the fetus is first capable of feeling pain? Why not when the fetus is first capable of surviving free of the placenta?

Posted by Joel | July 16, 2008 7:10 PM

I'm shocked that the party of limited government wants to create a whole new class of privileged employees: pro-punishment pharmacists whose deeply held religious convictions compel them to harass women at Walgreen's, but somehow aren't deep enough to compel them to negotiate their preferences in private, or find a different job, or pay any price whatsoever for the morality they would impose on others.

Posted by Aatos | July 16, 2008 8:18 PM

after the sperm enters the egg (which is the right's definition of when life begins).

That's actually the biological definition of when a life begins (as opposed to when life began, which was billyuns and billyuns of years ago).

Pregnancy is generally defined to begin with implantation.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 16, 2008 8:44 PM

Joel--thank you!

I was using that to say the same thing you are--that this is a ridiculous standard, and that it's not about "life" vs "not life", and pretending that this is about the mechanisms of birth control is fatuous. (Really, these people should be HORRIFIED by pregnancy. Fetuses are more than happy to absorb each other--how do you think people end up with one blue eye and one brown eye, anyways? I just can't bring myself to think they're murderers, though.)

There's zero science here. This is a political agenda against birth control, with some fake science.

Posted by anonymiss | July 16, 2008 8:47 PM

"I don't. If you bother to read the link, you will find that, like many wikipedia entries, it provides references. Go read the references and judge for yourself the accuracy instead of reflexively pissing on wikipedia"

Or better yet YOU could read what I wrote, from whence I copied it, and see that what you quoted was wrong.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 8:47 PM

"Pregnancy is generally defined to begin with implantation."

And your point is . . . ?

"Or better yet YOU could read what I wrote, from whence I copied it, and see that what you quoted was wrong."

I did, and I did, and it's not.

Sorry. Do play again sometime.

Posted by Joel | July 16, 2008 9:03 PM

Great posts from anonymiss (as to the problem of defining exactly how mimicing pregnancy prevents pregnancy) and Joel (as to the issue of diploidness for defining human life). For the latter, why don't we just take it to the "every sperm is precious" logical extension? Under the correct circumstances--meets egg, implants, nothing goes wrong in the next, say, seven months minimum--that sperm is a whole new person.

Posted by Deborah | July 16, 2008 9:57 PM

"You are wrong, Keith. While the primary mechanism of birth control pills is to prevent ovulation (and I posted this), they don't always work that way, and a fertilized ovum would be prevented from implantation later by the action of the pill."

You and LFC are the ones with reading comprehension problems and/or have a pro-life agenda.

All the references anyone has provided, including yours and LFCs, say that the prevention of implantation is a hypothesized, possible effect of hormonal birth control. What we know, contrary to anonymiss, is that pregnancy prevents ovulation and so does hormonal birth control.

What anonymiss says that's true and a good point is that if you want to claim that hormonal birth control prevents implantation as a significant portion of its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy, then because its the same mechanism by which the body prevents ovulation during pregnancy, then pregnancy itself must prevent a double pregnancy a significant portion of the time via the prevention of implantation. That's an abhorrent consequence from a pro-life perspective, as it would imply that God himself created and uses "abortion". But it's also just silly. The mechanism by which pregnancy/hormone treatment/breast feeding prevent pregnancy is by eliminating ovulation.

The implantation thing is a hypothetical consequence by virtue of the fact that there's a very small chance that ovulation won't be prevented and because the lining of the uterus is affected, a chance that a fertilized egg won't implant. The former is a very small possibility, the equivalent of the theoretical effectiveness of the pill, which is about 99.9%. The latter is a hypothesized effect of hormone treatment that would possibly occur when that 0.1% fertilization occurs. This works out to be a very, small likelihood, assuming that it happens at all.

This is a pro-life talking point. It does not describe the reality of hormonal birth control treatment or natural pregnancy.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | July 17, 2008 1:01 AM

Social issues are generally perceived as giving the GOP an edge not because of the numbers of anti-choicers vis-a-vis the number of pro-choicers, but because of the passion and single-mindedness of those anti-choicers. In other words, a pro-choicer is less likely to be a one-issue voter than an anti-choicer, and much more likely to vote for someone who disagrees with them regarding abortion of gay marriage, for example, than vice versa. Pro-choicers see abortion as a choice; anti-choicers see it as murder. That's what gives the GOP an edge--not the proportions.

