Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Actually, cooking is hard (and I smell sexism in claiming otherwise) Previous entry: Palin: Small town FAIL

Are some anti-choicers losing their stomach for opposing contraception?

The more I think about this story, the more I think it may end up being a really big deal.  As has been extensively covered here, opposition to abortion with the Christian right has been grounded since basically forever in an authoritarian desire to impose the patriarchal family by force, and punish anything that could lead to dissent.  And therefore, opposition to abortion tends to come with a whole host of beliefs about sexual and reproductive rights—-disapproval of cohabitation and premarital sex, hostility to contraception (especially for unmarried people), disapproval of homosexuality, anxiety about divorce.  But of course, there’s a game that the Christian right has to play with its people, who are naturally going to struggle between their desire to live by the rules and their desires to be healthy human beings who actually derive enjoyment from life and sexuality.  So they do things like look the other way on divorce while doubling down on gay marriage, knowing that gay people are a small minority and feeling like they’re easier to pick on than straight married people.  Abortion, while common, is also hidden and therefore super easy to grandstand about.  But contraception is a little more trouble.  On the whole, the anti-choice movement has been opposed to contraception—-especially for young women or unmarried women—-but mostly they try to keep quiet about it, knowing how popular it is. 

And now the National Association of Evangelicals has come out in support of contraception, which is a huge step in terms of giving in and choosing reality instead of continuing to grand stand about the evils of sex no matter what the pragmatic consequences, including a high abortion rate.  For those of us who were skeptical that the “common ground” strategy could get anti-choice activists to relent on the subject of contraception, this could be evidence that we were overly cynical.  Let’s hope.  A quote:

The difference between abortion rights supporters — many of whom provide contraception — and abortion opponents has been that many abortion opponents have also opposed contraception and even sex education, which can help reduce unplanned pregnancy. Now the NAE is officially adopting the position that contraception and other services will help reduce the number of abortions by preventing pregnancy in the first place.

They even adopted a stance that anti-choicers usually decry as radical.

But the NAE resolution sends a hopeful message about working together toward a common goal that every baby should be wanted and loved.

Emphasis mine.  Most of the time, the anti-choice movement acts like you’re proposing the Holocaust when you say, “Every child a wanted child,” which leads me to think they think no woman would ever really choose to be a mother if not forced.  I had hopes that the recession would be a wake-up call on this issue.  People lose their stomach for forced childbirth during hard times, because the number of people hurt by the cruelty grows tremendously, and sadly also because it ends up reminding folks that men have reasons to want to limit family size, too.  (And if men want something, it’s just easier to get.)  But I didn’t expect the wake-up call to be such a dramatic statement. 


Of course, this is just the NAE.  Who knows how much impact this will have?  The activist anti-choice movement probably won’t move an inch.  As Robin at RH Reality Check noted, LifeSite News can barely conceal how pissed they are about the NAE’s official pro-contraception stance.  And this despite the fact that it’s downplayed in the original press release, put next to the usual nonsense that implies that there are ways to dramatically change the abortion rate through post-conception interventions.  (Anti-choicers and common ground folks continue to live in hope that a huge percentage of women getting abortions simply never heard they could go through nine months of pregnancy and often wrenching emotional pain to give away their babies—-and that if they just find out about this alluring option, they’ll choose it instead of a quick outpatient procedure.)  The question is, will the NAE taking this stance impact anything?

Well, maybe.  I think major evangelical political figures like Sarah Palin will continue to do what they usually do, which is to be generally anti-contraception without coming out and saying it, instead relying on platitudes about how abstinence is the only answer.  But the delicate tension between the aspirational anti-contraception patriarchal morality and the brutal reality of contraception’s popularity might be upset by this announcement.  We’ll just have to wait and see. 

In the meantime, I want to highlight this comment by Thomas at Feministe, in response to Jill blogging about how 38% of Americans claim premarital sex is wrong, though only 5% wait until marriage.

In the West where Christian theology has had a huge impact, original sin has a huge place in the way cultural conservatism regards people, extending through Calvin’s view of people as essentially worthless and deserving an eternity of suffering.

