I have to admire Melinda Gates' chutzpah.
In her recent TED talk and on her blog, Impatient Optimist, Gates insists that "contraception is not controversial" — when, in the last year, it has been explosively controversial, with many Christians (not just Catholic Christians) seeing the "contraceptive mandate" as a real threat to religious freedom.
Yesterday, the new Affordable Care Act laws took effect, meaning that most employers must now provide free birth control coverage in their health insurance policies. Whether it constitutes a threat to religious liberty and whether remains to be seen — faith-based groups with religious objections to the law have a "safe harbor" until Aug. 1, 2013. Whether HHS will create an extension of this harbor is as yet unknown.
Regular readers of my blog know where I stand on health insurance. As to the contraceptive mandate specifically, I'd prefer not to wade in those particular waters — David Gibson had a good piece if you're interested in the question of whether the mandate kills religious freedom. However, I do want to consider two small points about contraception that lean me toward the (self-identified Catholic!) Melinda Gates point of view:
1. Contraception doesn't take life;
2. Women want contraception.
Often discussions of birth control come back to the question of eugenics and attempt to suggest that Margaret Sanger and other early birth control advocates wanted to keep poor people and immigrants from having babies. While it's always dangerous to speak in general terms, it seems to me that Sanger (and others) were attempting, in good faith, to answer a need — a call for help — and not to impose their will on less-educated, less-wealthy women.
Below is the tri-lingual (English, Yiddish, Italian) poster from the early days of the movement:
Despite these efforts, the very unfortunate discrimination in Sanger's (and others in the early birth control movement) thinking seems to taint contemporary discussions of birth control, perhaps understandably so.
But even that history doesn't change the fact that simply meeting current demand for contraception could cut maternal deaths by a third. Which means perhaps 100,000 lives (or more) per year could be saved just by meeting the unmet, self-identified needs of women.
Where my family and I are headed — Malawi, Africa — the contraceptive prevalence rate is just 40 percent. Recently, Malawi's Vice President pledged to try to raise the rate to 60 percent by 2012, in part by raising the legal age of marriage and partly by enacting policies which, with help from organizations such as the Gates Foundation, will increase access of contraception.
This is not the wealthy, white, West forcing the Pill — much less sterilizations or abortion — on Africans, Indians, or anyone else. We are talking about working in partnership to help women meet their self-identified needs.
It's not about rejecting God's gift of fertility. It's about stewarding it well in a complicated world.
I just don't see the controversy — religious or otherwise — in that.
Rachel Stone is a writer living in Greenport, N.Y. She has contributed to Relevant, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, and Flourish, and blogs at RachelMarieStone.com, where this post originally appeared. Her book, Eat with Joy: Redeeming God’s Gift of Food is forthcoming in 2013.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!