After doing some research, I discovered that a Republican suggested the idea of banning birth control. In 2024, I didn’t think that would even be an idea. This Republican is Josh Shriver. He reposed a tweet from Elon Musk about how birth control “makes you fat” and doubles the risk of suicide and depression. While the side effects of birth control do include those, he should take some time to consider the alternative.
The number of teen pregnancies would increase drastically. The way that Josh Shriver is looking at this is from an entirely misogynistic perspective. The way he is afraid of birth control users gaining weight, is most likely coming from a place of fatphobia. I know a variety of women, myself included, that got off of birth control because of the terrible side effects. However, women should have access to contraceptives if they wish to. If a man impregnates a woman, he does not have to deal with the toll a pregnancy takes on the female body. Therefore, men should not speak on the usage of birth control. Furthermore, birth control is not only used to prevent pregnancies. It can also be used to treat certain health conditions and painful periods.
The topic of a birth control ban had me thinking about the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The majority of the supreme court justices who made this decision were male. As mentioned earlier, I don’t think that a man should be able to speak on a woman’s reproductive rights. In Illinois, abortion is still legal. However, people from Republican states should be worried. What’s even more worrying is riots outside of Planned Parenthood sites. My sister works nearby one of these locations, and the rioters harass and belittle those who enter the building. If this is happening in Illinois. I can’t imagine what’s going on in Republican states.
The rioters don’t understand that Planned Parenthood doesn’t only support abortions, but they also educate young people on sexual health and the use of oral contraceptives. These people that riot at Planned Parenthood are members of the local church. They claim that abortion is against their religion. While this may be true, harassing women for exercising their reproductive rights is not very Christian of them. I respect everyone’s religion and what they believe in, but I will not respect people becoming violent and forcing their beliefs on others.
This had me thinking about the women who will need to terminate the pregnancy for their health, or those who get pregnant from a rape. But unlike some people, I don’t believe that these are the only instances in which terminating a pregnancy is okay. Women should be allowed an abortion just because they don’t want a baby.
I often hear the rebuttal from the pro-life community: “Women use abortions as a form of birth control.” This statement does not apply to the majority of women who have experienced an abortion. People don’t realize the toll an abortion would take on someone. Even if that woman was 100% sure that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy, she may still feel some sort of guilt or remorse.
The fact that women’s reproductive health is still a topic debated in 2024 is baffling to me. Oral contraceptives were invented in the 1950s and it has become widely accepted compared to when it was first introduced. However, Republican’s still act like reproductive health is still up for debate.
Thank you for alerting me to to the existence of Representative Joshua Schriver. I looked him up on social media and saw the sort of stuff he was posting. He fits in with Mary Miller, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and so forth. He seems concerned that people in power are bringing in many immigrants from Latin America and Asia and Africa to replace Americans, and he seems to desire that America become a Christian nation. He also makes many claims that don’t seem to be rooted in any empirical evidence. His suggestion that lawmakers should consider banning hormonal birth control seems rooted in a belief that such hormonal treatments increase risk for depression, suicide, and unhealthy weight gain.
I have nothing against religious politicians. I personally would like to see more people involved actively in faith congregations or groups like that, because I think prayer and pursuit of spiritual growth is very good for individuals, and involvement in a religious congregation usually corresponds to greater civic involvement in practices such as philanthropic giving, volunteering, and cross-ideological friendship. Loneliness and depression also seem to decrease with engagement in faith communities. But, naturally, I don’t favor any religious group setting up laws to encourage a particular faith or enforce one faith’s religious teachings on everyone. And, I have reservations about some sects and congregations, which seem to become mind-control groups that constrain the thinking and social lives of members.
There are many available forms of birth control. The associations between hormonal birth control use and suicidality and depression seem statistically significant but there are also mental health risks from pregnancies, whether desired or undesired, and possibly from abortions (more controversial), so it is probably not a good public health policy to discourage hormonal birth control for women. But, social workers who see female clients with depression or suicidality should probably assess hormonal birth control use, inform clients of the connection, but warn them that cessation of use may take months to result in a mood improvement, and that their suicidality may not be influenced at all by the hormonal birth control they have been using.
I do not doubt your conjecture that Joshua Shriver has misogynistic motives in suggesting that hormonal birth control ought to be banned, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he also has paternalistic good will mixed in as well, since there does seem to be some increased risk of suicide and depression for women who use hormonal contraceptives. Most people support specific policies or programs based on a mixture of motives, and when we engage with someone, it is usually best to assume that their motives are motivated by the best intentions, although it is wise to keep in mind that the worst intentions may also be motives.
There are two fundamental disagreements at the level of assumptions that divide those who want the state to be most restrictive about abortions and those who want the state to be most permissive. The first disagreement assumption involves the beginning of life deserving protection from the state. Almost everyone would support a ban on abortions for viable and healthy fetuses/babies after twenty weeks of gestation when the mother’s health is not at risk. Very few would oppose pregnancy terminations that took place before the blastocyst burrows into the uterine wall (implantation). But, between those extremes, where we draw the line on the sacredness of life or the duty to protect the life of the developing entity that would become a person (or is already a person?) cannot be informed by empirical evidence and argument, and so people argue about the assumptions they make—usually fruitless arguments.
The second disagreement about assumptions comes with the duty of the state to interfere in moral and medical questions made by pregnant women and their doctors. Some prefer to allow women and doctors to consider the moral consequences of pregnancy termination, and then come to terms with the spiritual injury they may suffer by making a bad decision. Others prefer to “protect” the women and doctors by imposing the state into the moral decision-making, and not allowing women and doctors to weigh the consequences of their decisions. Disagreements here involve assumptions about the state's duty to impose moral rules on everyone, and which source of moral insight ought to inform legislation.
There are many laws to protect us from self-harm or taking risks, especially risk-taking that could harm others. Safety regulations, rules against use of intoxicants and addictive substances, laws about use of motor vehicles, and laws forbidding dangerous recreations all involve the state imposing moral judgements about safety and risk-taking on citizens. Some of us are skeptical about many of these laws, and we prefer that in many cases people should be able to choose their behaviors and suffer the consequences of bad choices. When the consequences of bad choices are likely to be expensive medical care or permanent disabilities, the community has a legitimate interest in preventing self-harm, since we all share the costs of medical care or disability benefits. But when the consequences of bad choices may be only spiritual damage, feelings of guilt and remorse, or stupid behaviors, I find it difficult to understand why the state should intervene and attempt to control or guide behaviors of citizens. It’s especially alarming to think that specific religious perspectives on desired behaviors might be imposed on a general public where religious beliefs are diverse and often agnostic.
No comments:
Post a Comment