Folks that think that people are awful and can’t ever be reliably good don’t believe in making rules that people can actually follow. That would be a waste of time. Instead, they make rules that are merely aspirational. They don’t see these rules as being unrealistic, or at least not any more unrealistic than any other set of rules. It’s the symbolic setting of the bar that matters, not whether people achieve it.

This is unlikely to change.  Evangelicals condemn premarital sex, and start fucking before marriage younger than almost anyone else.  They condemn divorce and divorce at really high rates.  But while blathering about the evils of X, Y, and Z they sometimes accept the reality of X, Y, and Z and are willing to accept that it happens.  As far as I’m concerned, a moral system more interested in saying than doing is useless, but at least it means that they’re not always going to have the stomach to stand by the consequences of their irrational, impractical “morality”.  The high teenage pregnancy rates in red states is probably fueling this new willingness to be realistic.  Let’s just hope it sticks.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:09 PM • (28) Comments

You have to remember, many of these folks are perfectly willing to ascribe to the belief that “the only moral abortion is MY abortion.”  It’s often not that they see these rules as overly restrictive, but that they are above these rules due to whatever made up, bullshit excuse they can come up with

But I do agree, the NAE coming out and voicing support for contraception is a big step.  Now if we can just get their followers to put their money where their mouths are.

Comment #1: GeekGirlsRule  on  06/01  at  07:09 PM

Folks that think that people are awful and can’t ever be reliably good don’t believe in making rules that people can actually follow. That would be a waste of time. Instead, they make rules that are merely aspirational. They don’t see these rules as being unrealistic, or at least not any more unrealistic than any other set of rules. It’s the symbolic setting of the bar that matters, not whether people achieve it.

interesting… I never thought of it that way, but it certainly explains a lot

Comment #2: jadehawk  on  06/01  at  07:10 PM

Actually, jadehawk, it also makes sense that they would oppose reality-based rules because, when those succeed, it goes against the worldview that suffering is unavoidable.

Comment #3: Ms Kate  on  06/01  at  07:37 PM

Well, and I think even if you’re a fan of aspirational morality, mandating it through policy is so stupid.  A lot of people think of the government’s laws as just standards to aspire to, but what they are more like is minimum behaviors, and if you can’t meet the standards, the punishment can often be severe.  Which is why banning adultery is unjust even if you think adultery is wrong.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/01  at  07:48 PM

Well, and I think even if you’re a fan of aspirational morality, mandating it through policy is so stupid.

I think the hypocrits find mandating morality to be satisfying. They want the law of the land to acknowledge their “beliefs” even if they don’t care so much for the application. I bet you’d get very different answers to the questions: “Should abortion be legal?”, “Should abortion be criminalized” and “Should women go to jail when they obtain an abortion.” They don’t want abortion to be “legal” and they don’t want gay marriage to be “legal” because “legal” indicates a social acceptance that they don’t like.

Gosh I just used a bunch of scare quotes.

Comment #5: rivki  on  06/01  at  08:25 PM

It’s not really Calvinism. In a way it is, but there’s a VERY important next step to understand in order to..well..understand it.

The only way to be forgiven for being a horrible person is to have the right beliefs. And if you have the right beliefs, that’s all that matters. Nothing about not being such a horrible person or anything like that matters. All that matters is your beliefs. And part of showing your beliefs (remember, it’s not enough to have them. You have to show them off as well, that’s a core part of it) is to make an extreme argument about these things to prove how extreme you are in your love for Jesus.

I believe the NAE is actually a more moderate group, and one that avoids a lot of the neo-Calvinistic belief structure. But the reality is that short of culturally eliminating their religion, there’s no common ground there. They’ll fight just for the fight’s sake. They’re simply not serious about this or any other issue. It’s all about glorifying their beliefs.

Comment #6: Karmakin  on  06/01  at  08:26 PM

Mandating beliefs with severe consequences also satisfies their deep-seated desire to set up special privileges for certain classes of people - such as white people, straight people, wealthy people ...

Comment #7: Ms Kate  on  06/01  at  08:32 PM

In one of my gov classes the prof asked people to raise their hand if they think flag burning should be illegal. Almost everyone put hands in the air. Then she asked what the punishment should be for burning a flag. No one thought there should be a punishment. People have a really hard time distinguishing between something they consider to be a dick move and something that should be illegal. I have mentioned this before on this site, and most people disagreed, but I really think a lot of the rank-and-file prolifers would be dissuaded from their positions when asked to create a punishment for women who sought abortions.