Posted by Jon | July 17, 2008 3:20 AM

Social issues are generally perceived as giving the GOP an edge not because of the numbers of anti-choicers vis-a-vis the number of pro-choicers, but because of the passion and single-mindedness of those anti-choicers. In other words, a pro-choicer is less likely to be a one-issue voter than an anti-choicer, and much more likely to vote for someone who disagrees with them regarding abortion or gay marriage, for example, than vice versa. Pro-choicers see abortion as a choice; anti-choicers see it as murder. That's what gives the GOP an edge--not the proportions.

Posted by Jon | July 17, 2008 3:21 AM

"I, for one, am absolutely shocked to see a pro-life administration taking action to reduce the availability of contraceptives. Up until now, I had always thought that the pro-life movement was a totally sincere effort to reduce the incidence of abortions by any means necessary. This makes it look like their convictions about the metaphysical status of the fetus are really just of a piece with a whole set of reactionary attitudes about women's sexuality and gender roles." -- Young Matt

Well, no . . . actually a lot of people believe abortion is murder.

And a lot are just made very queasy by the very thought of it.

Pro-choice liberals who attended good colleges (I'm one) often like to crank out the lame-o rhetoric about "gender." It makes us feel better. Like all opposition to abortion is really just about wanting to suppress female sexuality and feminism. But, frankly, that's bullshit.

That's not why most pro-life people are so upset. They're opposed because they view abortion as a selfish, morally reprehensible act.

This evidently is a very, very scary idea for Matt.

Posted by SD | July 17, 2008 12:45 PM

"Pro-choice liberals who attended good colleges (I'm one) often like to crank out the lame-o rhetoric about "gender." It makes us feel better. Like all opposition to abortion is really just about wanting to suppress female sexuality and feminism. But, frankly, that's bullshit.That's not why most pro-life people are so upset. They're opposed because they view abortion as a selfish, morally reprehensible act."

I keep trying to post a very long comment (and watch five copies pop up an hour from now and make me feel really stupid) but very, very short version:

OK - let's say anti-abortion people* "are so upset . . . because they view abortion as a selfish, morally reprehensible act." Ok. Abortion BAD. Got it.

* I actually distinguish antiabortion people (and the antiabortion movement) from individuals who are arguably genuinely pro-life (even if I disagree with em).

So, while anti-abortion people clearly won't be ok with a pro-choice world, presumably they'd also like to reduce the number of abortions until that wonderful day when abortion is banned, and nobody ever has a (now unsafe and illegal) abortion ever again, and any evilselfish women who try get strapped down 'til they give birth. And then executed. Or something.

Okay, so how can they help reduce the number of abortions?

Well, you can make contraceptives widely and easily available - oh, wait, the antiabortion movement opposes that. After all, there just maybe a teeny-tiny chance that incredibly rarely they might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, and that's KILLING A BABY!

Ok, but not all contraceptives - you can make condoms, at least, widely and easily available - oh, wait, the antiabortion movement opposes that.

Ok, well, at least you could provide young people with accurate and reliable information - given that a fair number are already (or will be within a few years) having sex - about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies - oh, wait, the antiabortion movement opposes that. You see, it might lead to unwanted pregnancies. Or something.

Ok, ok, but at least you can support legislation that would help women (some who weren't planning on having a(nother) baby - and all too often, some who were) face harsh economic realities (economy gone south, job disappeared, spouse laid off, home foreclosed, unexpected and uncovered enormous medical bills, etc.) and not decide that they simply can't afford to have a(nother) child. I mean, there's all sorts of things, from public assistance to (even unpaid) family leave to affordable child care - oh wait, the anti-abortion movement - and its favored politicians - opposes that.

Hmm, Wait. So . . . what on earth is going on here? It's almost as if the antiabortion movement wasn't just animated by opposition to abortion (although surely they don't like it). I mean, given their apparent unconcern with actually reducing the number of abortions in ways that don't involve lying to people about sex (and actually work) - well, it's almost like "their convictions about the metaphysical status of the fetus are really just of a piece with a whole set of reactionary attitudes about women's sexuality and gender roles," y'know.

If not, can you explain?

See also part of this ObWi thread, including the linked article here.

Posted by Dan S. | July 17, 2008 1:28 PM

If Republicans got laid more without resorting to paying for it (Vitter,) affairs (Fossella,) or bathroom rendezvous with members of the same sex (Craig,) perhaps they'd be interested in having access to the morning-after pill.

But who am I kidding - if they got laid more, they'd probably be Democrats. When you're married at 20 years old, you're not getting laid much...

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | July 17, 2008 2:50 PM