Maybe Not So Insane After All

A video was brought to my attention on Facebook this morning. Here is the link to the video: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/15/426509/the-five-birth-control/ One might view the statement that the Liberals are trying to get rid of the poor to be insane, but I think if you have an idea about the history of the birth control movement, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, etc, then that statement does not look so crazy after all.

Now I'm not quite sure where they get that Republicans are wanting the poor to get "rich". That's baloney. The only thing I have seen the Republicans looking out for over the last several years are--the Republicans. And believe you me, I am no Democrat.

However, with all due respect, I think where they're coming from is that if you look at Margaret Sanger, the "mother" of the birth control movement in this country, she had some very harsh views on racial minorities, the poor, the handicapped, etc. She was a eugenicist. She said the purpose of birth control--in her words--was to create a race of thoroughbreds. (for some of Sanger's colorful quotations, see: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm ) Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, which pretty much targets poor neighborhoods, and poor women, with their poor quality contraception, and then abortions when those fail. This isn't paranoia; it comes straight from ex-PP clinic director Abby Johnson, author of _Unplanned_ who left when she saw that there was no efforts being made to reduce abortions and help women in other ways. On the contrary, one of the straws that broke the camel's back was when the clinics were given a quota of abortion pills to sell monthly, because money was getting tight. Women, especially poor women, deserve better than this. I do not believe that the lady who posted the video, or any of the "liberals" I know are out to exterminate the poor. But I do know the roots of Planned Parenthood ( _Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood_, by Marshall and Donovan, gives a comprehensive history of and look into the organization.) I am aware of Sanger's feelings towards the disadvantaged--and it appears there are some really powerful people who have not shed these ideas. I was sad to hear the president speaking proudly of the contraception mandate in terms of "This will save us money because children cost more money than contraceptives." That really made me sick to my stomach. You cannot put a price on the worth of a child!

These hormones they are filling these poor womens' bodies with, they are highly carcinogenic. Yes, they may lower the risks of uterine and ovarian cancers, but they dramatically raise the risk of breast cancer, and that is a more common cancer than either uterine or ovarian cancer. To anyone who wants evidence, I recommend the research of Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, who has taken good hard looks at all the available studies, evaluated them, attempted to explain their discrepencies, and shows why the *one* study that people are using to discount the many many more studies that prove this link is a flawed one. So in the name of "saving money," they are promoting the havoc on womens' bodies that is hormonal contraception. There is also the implicit pressure from all around not to have children. I came across an article yesterday that there was a PP clinic who was handing out 2 forms of contraception, unsolicited, even to women who didn't have a need of it, to every woman with an appointment, and then charging the gov't for birth control counseling. If someone handed me a condom, then that would scream one loud message to me: "You don't belong reproducing. You shouldn't have children." Although I am currently avoiding pregnancy, this mere statement would be such a tremendous insult not only to me, but to my husband. The sexual embrace, which in body language says, "I give myself totally to you, and I receive your totality, and this communion of body and soul may be so strong we may have to name it in nine months," should be respected in every marriage, even those of the poor. I am well aware that unmarried men and women have sexual relations--I myself was certainly one of those, and was four months pregnant when we married, poor college students--but I think we'd see a lot less "using" of women if artificial contraception didn't render women perpetually "available." I'd sooner pay for a poor woman's baby before I paid for her hormones, and I'd spend the time and effort empowering her with knowledge of her fertility instead of handing her a condom.

Mother Teresa worked with the poor women in Calcutta. They did a study with these women, and they achieved a success rate of over 98% with the use of Natural Family Planning. Fertility awareness has grown by leaps and bounds since even this study was done. A woman does not even have to take her waking temperatures in the morning to keep track of her fertility. I completely agree that a woman should have the tools to avoid conception if she so wishes. I do not agree that the way to do it is to give them these hormones which will not only raise their risk of cancer,but heart attacks, blood clots, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and so on, and so forth. The future medical care for what these women are doing to themselves is going to be mighty expensive.

