An Open Response to NARAL: Pro-Choice America

NARAL president Nancy Keenen placed this open letter in the American Spectator this weekend.  She calls on pro-life groups to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies by supporting "increased access" to contraceptives:

The time has come to join together in a new campaign to reduce the number of abortions.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid – who disagrees with us on the issue of abortion – has offered a commonsense bill called the

Prevention First Act which would help reduce unintended pregnancies through better access to birth control. This landmark legislation represents a serious first step in addressing the problem, and I hope you’ll join pro choice Americans and me in offering your support.

Here is my response:

Dear Nancy,

I am glad that you now recognize that abortion is bad for women, society, and humanity, and wish to decrease the number of abortions that are performed.  We do have some areas of agreement; for instance I also agree that the best way decrease the number of abortions is to decrease the number of unintended pregnancies.  I agree that our groups should work together to do just that.

You seem to believe that increased access to contraceptives is the most effective answer to the problem of unintended pregnancy.  As I'm sure you are well aware, there is differences within the pro-life community regarding the morality of using artificial contraception. I agree that contraception should remain a viable choice for adults who are sexually active.  However, I seriously question the efficacy of increasing public funding of contraceptives a the primary means of reducing unintended pregnancy.  It should be self evident that any effort to "Put Prevention First" should concentrate on the methods most effective in decreasing pregnancy.

That why I was surprised that Senator Reid's bill focuses mainly on increasing access to contraception.  The idea that increasing contraceptive use as the major strategy in reducing pregnancy is severely flawed.  Pregnancy is not a pathological disease that indiscriminately strikes unsuspecting women.  Pregnancy is the natural consequence of chosen human behavior (excepting the rare cases of pregnancy by rape).  You seem to want to treat pregnancy as a disease, in which we need more medication to battle.  However, I suggest that we treat pregnancy like other behavior related issues, and concentrate not on the flawed pharmacological means of decreasing pregnancy, but on the behavioral aspects of human sexuality.  In other words, our most way to decrease pregnancy is to discourage behavior that results in pregnancy.

Furthermore, there is a large body of evidence that suggests that increased access to contraceptives will not accomplish what you desire it will.  Just so I'm not accused of a bias in my reasoning, I wish to use evidence solely from pro-abortion choice sources.  I believe increasing access to contraception without focusing on the behavioral aspect of human sexuality is gravely flawed, and this data concurs.

First, this study by Dr. Rachel Jones from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) from 2002 shows that a majority (53.7%) of women who had abortions in the years 2000-2001 used contraception (full article available here).:

More than half of women obtaining abortions in 2000 (54%) had been using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant (Table 1). This figure is slightly lower than the proportion of women having abortions in 1994 who had been contraceptive users (58%)

Although we know that no contraceptive is 100% effective, over half of women who had abortions stated they had used them in the month that they conceived.  Emphasizing this as the most important means of preventing pregnancy is not so effective, wouldn't you say?

I'm sure that you will either say that better education on contraception and better access to "emergency contraception" will improve these numbers.  These points seem to be emphasized in Senator Reid's bill.  However, once again using research from pro-abortion choice sources, I believe you are incorrect.

This very recent study in JAMA attempted to see whether increased access to emergency contraception would decrease the pregnancy rate.  Two things became very clear from this study (which I wrote about here):

1.  Women who had free access at home to emergency contraception had the same pregnancy rate as those who had to obtain from a clinic or pharmacy. 

2.  Even more surprising, the women in this study had been educated by Planned Parenthood about contraception and STDs, had been given contraceptives (including emergency contraception) free of charge (actually, they were paid a small amount for the study), and they knew that they would be followed for the study.  In other words, these women had exactly the things that Reid believes should be the primary strategy in preventing pregnancy. 

What were the results?  8% of women became pregnant and 12% contracted a sexually transmitted disease! 

Maybe this is good enough for you, but I'm not willing to compromise the health and future of our women in this way.  If you are really interested in decreasing unwanted pregnancies in women, I invite you to join us in treating pregnancy not as a disease but as a natural consequence of human sexuality.  The most effective way to decrease pregnancy for those not wishing to be pregnant is to educate individuals on remaining sexually pure if they do not desire pregnancy.  This should be our goal, and avoiding discussing the spiritual and moral aspects of human sexuality is part of the problem.

Sincerely,

Serge

HT: Bush V Choice blog