Comment #8: alysia  on  06/01  at  08:33 PM

@8, alysia:  “Amost everyone”??  Where do you live?

Comment #9: Eric_RoM  on  06/01  at  08:44 PM

dangnabit, “ALMOST’... obviously…..

Comment #10: Eric_RoM  on  06/01  at  08:45 PM

I have the impression, mostly from lurking at Slacktivist, that actually the NAE has returned to their status quo ante. That is, before Roe v Wade and for quite some time after, American Protestant evangelicals thought of the Catholic Church’s elaborate anti-sexuality theology as a big incomprehensible alien Popish thing, right on a par with the adoration of the Blessed Virgin or the Sacred Heart or rosaries and so on. I’m not saying they weren’t patriarchal pricks, but they didn’t have all the hand-wringing rationalizations that Rome had been working on for some centuries. Anything to do with sex might be bad insofar as it violated marriage, or, as the joke goes about Baptists, might lead to dancing. But IIRC, back in the early Seventies the various big affiliations of evangelicals didn’t even oppose legalizing abortion, let alone favor re-criminalizing birth control. I’m sure they had a lot to say against what they’d see as abuse of these options, again mainly insofar as they were connected to individuals straying from strict sexual norms—but the point would be to condemn individuals for sinning sexually, not to try to show that this or that means someone might adopt in pursuit of sinful lust was inherently and always of the Devil.

Anyway, in the mid to late ‘70s the reactionary backlash we all know so well coalesced in part around a right-wing religious alliance of both Protestant and Catholic (and I guess Jewish as well) fundamentalists. And the Protestants pretty much deferred to the Catholic’s sweeping and um, magisterial, corpus of anti-sex teachings. In particular I guess abortion seemed like low-hanging fruit for them to pick, so that lots of Protestants incorporated something more or less parallel to the Catholic absolutism on that subject especially.

Looks like now some of them are starting to disentangle themselves again. But I think it’s a bit early to make too big a deal about it—just as the Catholic laity has always included a large number (indeed, a majority) of people who de facto at least dissent from doctrine, so too the “evangelicals” have always had diverse views; many have never affiliated too closely with the organized political reactionary axis in the first place. And whenever there is a policy shift like this, someone always splits off.

So I’m not expecting an avalanche of change, certainly not from the most outspoken and notorious leaders of fundamentalist Christendom who have long established their credentials as mean-spirited choads across the board, especially on sexual issues.

As for the believing masses voting with their feet—well actually all manner of conservative fundie leaders have been worrying for quite some time now that many of their younger congregants, both those raised as evangelicals and their many converts, have attitudes about society much more in tune with the general cultural progressivism than these leaders are prepared to accept as properly Christian. A young, hip, with-it fundie can still be pretty scary, but it’s some comfort to me to know I’m not the only one they scare!

So I’m sure there will be recriminations against the NAE, because one of their own offering such questioning congregants a respectable out from the more intolerant teachings of the fundie establishment is a threat to that establishment, since the more progressive fundies can walk away and join other congregations that make more sense to them—or found their own.

Comment #11: Mark Foxwell  on  06/01  at  08:52 PM

Alysia:I can’t see there being that much disagreement. We all know that when you actually ask 95% of anti-abortion people what the punishment for a woman who has an abortion should be, they run for the hills.

It’s all theory for them.

Comment #12: Karmakin  on  06/01  at  08:53 PM

Note that the National Association of Evangelicals doesn’t consist solely of Funamentalists, the two being oft-overlapping but not identical sets.  Nor are they they only Evangelical group. 

A little Googling reveals they’ve already come out in favor of immigration reform and some kinds of euthanasia, recognize global climate change, and against torture. 

They’re still a problematic group, but they aren’t the farthest to the right.  Dobson thinks they’re anathema.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/evangelical.rift/index.html

Comment #13: oldfeminist  on  06/01  at  09:24 PM

It’s hard for me to see the whole anti-contraception mindset going away any time soon.  Even it becomes more and more difficult to hold off the Fundnut forces from seeking to <strike>destroy</strike> part ways with their <strike>hated enemy the Whore of Babylon</strike> Catholic friends who also support strong womb control.

