The History of Religion and Birth Control no one is talking about

We’re all familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe V. Wade. A decision that left abortion legislation up to the state. But the U.S. Supreme Court made another decision back in 2020 surrounding women’s health access that should have been a red flag.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a regulation that The New York Times sums up succinctly:

“The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Trump administration regulation that lets employers with religious or moral objections limit women’s access to birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act and could result in as many as 126,000 women losing contraceptive coverage from their employers.”

The US Supreme Court has a “conservative” majority so this decision came as no real surprise. And many religious organizations strongly agreed with these regulations. Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer John Bursch stated that

“The government has no business forcing pro-life and religious organizations to provide drugs and devices that can destroy life,” NY Times

This regulation set the stage for the overturning of Roe V. Wade. And similar to Roe V. Wade, this regulation was justified under the idea that most people rely on a natural form of family planning. In other words, this regulation assumed that birth control was used by a small number of people, mostly non-Christians, while most Christians relied on tracking the female cycle to ensure or prohibit pregnancy. A fact this is statistically untrue.

But this regulation had 4 major issues that surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly) went unaddressed.

Image: statnews.com

1. Few people use natural family planning anymore

According to a recent (2020) study by the Guttmacher Institute, almost all religious women in America use some form of contraception. The research states:

“Almost all women who identify as religious have ever used contraceptive methods — 99% of Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, and Roman Catholics, and 96% of people with other religious affiliations.”

That means this regulation was designed with the assumption that most women use natural family planning when in reality, those women make up about 1% of the reproductive-age female population.

The unrealistic fantasy that religious women don’t use birth control and rely solely on natural family planning and good luck is a weak and unfair reason to impact the majority of reproductive-age women currently using birth control.

2. Birth control isn’t just for birth control

A study aimed at discovering the multiple benefits of birth control found that 58% of women used birth control, at least in part for reasons other than contraception.

And 31% of women use birth control to aid menstrual cramps. 14% of women use birth control for acne treatment and 4% of women use birth control for endometriosis. That means that even the lowest percentage reason for birth control use is still higher than the 1% of non-contraception using sexually active religious people” this new law was made for.

3. US The Supreme Court previously supported forced contraception

In 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the state’s right to sterilize “unfit” slaves in Buck vs. Bell decision. State governments forced sterilization on women and men (The Hidden Rules of Race, 130).

By 1961, over 62,000 eugenic sterilizations (forced sterilization of handicapped or mentally ill people) had taken pace. But most of these surgeries were conducted on mentally healthy and capable adults.

“It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerates offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough” — US Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

So birth control is fine as long as the men in power benefit from it sexually and financially. But when companies have to pay for women to be covered for their birth control on her own terms, that’s where the U.S. Supreme Court draws the line. This whip-lash birth control ideology is just another example of legislators choosing to appease the 1% no matter how fickle their morale may appear.

4. If birth control destroys life, then so do men

And here’s what no one is talking about. Birth control doesn’t destroy life, it prevents it from being created in the first place.

So if we choose to claim this as a viable argument, that means every form of preventative action toward pregnancy should also be banned. That’s right men. If you choose to exit the party early as a preventive measure, do you mind telling me how that’s any different than a woman taking a pill to prevent the exact same outcome? Birth control simply allows women to be in control of when they are impregnated because let’s be honest, men have a terrible track record of leaving the party on time if you catch my drift.

The effects of banning birth control coverage for women will have zero positive impacts unless we count the feeling of piousness found in the employers practicing said regulation. But it will have several negative impacts.

Women will get pregnant more. In the United States, the desired household size is two children. This means, women would need to use birth control for a respective two decades. If she’s unable to use birth control, she has an 85% chance of getting pregnant each year she uses no contraception. An increase in household size means more families will be living beyond their means and struggle to stay financially stable.Less sex. While I’m sure that was the goal of this regulation, it seems the supreme court forgot it takes two to tango and this regulation will have a negative impact on men as well. This regulation could have a negative impact on families and married couples unaccustomed to the natural family planning method, leading them to have sex less. This, in turn, can have a negative impact on the health of marriages and relationships.More vasectomies. I don’t need to elaborate. But I can guarantee you this was not on the radar of the Supreme Court who is all above reproductive age and in no way looking to impregnate or become impregnated anytime soon. It simply isn’t a concern for them.

In conclusion, I want to point out that this law was made to appease the religious argument that birth control destroys life. Meanwhile, 99% of religious women use birth control.

That disconnect is the reason this regulation has to be re-examined. This regulation was written to force 99% of women to live like 1% of women when, in regards to their health, desires for family on their own time, and financial status, that is simply impossible.

This regulation was written for the 1%. What else is new?

The History of Religion and Birth Control no one is talking about was originally published in Lessons from History on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.