The Dog Whistlers: The One Question the "Pro-life" Presidential Candidates Don't Want You to Ask

98 percent of American women have done it.

37 million Americans are currently doing it.

Most of the GOP candidates oppose it.

What is it?

If you said "sex," you were close. The answer is "use contraception." In recent weeks, the GOP candidates have been asked a lot about their views on abortion but not one has been asked his position on contraception (or even prevention in general). Really big oversight. Maybe its because everyone just assumes they all support contraception. After all, who doesn't?

If their statements and actions are indicators, most of the GOP candidates oppose contraception. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson all define life as beginning at conception or fertilization, in other words when sperm meets egg. (It's worth noting that there's no medical way of knowing when sperm meets egg. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a fertilized egg isn't even considered a pregnancy.) This "life at fertilization" assertion is what is called in the business "dog whistle" politics: a political message only a specific constituency can hear. The reason, of course, to keep the message on one frequency, is that in most cases the issue is deeply unpopular with most of the American people. The candidate's whistle, in this case, is a pledge to support the anti-abortion movement's campaigns to roll back access to contraception.

If a candidate pledges to define life as beginning at fertilization, then anything that prevents implantation will end a life. And pro-lifers insist the pill does that. Birth control then becomes abortion, and as we know, abortion gets banned. Why hasn't the media sunk its teeth into this little curiosity? At the very least, it would make for some really great TV. Someone needs to ask any of the GOP candidates (except Guiliani) whether he supports access to birth control. 91 percent of the American public (the majority of the pro-life public included) does so strongly.

Along with pledging to give a fertilized egg full constitutional rights candidates prove their anti-contraception credentials in other ways. McCain boasts that he has consistently voted against funding pregnancy prevention for poor women. Romney vetoed an emergency contraception bill, calling it an 'abortion' drug. Ron Paul opposes federal funding for any contraceptive service.

These guys may try to outdo each other on anti-abortion rhetoric and explain, unflinchingly, how doctors will be thrown in jail when Roe fails (an inevitability in their minds). But it's the contraception question that really scares them. Because once the presidential debate focuses on how the candidates plan to alter the average American's sex life (made possible thanks to family planning) it is lifted from the pink ghetto of "woman's issues" and becomes a concern of male voters too.

Study after study proves that contraceptive use is the only way to prevent abortion; the places on earth contraception is most available are also where abortion is most rare. According to Save the Children, the countries where infant and maternal mortality are the lowest is where contraception is used the most (because planned pregnancies are healthier pregnancies.) Using abortion rates, maternal and infant death rates, as measures, it's undeniable: the most pro-life thing a president can do is support the right to use contraception and make it widely available. The public knows this. And sometime before the primaries the candidates must be made to state openly whether they support contraception. Because the candidates know those professional pro-life dogs are still listening for the right whistle.

Comments

[moderationsmuse]

Explain the math to me. A lot of those 98 percent of American women ARE Republicans.

Sorry, but this just doesn't fly.

Non issue.

[GawdFraud]

Several posters have made reference to the Monty Python take on this issue. Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

[penguin7]

The real question they don't want to answer (and nobody asks) is shouldn't in vitro fertilization be illegalized because it inevitably results in the destruction of embryos?

[thehuff]

I have a few young (20-30 years old) friends and/or relatives living in Florida. I regularly (once or twice a year) hear from one of them about having to have an abortion or in the case of the guys being concerned that he just "Got a chic preggos". These are not uneducated, poor kids. These are adults from good families with good jobs. My first question is always "what about contraception?" 100% of the time i get the following answer: "Guys HATE condoms".
My immediate thought and question is "But what about AIDS?" (nevermind the issue of pregnancy)
i just don't get it....

Interesting note: Throughout Europe you regularly see condoms in a bowl, on bars, in discos, given away for free. I'd be curious to know if guys hate 'em in Europe also?

[janmB]

DEFINITION OF A REPUBLICAN = You're a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty and continuing the Iraq war.
Yet--they can't see the hypocrisy in this ?
Further it may just be pure arrogance for an ordinary citizen or clergy to claim they know exactly when life begins when science nor God has told us.

[dvn]

Methods of birth control that may directly or indirectly result in an unimplanted fertilized egg have been called “abortifacient”, even if that result is very rare.

Under this type of definition, however, the “natural” methods of birth control endorsed by “traditionalist” Roman Catholics should also be called “abortifacient”.

The “natural” method of periodic abstinence consists of confining sexual intercourse to that portion of the month where the uterine lining is insufficiently developed to readily enable implantation. Ovulation is less likely at that time; however, when it does occur, implantation is unlikely, and a significant part of the contraceptive effect of periodic abstinence is due to failed implantation because of the timing of intercourse.

Strangely, this “natural” method is considered acceptable because ovulation and fertilization remain possible, even though most of the fertilized eggs are doomed to nonimplantation. Anyone who consistently opposed “abortifacient” consequences would oppose this method.