OTOH, given how fucked up many of them are, I guess it wouldn’t really surprise me if they started claiming they were always in favor of birth control and it was just the Dirty Hippie Liberals who twisted their words and falsely made people think they were against it.

We have always been at war with Eastasia…

Comment #14: MikeEss  on  06/01  at  09:43 PM

Folks that think that people are awful and can’t ever be reliably good don’t believe in making rules that people can actually follow. That would be a waste of time. Instead, they make rules that are merely aspirational. They don’t see these rules as being unrealistic, or at least not any more unrealistic than any other set of rules. It’s the symbolic setting of the bar that matters, not whether people achieve it.

I think that might be part of it for some, but I don’t think it’s the mindset, conscious or otherwise, of the majority of Christians or even evangelicals or fundamentalists. 

I think that they firmly believe that these impossible standards are ones that must be met, which is why so many young girls suffer once they begin to have any thoughts or feelings of their own.  I think the issue is more two protestant values that are core foundations of christianity: forgiveness and empathy.  Christianity really can’t have a mythology without those two values, and they work together in pretty beautiful ways when understood and applied correctly—which is why we get so many “no true scotsmans” in threads that criticize christian polictics vs philosophy. 

The problem is that while forgiveness is still being pushed as one of the main tenants of christianity, empathy is being cast aside as inconveniently liberal by those in power.  So the preacher in the pulpit rails about these unattainable moral standards and people suffer greatly while trying to meet them.  Meanwhile he’s also teaching them that “I” or “WE” can ask for forgiveness.  In particular please forgive me when I’m caught with a rentboy.  High powered men are speaking to other moderately powerful men about the wonders of forgiveness through christianity.  The part they’re forgetting to mention is that forgiveness and love don’t just extend to “me and people like me but only after you do it my way” but rather it extends to all people, regardless of circumstance or belief, because you can’t really do the whole forgiveness/love/salvation thing without empathy. 

And yeah, slacktivist has been talking about it a lot recently. 

When forgiveness does happen to be taught as something even women or less powerful members of the church deserve (or even people not in the church at all!) it’s not coupled with empathy, but rather empathy’s more popular sibling sympathy—or pity.  That girl I know at school got pregnant out of wedlock.  I forgive her of her premarital sluttiness, and I will show her kindness and lovingness as I convince or even harass her into not getting an abortion.  That’s not real empathy.  That’s not identifying and comprehending what someone else is choosing and being loving about it.  That’s pitying someone for not being as righteous as you and reveling in it. 

It’s not that these people think no one can avoid premarital sex, but talking about it makes them look good and scores them godly brownie points.  It’s that they really believe that they can do it, and then when they can’t they’re all set up in a system that lets them hit the reset button, and try again.  That’s not a terrible idea, really, if that’s your thing—unless you’re the only one who gets access to the reset button.  Once you take empathy out of the equation all that’s left is “Me” and the people defining who gets access are all patriarchy approved.  That’s why it’s so important to them to keep women or anyone who isn’t a white/het/cis/male out of power in the church.  You get too many different kinds of people in the hierarchy and suddenly empathy naturally creeps back in.  Then more and more people get access to the button.

Comment #15: Ailuridae  on  06/01  at  09:53 PM

alysia, I still don’t think they’d change their minds.  Think about how many people go to jail for marijuana possession.  They’re seen as an unfortunate but unavoidable sacrifice to Send A Message about drugs.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/01  at  10:04 PM

Consider as well that some branches of evangelicals firmly believe in couples activities, date nights, and other sexual bonding between husbands and wives, and that this mutual enjoyment is both sacred and essential to a healthy marriage.  That might have tipped things toward the idea that contraception is a blessing, not the enemy: healthy marriages depend on it!

Comment #17: Ms Kate  on  06/01  at  10:20 PM

oldfeminist answers the question I had: the NAE is evangelicals, but not wingnut. Jimmy Carter is an evangelical christians, fercryinoutloud. So this is more about mainstream christian groups coming out in favor of sanity—which is nice, but not quite that big a deal.

