Why Is The Right Going Against Birth Control?

[3 is enough]

They think all those icky brown/black people are already overbreeding and greatly, greatly fear having white people be the minority.

Bingo. In their twisted minds, the "icky brown/black" people don't use birth control- they have large families. But the whites do use it, and have a much lower birth rate. This just cannot be tolerated. So let's ban birth control, and force white people to have larger families!

Of course, they could never openly admit to this, so they push the morality issue. And this isn't all republicans, just the far right wing Christian types.

[ElphabaGalinda]

It's also easier to keep a woman trapped in the lifestyle if she has zillions of kids. It's also an easier way to make her into a helpmeet, homemaker, and homeschooler because I imagine with dozen of small kids and being constantly pregnant for years would make her too exhausted to argue or try anything else. It's a way to control women to the point where if they ever wanted to leave the movement it would get harder and harder.

And of course, they'd think birth control is for sluts who deserve to be punished and good married people should accept all blessings God gives them. Strange how it's only babies that are born to married, white, Christian heterosexuals in North America who count as blessings. What does that make everyone else's babies then?

[emmiedahl]

If Republicans are voting for anti-choice candidates, I don't really care if their personal ideology differs. Will Republicans vote for an anti-birth control candidate over a pro-choice one? Definitely.

[Austin]

If Republicans are voting for anti-choice candidates, I don't really care if their personal ideology differs. Will Republicans vote for an anti-birth control candidate over a pro-choice one? Definitely.

That's a good point.

[valsa]

I just wanted to explain that everyone in a party is not the same.

Gee, thanks. Without your explanation I would have gone on thinking they were a faceless hive mind.

If there are supposedly all these pro-choice voters on the right, they certainly aren't very vocal. And they're usually voting for people who have no problem taking away rights from other people.

If it were a different subject, I think people would be a lot less willing to make excuses. For instance, if there were a politician who was trying to take the vote away from black people again, I certainly would not excuse the people who voted for that politician just because they happen to agree with their fiscal policy.

[kb2]

I live in a very conservative area, and pretty much everyone here is anti-choice. But the vast majority of people here are very pro-birth control. If anyone votes for something anti-birth control, it's because they've been told some anti-choice thing isn't going to affect birth control at all.

I also know some people who are anti-birth control--they are Catholics who practice natural family planning. I don't want to conflate a preference for that method (or being Catholic) with being anti-birth control (I know you can prefer NFP for yourself but not want to limit other's choices), and I know some people are happy with NFP--but the people I happen to know seem terribly unhappy. They strike me as being in a "misery loves company" mindset--they had to do all this work (marrying young so they wouldn't have premarital sex, not having sex part of the month, it totally works except for those times where we cheated and had sex at the wrong time and had those extra babies), and they seem jealous of people out there traipsing about with their worry-less sex lives because they're taking abortifacient birth control. I don't know anyone personally who is quiverfull, but I always imagine their mindsets are the same--I can't give it up now, because I've sacrificed too much for my actions to mean nothing. I keep having to have kids when I slip and have sex at the wrong time, so I think everyone else should, too. Next to that level of bitterness, it makes sense to try to trick other people into having the same problems you have, including lying about what anti-birth control laws really contain, or refusing to prescribe plan B to a teenager. :roll:

Anyway, so bitter liars for Jesus tell everyone the personhood amendment won't affect birth control at all, and all their conservative friendquaitances believe them, and that's why BS laws like that die at a much lower rate than they would on their own real merits.

[Terrie]

Racism and classism are probably part of it [....] I am willing to bet that these same people are opposed to reproductive choice for white women while also supporting forced sterilization of "the wrong people."

Agreed. There's also the underlying stereotypes of the "welfare queen" and the "illegal immigrant dropping anchor babies left and right." In the minds of the Right, the poor, brown people already have as many kids as they can. So it's all about "positive" eugenics right now -- making sure the correct kind of people have lots of babies. :angry-banghead:

[ilovetchotchkes]

My über Catholic friends claim its "anti feminist" because the onus is on the woman to keep herself from being pregnant. I call BULLSHIT on that. Their whole line is that you shouldn't be having sex if you're not willing to accept the consequences. And my argument back was "when I was first married and could not afford a child, and had I gotten pregnant, I would have kept it, but you people believe that the almighty made a virgin pregnant, but can't get around some birth control and how DARE You judge me for waiting until I wanted to give my child the life that I feel they deserve instead of being so poor that all we can afford is tuna helper every night for dinner and not being able to make the rent". (I don't have a problem with people w/ not a lot of money having kids, I just did not want the added stress of having to provide for a child I could not afford, period)

They claim that everything can be "cured" naturally, and that even women with PCOS who are on the pill should not take it and that there are other cures. I told one of them that was bullshit, and that since I was on the pill for 10 years that probably preserved my fertility (thank you I think it was NurseNell? for sharing that info back on another thread!!!!!) and that had I NOT taken it I would not have my son who is my absolute heart's delight.

