Abortion Today, Contraception Tomorrow, Redux

"I thought I'd seen it all in 25 years of working with the General Assembly. We've seen numerous bills in recent years that would impact women's access to contraception, unfortunately," said Ben Greenberg, chief lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Virginia. "This bill is probably just the latest and perhaps the most threatening and extreme of examples of legislation that would do that."

What he’s talking about is HB1918, which would decree that life begins at fertilization, introduced by Mark Cole (R-Frederickburg).

Greenberg said a number of popular birth control methods--the Pill, Depo Provera, the morning-after pill--all can potentially act after fertilization has occurred. Cole's bill could prevent access to all those types of birth control.

"The only thing that would be available on the market, if these methods of contraception were made illegal, would be the barrier methods," Greenberg said. "Condom manufacturers should be very excited by this legislation."

Greenberg said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that couples do have the right to access birth control.

However, that hasn't stopped some lawmakers--in Virginia and elsewhere--from trying to blur the line between abortion and contraception, Greenberg said.

For that reason, there is a bill in the U.S. Senate right now that would define what is contraception and clarify that it is not abortion.

"People have a hard time believing that our General Assembly could be hostile to birth control," Greenberg said. "But this is another example of that fact. Hostility toward abortion has been documented for many years. The hostility toward birth control is of more recent vintage, and is evidenced by bills over the past three to four years, this being just the latest and most threatening example of them. It seem to me the women of Virginia should be outraged by this."

Cole's bill has been referred to the House Privileges and Elections Committee, which is not the usual repository of bills relating to reproduction. However, Cole's bill makes reference to the state constitution in a way that could put it in that panel's purview.

I think it better to refer this bill to the circular file. Thanks to a new blog – and PAC – called Virginia Family Values PAC for pointing this bill out. It’s not what the name might lead you to think.

Others are also assaulting contraception through funding measures.

Comments

[alan]

Bob -- I certainly could see a reasonable defense of Roe v. Wade under the doctrine of stare decisis, which cautions courts to respect precedent (even if erroneous) and avoid abrupt changes in course. But I never have been happy with the theoretical underpinnings with Roe. I just do not see how you can weave together bits and pieces of the Bill of Rights and come up with the concept that states cannot regulate abortion as a matter of Constitutional law. Unfortunately, I share the same opinion about the Constitutional right to privacy limiting states' ability to regulate private consensual sexual behavior. Where does the right come from in the Bill of Rights? I really do not like messing around with Constitution. I hate the idea of a anti-gay national Constitutional amendment, or any other amendment meant to meet the political wind of the day. (I would support a right to privacy amendment, however: I think that is something fundamental to living in a crowded society.) The idea that a Court, which does not have to go through the intentionally difficult process of amendment, can make changes is similarly repugnant to me. So when challenged on abortion by my conservative friends, I cannot defend Roe v. Wade. Instead, I ask them why they want government, which they so mistrust, involved in such intimate matters. I can stand my ground there, and end up in the same place.

[Bob]

Brandon, As Alan points out, anti-abortion forces' best chance is through "activists judges" willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. But as they say, be careful what you wish for

[Bob]

Alan, Interesting comment. Overturning Roe v. Wade would indeed make abortion a more relevant issue to the left and the center. I think the attacks on birth control would backfire on the right. The right-to-choose GOP folks may become more relevant but I don’t think they can take back the GOP. But why do you say Roe v. Wade is indefensible legally?

[alan]

Doctrinaire right-to-life folks get an electoral pass because of Roe v. Wade. What chance would a Cole have in exurb area if the residents really believed he had a chance to outlaw the Pill? Cole and his ilk have a free pass to sponsor symbolic legislation, with no real consequences. I am of the mind that one of the best things that could happen to the Democratic Party would be for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. The Democratic Party's stand on reproductive freedom would suddenly become relevant to the electorate. In addition, Roe v. Wade is legally very hard to defend. The Democrats would be freed of having to defend the nearly indefensable to take on the very winable. Of course, in the post Roe v. Wade world we are likely to see a very quick realignment of the Republican Party nationally, with the Rudy and Arnold types suddenly pushed to the fore.

[Brandon Meyer]

While I agree with Cole, one of two things will happen when it passes. Mark Warner will veto it, and us Republicans don't have the 2/3 vote to override it. Or it will be declared unconstitutional by both the VA and US Supreme Courts.

What it will do however, is shift a greater focus to the people about abortion in hopes of overruling Rove Vs. Wade in the future.