(My first apt in the city was across from the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche von Yorkville and I am pretty sure they weren’t wingnuts.)

Comment #18: paul  on  06/01  at  11:03 PM

Wait, what is this feeling?  Is that actually a tiny sliver of hope that I am feeling?  Some trolls better come by and squash my growing faith in humanity before it gets too far.

Comment #19: bananacat  on  06/01  at  11:26 PM

catgirl@19, Austin will be along shortly to explain some botany.

Comment #20: kristin  on  06/01  at  11:29 PM

Eric, I live in South Dakota.

Comment #21: alysia  on  06/01  at  11:46 PM

What Mark said.

All my in-laws are conservative fundamentalist Christians - not the most wingnut of the wingnut, but they don’t believe in evolution and see the hand of Satan in daily misfortunes. They always saw opposition to birth control (for married people) as a Catholic thing, and my husband has been baffled by the appearance of anti-birth control sentiment among evangelicals. This is an attempt by some to return to what had been the norm.

Comment #22: chingona  on  06/02  at  12:15 AM

A lot of people think of the government’s laws as just standards to aspire to, but what they are more like is minimum behaviors, and if you can’t meet the standards, the punishment can often be severe.

Personally, I see government law as strictly utilitarian - the practical implementation of ways to regulate society so as to allow individual pursuit of choice and moral ends.  Traffic laws are a wonderful example - there is absolutely nothing moral or immoral about requiring people to drive on the left or right, or to obey traffic lights - it’s purely pragmatic.  However, breaking those laws may be, in itelf, an immoral act because of endangering others.

Comment #23: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/02  at  01:25 AM

Kristin wins the thread!

Comment #24: Nic_C  on  06/02  at  05:01 AM

(My first apt in the city was across from the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche von Yorkville and I am pretty sure they weren’t wingnuts.)

That’s a liberal lutheran, not an evangelical church. “evangelisch” is the German word for protestant in general. There is none of the focus on conversion and spreading the gospel that is at the core of evangelical christianity.

Comment #25: jadehawk  on  06/02  at  05:59 AM

I have to admit that these folks almost seem reasonable on some level and I’m really not surprised. In this economy, more and more folks living in patriarchal households are supporting more and more people on one income and wishing that someone had used a condom. One side of my husbands family has a dad in his 50’s working two jobs (no mean trick in a small town) to support his grown daughter and her six month old. The baby’s dad is nowhere to be found. The other side has a retired couple on the verge of bankruptcy due to fighting their sons babies mother in court to even get the right to see their grandchild. Watching these “real Americans” struggle is enough to make anyone think that a trip to the drug store is not sinful and won’t kill the mood.

Comment #26: DC Fem  on  06/02  at  09:27 AM

catgirl@19, Austin will be along shortly to explain some botany.

I certainly hope he gets here soon because I could really use a great laugh after that traumatic dentist visit I had yesterday.  Austin could never achieve anything other than providing hilarious entertainment.  He’s the only troll that I actually enjoy.  If I had a blog and/or made the rules for this one, I would ban all trolls unless they agreed to make hilarious fools of themselves a minimum of once per week.

Comment #27: bananacat  on  06/02  at  10:05 AM

I forgive her of her premarital sluttiness, and I will show her kindness and lovingness as I convince or even harass her into not getting an abortion.  That’s not real empathy.  That’s not identifying and comprehending what someone else is choosing and being loving about it student aid. That is, before Roe v Wade and for quite some time after, American Protestant evangelicals thought of the Catholic Church’s elaborate anti-sexuality theology as a big incomprehensible alien Popish thing, right on a par with the adoration of the Blessed Virgin or the Sacred Heart or rosaries and so on. I’m not saying they weren’t patriarchal pricks, but they didn’t have all the hand-wringing rationalizations that Rome had been working on for some centuries. Anything to do with sex might be bad insofar as it violated marriage, or, as the joke goes about Baptists, might lead to dancing. But IIRC, back in the early Seventies the various big affiliations of evangelicals didn’t even oppose legalizing abortion, let alone favor re-criminalizing birth control.

Comment #28: politics  on  06/02  at  06:05 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.