I will probably go back on the pill once Thing #2 is born, and if we decide not to have #3.... I might get an IUD or maybe Hubs will get snipped.

[sriracha]

If Republicans are voting for anti-choice candidates, I don't really care if their personal ideology differs. Will Republicans vote for an anti-birth control candidate over a pro-choice one? Definitely.

It's not even so much the voting, its the candidates they keep choosing for office. If Republicans are largely so moderate on birth control and women's health issues, why can't they find a candidate to run on that platform? Sorry but Santorum is a legitimate representative of that party, chosen by that party to represent them, as are Mitt and Newt with all of their problems of infidelity and hating on the poor. This does not show a moderate party.

[emmiedahl]

sriracha, I think the Republican party has a completely different vision for the US than most Republicans. The party does have some effect on who makes it to the primaries. I know Republicans who are not racist, anti-gay, anti-choice or any of the other evil that the party pushes.

I agree with you for the most part, but I think people have less accountability for who the Republican contender is than what they actually choose on their ballots.

[3 is enough]

Santorum is a throwback as far as his stance against birth control is concerned. Every Catholic I know, myself and all my family included, does not follow the Church's teachings on that matter. They all use birth control other than NFP, and, once the family is complete, often opt for tubal ligations or vasectomies without a second thought or a bit of guilt.

[ilovetchotchkes]

Santorum is a throwback as far as his stance against birth control is concerned. Every Catholic I know, myself and all my family included, does not follow the Church's teachings on that matter. They all use birth control other than NFP, and, once the family is complete, often opt for tubal ligations or vasectomies without a second thought or a bit of guilt.

That's how my Catholic parents feel about it. They're oddballs in my family, the rest of my family is the Latin Mass variety of Catholic.

[kb2]

I'd just like to add that despite my above post ranting about the couple of couples who happen to be Catholic and use NFP and are jerks about it, I also know waaaay more Catholics who use birth control. I just happened to encounter the very few crazy ones. People who are anti-birth control are few and far between, and also people who share beliefs tend to cluster, is all.

[notsocommon]

Poor and minority people wont overbeed, they will die. The 'right' is perfectly OK with that.

[Elle]

I really don't understand this. It seems that attacking birth control and women's medical issues would hurt those on the right. Most Americans are not quiverful nor do they want to have unlimited numbers of children.

What I don't get is how their fellow idiots will keep reproducing as fast as possible, so they should WANT us godless heathens to not have godless heathen babies.

[GenerationCedarchip]

Racism and classism are probably part of it. I can't really put my finger on it or back up my beliefs. But, just anecdotally, I have had conservatives tell me it is nice to see a middle class white family with many children. (the people who have said it recently, obviously they do not know my situation well)

There is this implication that we are the *right* people to be breeding. One person actually told me that white women are having all the abortions, using birth control, focusing on careers, and that we will be bred out of existence. I am willing to bet that these same people are opposed to reproductive choice for white women while also supporting forced sterilization of "the wrong people."

I definitely think there's some of this thinking going into it. Also, I'm seeing a huge backlash against "no-fault" divorce brewing. It's partly from people who oppose on moral grounds, but I've also been seeing a lot of MRA types getting more vocal. These guys tend to be more secular, and they are pushing against no-fault because in their minds, women are just taking advantage of men by getting married, having children, dumping the husband and then getting the right to both keep her own earnings and get a child support check whether the man wanted a divorce or not. And I think some of this thinking plays into the BC question, too. After all, if a woman has no job and many children, it's much harder for her to have the freedom to leave.

