THE CONTRACEPTIVE ANSWER TO ABORTION DEBATE
Tune in to leftists much? You might try E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post, a columnist who recently repeated the mantra that “the abrupt fall” of Roe v. Wade “would endanger the lives of women and place a particular burden on the least privileged among us.” Not really. We’re going to have a contraceptive revolution that will give us all smiles.
The Supreme Court’s erasing of the 50-year embarrassment of Roe v. Wade could actually lead us to the most reliable and available contraceptives we have ever had. The use could be widespread like never before, as indicated by Wisp pharmacy that saw online sales of emergency contraceptives go up by 3,000% shortly after the ruling. We may say goodbye to unintended pregnancies and something else: Except in extreme circumstances, there may be no more killings of tens of millions of unborn babies with no control over their own bodies.
The ruling did not say that’s it, no more abortions anyplace. It democratically left the rules up to state legislatures, just as Roe v. Wade itself did in the case of fetuses that can live outside the womb. Not a few states have already been outlawing abortions they previously couldn’t touch. Question: If a woman says she will absolutely not give birth if impregnated, how does she get past these new laws?
Does she plot with doctors to break the law? Does she spend bunches of money to travel long distances to a legal clinic, a gloomy, expensive outing that is not going to work for everyone? How about preventing pregnancy? Will she quit having sex? I therefore get back to my point: The best way to preserve sex without pregnancy are contraceptives not exactly new on the scene.
They have been used for years to keep the sperm away from the eggs. Men sometimes take on the responsibility, with the only choice being condoms, which oftentimes work but not always. With endless side effects, women have more options. The two favorites are pills of varied reliability and IUDs that can stay implanted for long periods and work well.
Among the problems are that, when sex takes place, the contraceptives are forgotten, and sometimes they fail; there are individuals who just take their chances. Acquiring contraceptives can also be difficult. But this and more are on the way to solutions, such as allowing over-thecounter sales, technical innovations and providing additional guidance.
Concerning innovations, consider a New York Times opinion piece about a hormone concoction that men can use for long-term effect even as it is also reversible. It would be 95% effective, far better than condoms. It has been tested for a half century and is now undergoing intensive international tests.
At the moment, pills are beginning to serve as an easy way to have an abortion, and we do not know where that is going. There is talk about the Supreme Court forbidding contraception, but the court majority has no such urge.
The most disgusting elements in the post-Roe debate have been leftist protests with Jan. 6 imitators trying to intimidate justices. Democratic politicians are contriving to seriously damage our democratic republic, such as by refashioning the Supreme Court to suit their politics. What both left and right should fight are any laws that would prevent abortions in such extreme situations as the mother’s life being in danger or failures to afford the mothers the care and attention they deserve.