Another “natural” method commonly used is extended lactation. In nursing mothers, the periodic development of the uterine lining and ovulation is hormonally suppressed, much as with oral contraception. However, the suppression of ovulation is not complete, and becomes less certain with time, and the circumstance of a fertilized egg that fails to implant is highly likely with this method. In contrast, the dosage in oral contraception can in principle be set at a level where ovulation and fertilization are extremely rare, and the circumstance of an unimplanted fertilized egg could be nearly impossible.

Most other “artificial” methods of birth control do not interfere with implantation at all, directly or indirectly, and should therefore be considered superior to the intrinsically “abortifacient” natural methods, if survival of fertilized eggs is a real priority.

[willymack]

If nitwits ruled the country, many of us would think that an unending "war" in Iraq or elsewhere is AOK, that our economy is doing just fine, that global warming is bogus, that evolution is "only a theory", that it's all right for our government to poke into our private lives, and that sex is naughty, therefore everything connected with it, such as contraception must be too. Oh, wait a minute; this is ALREADY happening, isn't it? Never mind.

[GawdFraud]

If you don't think this is an isssue about control, how do you account for the swarm of Viagra and Cialis ads flooding our TV screens at all hours and almost no ads about contraceptives?
Which brings up another issue, how do you explain or demonstrate a four hour erection to your seven year old daughter who is watching TV along with you?

[normfromga]

The author seems to think that the pill is the only form of contraceptive, which makes birth control the inevitable target of the GOP candidates' pro-life stands.

Even if they did oppose it by extending their definition of abortion to include it and IUDs (which, rightfully, they haven't), there would be still several forms of barrier methods, which the majority here seem ignorant of, which would "fill the bill..."

Likewise, I agree with the suggestion that the "morning after" pill may not be abortive, but I would further suggest that making a higher dosage of a prescription drug, "OTC", unwise.

[JaseAllen]

It doesn't bother me that these candidates publicly oppose abortion. What bothers me is that they don't care about the child after he/she is born. Nor do they care about doing anything meaningful to effectively reduce the demand for abortions. It's all a load of pandering to the head-in-the-sand religious zealots.

I oppose abortion, but I'm not so stupid to think baning it will make it magically go away. Family planning education, affordable effective contraception, affordable pre- and post-natal care, and et cetera will do far more to reduce the number of abortions performed than over turning Roe v Wade. Of course, doing something for the good of society hasn't really been on the top of the Republican agenda in the last 30 years

[WireDolly]

Thanks again, Cristina, for pointing out that science has yet to be able to pinpoint anyone's exact conception date, much less time.

Let's see... my driver's license has my birth date. My passport has my birth date. Neither one has my conception date! How very odd.

And oh yeah--Christmas is soon to be here. 'Tis the season to celebrate... Jesus' BIRTHDAY!

[WireDolly]

I've taken emergency contraception twice and found it to be no big deal. An abortion or an unwanted child, on the other hand, are big deals. Big enough that a bunch of misogynist control freaks want to ban one and the US government that claims to love children so much won't even provide basic healthcare for the other.

It's DEFINITELY a male control/fear of women issue when you have amendments tacked onto SCHIP by Repiglicans that award universal healthcare to blastocysts and other non-sentient unaware entities while leaving out the very woman on which that supposed "life" depends.

Get over it pro-fetus freaks: Each of us on this earth has a generous woman to thank for their very existence. Women compete with your god, no less, which seems to be the real issue here.

[nexus1961]

Could we just get it thru the heads of the
religious nutbars that this is a matter for the pregnant woman, AND NO ONE ELSE??
Christians & other insane people..
THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!

[tokiedog]

Very astute look at this issue. We should be aware of the underlying motivation for the fight against abortion and preventing conception by most pro-lifers: It is control of women by men. Controlling the reproduction process and promoting more and more births is essential for this absolute control. Patriarchy today feels seriously threatened, and is fighting desperately to avoid its total demise. All generations of women must stay on guard if they care about their freedom.

[FOXYLADY]

GOOD ARTICLE...­......LET'­S ADD ALSO...DO THESE SO CALLED CHRISTIANS OR JUST PLAIN ABORTION NAYSAYERS PLAN TO "HELP SUPPORT THE UNWANTED CHILDREN" OR "ARE THEY WILLING AND GOING TO "ADOPT" AND "TAKE CARE" OF THESE UNWANTED CHILDREN....IS THERE TELLING PEOPLE TO "OBSTAIN" FROM SEX GOING TO WORK...HAHAHA.. AS MY MOM USED TO TELL ME "THERE'S MANY A SLIP BETWEEN THE CUP AND THE LIP"...SO NO FOOLING AROUND EITHER...WHY NOT BITCH ABOUT ALL THE SEXUAL EXPLICIT ADS AND TV SHOWS ETC. THAT ARE "ALLOWED"???? COME ON YOU DUMB PEOPLE... THINK WITH YOUR GOD GIVEN BRAINS AS YOU ARE SO OFTEN SPEAKING ABOUT GOD AND HIS LAWS....