[debrand]

I definitely think there's some of this thinking going into it. Also, I'm seeing a huge backlash against "no-fault" divorce brewing. It's partly from people who oppose on moral grounds, but I've also been seeing a lot of MRA types getting more vocal. These guys tend to be more secular, and they are pushing against no-fault because in their minds, women are just taking advantage of men by getting married, having children, dumping the husband and then getting the right to both keep her own earnings and get a child support check whether the man wanted a divorce or not. And I think some of this thinking plays into the BC question, too. After all, if a woman has no job and many children, it's much harder for her to have the freedom to leave.

And why would these men want to be married to a woman who doesn't want them as a husband. Divorce is painful but it would be so much worse to be married to someone who doesn't love you. I'd imagine to that the spouse who feels trapped by the marriage will hate the other person.

[valsa]

And why would these men want to be married to a woman who doesn't want them as a husband. Divorce is painful but it would be so much worse to be married to someone who doesn't love you. I'd imagine to that the spouse who feels trapped by the marriage will hate the other person.

For what it's worth, MRA guys are usually the type who push the whole "Women give sex for love, men give love for sex" idea. I don't think they care whether their wives love or even like them, as long as they spread their legs on cue.

[emmiedahl]

I think divorce is usually a good thing.

No fault divorce is not just used by women, contrary to what MRA guys think. I have a male acquaintance who recently divorced his wife for no reason except that he has been miserable for ten years and they don't love each other. She was pissed, because she was willing to have a platonic marriage and (oh yeah) he's rich. He ended up giving her tons of money so she would not fight joint physical custody because in my area judges don't like it. If he has been miserable--and as far as I have seen, he is--then he needs to get out. Ironically, his family sided with the wife, so he lost a lot more than he planned to.

Not all men want sex and a clean house. Some want love and a companion suited to them.

[GolightlyGrrl]

For what it's worth, MRA guys are usually the type who push the whole "Women give sex for love, men give love for sex" idea. I don't think they care whether their wives love or even like them, as long as they spread their legs on cue.

I call them the "Just Fuck Me and Feed Me" guys.

[Elle]

Emmie, I'm so sorry for your friend. His family can eat a bag of fermented dicks for that. How awful to think it would be better for the kids to think a loveless marriage is better than to see their parents happy and in love, especially when at least one parent wanted to keep things civil..

[GenerationCedarchip]

For what it's worth, MRA guys are usually the type who push the whole "Women give sex for love, men give love for sex" idea. I don't think they care whether their wives love or even like them, as long as they spread their legs on cue.

Yes. This. From what I've seen(mostly in family law cases), a lot of them are also big on the "staying in the marriage no matter what is the wife's duty" school of thought. And some of the manipulation I've seen used to try to force women to stay in unhappy homes is pretty mindblowing.

[NurseNell]

In the past, it was the Dems who were anti-abortion and uncomfortable with birth control. There was an interesting New Yorker article on it a few months ago. Then the Republicans figured out that there was a considerable voting population they could tap if they pandered to their religious beliefs and that started the party on the path which led to where it is today. It sickens me all the more to know that it's ultimately some political game, it isn't even as though they're staunchly defending their own beliefs, however ridiculous and misguided they might be.

Historically Democrats were largely Catholic, thus the anti-abortion and uncomfortable with birth control. Today Catholics still make up a large % of Democrat voters but tend not to vote single issues. The more ultra-conservative Catholics are Republicans.

[Rosa]

If it were a different subject, I think people would be a lot less willing to make excuses. For instance, if there were a politician who was trying to take the vote away from black people again, I certainly would not excuse the people who voted for that politician just because they happen to agree with their fiscal policy.

There ARE a lot of people right now trying to limit voting rights. They don't say it's about Black people, but all the "if a felon votes that should be a felony!" and "let's have a shorter absentee ballot window" and "require picture IDs" and "make people have to register earlier!" laws are attacking poorer voters, which means it will disproportionately affect Black people (but also, Democratic voters in general - poorer, more likely to be disabled, or elderly & poor at the same time.)

[valsa]

There ARE a lot of people right now trying to limit voting rights. They don't say it's about Black people, but all the "if a felon votes that should be a felony!" and "let's have a shorter absentee ballot window" and "require picture IDs" and "make people have to register earlier!" laws are attacking poorer voters, which means it will disproportionately affect Black people (but also, Democratic voters in general - poorer, more likely to be disabled, or elderly & poor at the same time.)

True, though I haven't seen many candidates make those issues a central part of their platform the same way they do anti-choice and anti-gay views.