Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rocky2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!dross From: dross@rocky2.UUCP (David Ross) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Birth Control Message-ID: <122@rocky2.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 21:37:28 EDT Article-I.D.: rocky2.122 Posted: Fri Aug 23 21:37:28 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:01:32 EDT References: <29057@lanl.ARPA> <389@oliven.UUCP> <219@bcsaic.UUCP>, <889@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Rockefeller Univ., N.Y.C. 10021 Lines: 60 >>PAMELA PINCHA-WAGENER writes: >> This is the point where most Pro-lifers lose any support I might >> have considered. I do not understand why they not only want to >> do away with abortion , but birth control methods as well?!! >Which Pro-lifers? Maybe the ones you've been running into are like >the lone pro-lifer in the recent People magazine article -- opposed >to abortion strictly for religious reasons. Given the religions that >are most common in North America, it's not surprising that such people >support the idea that every act of sexual intercourse should carry >the possibility of pregnancy and birth -- Genesis 1:28 and all that. >But I have yet to hear Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly or even the >Rev. Jerry Falwell advocate the outlawing of birth control, whether >for the married or the unmarried. Only a minority of articles in >the Human Life Review are anti-sex-for-fun. And those on this net >who attack Planned Parenthood are doing so because they say Planned >Parenthood advocates and performs abortions, not because Planned Parent- >hood advocates contraception. Tell us which pro-lifers you are >talking about. > -- Matt Rosenblatt Well, there's the Catholic church, for one (this is *not* an attack on Catholicism, so no flames, please). The Church opposes any form of birth control other than the rhythm method; since people who use the rhythm method are commonly known as "parents", this is tantamount to being opposed to any form of birth control at all. The Reagan administration has successfully restricted teenagers' access to birth control, mostly through the Adolescent Family Life Act, which specifically prohibits funding for family planning for nonpregnant teens. The AFLA is intended to support "chastity education"; the rate of teenage preg- nancies in this country has risen sharply over the last four years as a result. I will admit that I haven't heard any guidelines from Schlafly or Falwell on the subject, but Jerry has probably been too busy buying Krugerrands to deal with this issue (1/2 :-). Finally, as to people posting on the net, Ray Frank has been taking Planned Parenthood to task for supporting contraception, rather than preach- ing "groin control". As to the objection that the above-mentioned are only concerned with providing *teenagers* with birth control, and not older individuals, I think that if you start by restricting birth control for one segment of the popula- tion, it's but a short step to denying it to the rest of society. Some current forms of birth control are unacceptable to the right-to-life movement. For example: the IUD is unacceptable to many pro-lifers, since they view it as equivalent to abortion. As another example, Catholic hospitals may refuse to treat rape victims with the so-called "morning after" pill, the refusal being based on religious rather than medical grounds. Given that early advocates of birth control such as Margaret Sanger were jailed for their beliefs, I can quite easily believe that attempts might be made to restrict birth control. David Ross NYU Medical Center {allegra, seismo, ihnp4}!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!dross The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the admini- stration, faculty, or staff of New York University Medical Center. -- Remember: wherever you go . . . there you are.