A fascinating article by Allan Carlson in Touchstone details the strategies used by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, to gain social acceptability of birth control during the early part of the 20th century. He also demonstrates how her support of eugenics to create a superior race related to her battle for birth control.
Carlson demonstrates how her socialist/secularist worldview informed her perspectives on these issues. But she strategically targeted the liberal mainline Protestant denominations, and intentionally tried to capitalize upon anti-Catholic sentiments among these groups to garner support for birth control. Soon you began to see representatives of these various denominations begin to capitulate, and the rest is history.
Our contemporary sexual ethic produces huge numbers of unwed pregnancies, abortions, instances of illegitimacy and STD's. We have the widespread availability of birth control to thank for this status quo.
It is fascinating to see the passionate debate that took place among the various denominations and clergy 80-90 years ago. It is pretty clear the more orthodox churches and clergy, for the most part, got the issue right; while the more liberal churches were beginning to blow it, big time.
And it is quite interesting to review this history as Congress considers the long-overdue defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Joe, do you think birth control should be legal?
If so, do you think it should be legal for unmarried people?
Posted by: Ed Cone | April 04, 2011 at 06:41 PM
Ed, yes, I think it should be legal, but only for married folks.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 04, 2011 at 09:00 PM
Not a big fan of abortions at the various trimester stages, especially the later ones. The partial birth thing is very disturbing.
Don't know if it's easily available for those who qualify for it, but would prefer the RU4xx method than for an unwanted child to be born who turns out to be unwanted by society and we all know the costs associated with that misfortune. Usually prison time, life of crime, career entitlement path, and on it goes. Quite frankly, I shouldn't be penalized as the result of the poor decisions of others.
Posted by: Harold | April 06, 2011 at 03:39 PM
Interesting view on unwanted human life there, Harold. How far can we take that view on unwanted children? You know, there are married people all over this country, who would love to have a child, but can't. And, how can you know whether that an unborn child, whose parents do not ever live together after the child is born, might become president of this country some day?
Posted by: Stormy | April 06, 2011 at 04:04 PM
How would this law against unmarried use of all forms of birth control work, Joe?
Posted by: Jim Langer | April 07, 2011 at 10:57 PM
Jim, you might want to check out the Supreme Court decision, Eisenstadt vs. Baird:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird
The fact this decision was issued back in 1972 suggests it was not settled law prior to that time that states could not make contraception illegal for the unmarried. The Griswold decision the prior decade made it legal nationwide for the married. Both of these decisions were forerunners of Roe vs. Wade.
You can certainly argue that, once contraception had to be legal for the married, it was all but inevitable it would be made legal for the unmarried as well. Why? The usual group of political and legal forces would agitate toward that end until they got what they wanted. That is one of the big reasons it was a major mistake to make contraception legal for the married. It opened the door for a completely changed sexual ethic, as the orthodox Christian clergy seemed to be arguing back during the early part of the 20th century. And now we have epidemic rates of illegitimacy and out-of-wedlock pregnancies; the breakdown of the family; all kinds of STD's that are widespread; and huge numbers of abortions.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 08, 2011 at 08:23 AM
You haven't answered my question, or perhaps misunderstood it. How would the retailers and pharmacists implement said law? How would police enforce it?
Posted by: Jim Langer | April 08, 2011 at 09:52 AM
I suppose retailers would have to determine the marital status of the customer. And police would have to do undercover work to determine which retailers are violating the law, just as they do with alcohol sales to minors. But it is really a moot point given the Supreme Court's activist decisions.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 08, 2011 at 09:56 AM
So, in your imagined scenario, no police knocking on a couple's bedroom door?
Posted by: Jim Langer | April 11, 2011 at 10:30 PM
No, of course not.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | April 12, 2011 at 09:39 AM