A recent New York Times Magazine article, "Contra-Contraception" by Russell Shorto [1], highlighted the growing trend against the use of artificial contraception by Christians and the growing number of anti-abortion (pro-life) groups that are addressing the issue. Though he brought to light many aspects of negative impacts of contraception, Shorto's article avoided many important points regarding the harms of artificial birth control on marriage, society and women's health. It served more as a forum to mock the anti-contraception movement.
Opposition to contraception is certainly not a new idea. When Margaret Sanger began her crusade for social acceptance of birth control and abortion in the early twenty century, most individuals in our country opposed her ideals. As acceptance of birth control grew, so did the need for and acceptance of abortion, and abortion was determined to be the bigger, more morally offensive issue. Time and energy from those who opposed contraception shifted to opposing abortion, and the fight against contraception fell by the wayside. But, the social acceptance of contraception remained the problem regarding abortion.
But, even before the legalization of abortion in 1973, there were many who considered the new hormonal contraceptives that hit the market in May 1960 to be a step backwards for women's health. First published in 1969, Barbara Seaman wrote in The Doctors' Case Against the Pill of horror stories concerning the destroyed health and of women who used oral contraceptives; she also reports on deaths directly caused from use of the drug. Doctors were starting to recognize the danger in this potent drug, and many stopped prescribing it. Many women immediately rejected chemical forms because of these adverse effects.
Dr. Ellen Grant, a Scottish physician who was a part of the Pill trials in the late 50s later wrote several books and articles for medical journals highlighting the dangers of hormonal contraceptives. In her 1994 book, Sexual Chemistry: Understanding Our Hormones, the Pill and HRT, she outlines the short- and long-term adverse effects of the use of artificial hormones for birth control and HRT in detail. Though she maintains that barrier methods ought to be promoted for family planning and population control, her book is enough to make anyone question the bad science that the Pill is. "The Pill was greeted with such enthusiasm in the 1960s because barrier methods of contraception were unpopular. The cap (diaphragm) was mostly used by married women in stable relationships but the introduction of the Pill has been accompanied by increasing sexual promiscuity. No only has the age when men or women first have sexual intercourse fallen from twenties to early teens, but the number of sexual partners has escalated." [2]
In the next chapter, she goes on to question the sex education that has evolved since the advent of artificial hormones.
In the 1990s, sex education telling the real facts is almost non-existent. How many sexually active young women know that they have a one in three chance of being contaminated with the wart virus (human papilloma virus or HPV) which can eventually lead to cervical cancer? So much government-sponsored sex education is verging on irresponsible sex promotion. Films and television reinforce these views while young children are automatically indoctrinated. It seems that the right of men to use women as if they were merely public conveniences must be protected! The implication is neither males or females must put off sex. When individuals belatedly discover the real facts of life it is often too late. Never in all history has so much been known and so little communicated effectively... Society needs to condemn the rape of its young as the crime against the future that it really is. [3]
Dr. Grant's words are even more true today than they were in 1994. We now have the internet, which is the primary hub of information for persons of all ages. The internet is littered with faulty information as well as pornographic images. The lives and well-being of children and young people is even more at stake, yet so many cling to the ideology of eugenics and population control that first started the birth control movement.
Since the mid 1990s, the over population myth has been debunked quite effectively as Mr. Shorto addressed in his article. The birth rate of most of Europe and the United States is far below replacement rate. The economy is only sustained by immigration, especially by Muslims whose religion also prohibits contraception and abortion.
We at the No Room for Contraception campaign encourage you to find the facts for yourself regarding the harms of contraception. That's why this website was created. Explore our articles, resources and action items. Visit the sites that we link to. Pick up a few of the recommended books.
Let's help to build a society where there is "No Room for Contraception!"
For more information on No Room for Contraception, please visit www.noroomforcontraception.com
ENDNOTES
[1] Shorto Russell, New York Times Magazine, "Contra-Contraception." May 7, 2006. found online at: www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html
[2] Grant, Dr. Ellen, Sexual Chemistry: Understanding Our Hormones, the Pill and HRT, London: Cedar Paparbacks, 1995. p. 189
[3] ibid, p. 209, 267
Talk Back - leave a comment