Children are always a blessing, whether you're rich, poor, black, white, healthy, ill, etc. With all my heart, I would rather help support a poor family with my money, and spend time helping her learn about her fertility--buy her a fertility monitor even, if she wished--and use my money to support the dignity of that family than to suggest the bill of goods that is usually offered to them these days. Children are the crowning glory of a family, even a poor family. Fertility is not a disease and should not be treated as such.

Which situation do you think affirms a relationship better:

~The one in which the poor couple uses artificial contraception in fear and trembling, only with regards to pleasure (and not even unity), feeling they should not reproduce due to societal attitudes, in which the woman--or man in the case of a vasectomy-- may be undergoing the indignity of health problems related to essentially "breaking" a healthy functioning part of her body, in which many times the only factor considered is the desire of the man, because he may have a greater libido and she is perpetually "available," but many times ends up feeling used and degraded; in which the unplanned child is potentially disposable.

or

~The one in which the poor couple respects their mutual fertility and the integrity of their bodies, neither harming themselves or impairing their natural healthy functions in the efforts to avoid a pregnancy; in which the potential for new life to spring from love is kept alive, and discussed periodically, rather than suppressed and avoided; in which the woman's capacity to bear a child is automatically respected by the man in his self-control, during those times they have chosen to avoid pregnancy; in which a couple who is avoiding pregnancy felt enough support that if they were to find themselves pregnant, they knew things would be alright because those around them recognize and respect the sacredness of the sexual union and the springing forth of a child as a result.

I cannot cover every "but what about" in reference to the poor and contraception. I am fully aware that the vast majority of people see the second situation as somewhat different from the views of "modern" society regarding sexuality. The fact that some people do not act in accord with the human dignity they had at their conceptions does not mean they are not entitled to this same dignity as sexually active adults. The message we need to be getting across is not "We don't want you to reproduce, and we're willing to sacrifice the sacredness of your marriage/sexuality and your bodily integrity to do that," but "You are precious, and your fertility is a gift from which good will spring as a result of the sacred union between you and your spouse. Of course you have much say as to the timing and amount of blessings you receive, but disrespecting your dignity, your body, and your relationship is not an option. You are worth the wait, and worth the effort. Let us teach you how to work with your fertility to both achieve and avoid pregnancy, to help you be healthy and understand how your body normally works."

Yes, I believe all of this, and if that makes me insane, then so be it. I have an intense respect for women, men, and the power of the sexual union to both unite and bring forth new life. Poor women are no less deserving of this than women of better means.

You could say I went on quite a tangent, but really it is all connected. Do I think every "liberal" wants to get rid of the poor? Of course not. I find many of them to be empathetic people who wish to give what they can of their sweat and hard-earned money to help their less fortunate brothers and sisters. Do I think there is a contingent of liberals who still maintain the vision of Margaret Sanger, and wish to see greater population control, especially amongst the poor, or those they'd like to see less of? Absolutely. Our president sees babies as punishments. His science czar John Holdren does not hold back in his admiration of eugenicist Harrison Brown. Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, sat on the committee which helped the president formulate the now much disputed contraception mandate. You and I, the poor, the majority of those who work at places like Planned Parenthood in the name of helping women--we are all just pawns in a scary game of population control. Because the vast majority of people have lost view of the nature of sexuality--no better than a box of Frosted Flakes these days ("They're GRRREAT!")--then they are content to see happen whatever happens as long as their loins are kept happy. I think that the poor are deserving of having healthy, stable relationships built upon the foundation of mutual respect for each other's bodies, minds, and souls. I don't care how many people "just don't think that way" or "really have no control of themselves" or whatever. You do not abandon the ideal, you do not make the poor settle for less than they deserve because you do not think they can change their behavior, or see things from a different point of view. Human dignity is theirs by right. Let them keep it.

I will end with an amazing quote by G.K. Chesterton:

The Birth-Controller does not bother about all these things, for the perfectly simple reason that it is not such people that he wants to control. What he wants to control is the populace, and he practically says so. He always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it produces so many children. The question he dreads is “Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?” His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house, but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: “You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice. I will deprive myself of your children.”