Anti-abortion, anti-contraception

 Gail Collins, writing about the Congressional Republican assault on Planned Parenthood, gets at the dirty little secret at the heart of the anti-abortion movement:

For eons now, people have been wondering why the two sides can’t just join hands and agree to work together to reduce the number of abortions by expanding the availability of family-planning services and contraception.
The answer is that a large part of the anti-abortion community is also anti-contraception.
“The fact is that 95 percent of the contraceptives on the market kill the baby in the womb,” said Jim Sedlak of the American Life League.
“Fertility and babies are not diseases,” said Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, which has been fighting against requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives under the new health care law.
Many anti-abortion activists believe that human life and, therefore, pregnancy begin when the human egg is fertilized and that standard birth control pills cause abortions by keeping the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This isn’t the general theory on either count. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as beginning with the fertilized egg’s implantation. Dr. Vanessa Cullins of Planned Parenthood says that the pills inhibit the production of eggs or stop the sperm before they reach their destination. “There is absolutely no direct evidence that there is interference with implantation,” she said.
Beyond the science, there’s the fact that many social conservatives are simply opposed to giving women the ability to have sex without the possibility of procreation.
“Contraception helps reduce one’s sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments,” says Janet Smith, the author of “Contraception: Why Not.”

 Needless to say, they can't say this too loudly because it has zero popular appeal. But that's what this is really about - not about human dignity or protecting unborn children, but controlling women's sexuality. Surprise surprise.

Homophobia and the Christian Right

Salon has an essay today from a Presbyterian minister on how he went from opposing gays in the church to supporting them. It's pretty usual stuff, but he has a nice insight at the end. He notes "the mean-spirited nature of the anti-gay movement, and the naked way large Christian organizations used the 'gay threat' to raise money", and then goes on to say,

So why had we singled out homosexuality as a litmus test for True Christianity in the first place? Why had it become such a lightning rod for self-righteousness?One reason, I think, is that it's easy to condemn homosexuality if you are not gay. It is much harder than condemning pride, or lust or greed, things that most practicing Christians have struggled with. It is all too easy to make homosexuality about "those people," and not me. If I were to judge someone for their inflated sense of pride, or their tendency to worship various cultural idols, I would feel some personal stake, some cringe of self-judgment. Not so with homosexuality. 



It's an interesting point. I think it's one factor - although, frankly, I think the money is a bigger factor. Conservative Christianity is a big market, and there's no shortage of people keen on tapping into it...