A Tax Trinity: Christian Right's Plan Costs Taxpayers Three Times as Much

Politics makes the strangest bedfellows. The weirdest, though, are the fiscal conservatives who promote tax abstinence while lusting after the Christian Right; a promiscuous spender of taxpayer dollars.

The Arizona Daily Star reports that states are beginning to see the financial benefits of investing in family planning services but are confronting opposition to the tax prevention plan from the Right.Instead, Christian conservatives prefer to spend three times as much on Medicaid expenditures for unwanted pregnancies.

Conversely, the states that have opted for the pro-contraception plan are enjoying big returns for their investment. In just one year, Alabama saved more than $19 million; New Mexico saved more than $6.5 million; and California saved more than $76 million.

The savings are immediate: contraception available=unwanted pregnancy averted. Every dollar spent on contraception for the people who can't afford it, the state saves three.

Instead, Christian conservatives try to cover up the Trinity Tax by de-funding essential programs for the born: like education, health care, and unemployment benefits for their parents. Pro-lifers may say they're pro-child, but the evidence suggests the very opposite.

The Children's Defense Fund is probably the best informed on who is pro-child. The organization published their rankings of the best and worst legislators for children and ranked 113 Congressional members as the worst for children. These politicians gleefully slash critical programs for kids and reliably work to defeat every common sense measure proposed to protect children (like safety locks on guns).

The nation's premier child advocacy organization found that 100% of the worst for children legislators are staunchly pro-life.

And the best legislators for children? 95% are pro-choice.

We may be paying three times as much for the Christian Right's plan today, but unless we cut them off right now we'll be paying far more dearly in the future.

Beauty and the Priest

If you needed an excuse to splurge on a lot of racy lingerie this weekend, Victoria’s Secret lead model Gisele Bundchen has provided a good one. When the pope brought his, uh, Prohibit Pregnancy Prevention tour to her native Brazil (where abortioin is illegal), the beloved Gisele publicly voiced her puzzlement at the Vatican’s prehistoric position on contraception. “It’s ridiculous to ban contraceptives,” she summarized with the directness we’ve come to expect of our finer featured friends. “Today no one is a virgin when they get married,” she was quoted as saying. “Show me someone who’s a virgin!”

She’s right, of course: 95 percent of people have sex before marriage, including nearly all Catholics. The Catholic Church’s position on birth control is not just ridiculous, it’s out of touch and it’s dangerous. While most people wisely abide by the cardinal rule: no sex advice from virgin men in gowns, Brazilian lawmakers have fallen prey to the pope’s advice on such matters. For example, following the pope’s lead, Brazil banned abortion — only to achieve one of the highest abortion rates in the world. (Abortion is far more common in Brazil than in countries where it is legal.) And so the pope arrived in Brazil in his chauffeured Segway-like vehicle with a plan to further his good work. He hopes to ban prevention.

Of course, the “pro-life” mouthpieces in response to such facts got the target in sight and started …. demeaning Gisele. Dinesh D’Souza states sneeringly, “Models, like small children at adult dinner parties, should be seen but not heard.” Judie Brown, mother superior of the American Life League continues, “The thousands of Catholic parents in our world who raise their children to be representatives of Christ by imitating His invitation to virtue will never make the news with such a splash. But give a scantily-clad ‘supermodel’ an opportunity, and she will do all she can to discredit God's gift of personhood. If only the average person would wake up and see that until there is virtue where once there was vice, abortion will never disappear. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?”

Because it’s not true, Judie. Apparently, “pro-lifers” don’t like hearing about the only proven way to prevent abortion (contraception), or to save infants’ and mothers’ lives. Gisele is onto something more than just plain common sense when she defends contraception—and that’s why someone with so much influence saying true things is such a threat to “pro-lifers.” As Save the Children reports in their report, State of the World’s Mothers, “Increased access to and use of modern contraception can lead to dramatic improvements in infant and maternal survival rates.” That’s why, in Finland, a country where 75 percent of women use birth control, the lifetime risk of a mother dying in childbirth is one in 8,200 and four out of 1,000 Finnish infants do not make it to their first birthday. Compare this to a country that has taken the pope’s and the “pro-life” movement’s approach, like Niger where only 4 percent of women use birth control. In that country, one in seven mothers die in childbirth and 156 of 1,000 infants die before reaching age one. The most pro-life thing one can do is give people the means to plan their pregnancies, as Gisele suggests. That concept is even more threatening to Judie, Dinesh and the pope than a Victoria’s Secret lace-trim ultrasmooth v-string, which is on sale now for just $5.99!

THE RAIL

NYC Penn Station, last Wednesday: Me and (former) U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. I was on my way down to D.C. for the launch of Birth Control Watch and just ahead in the crowd piling onto the track was Senator Santorum, younger-looking and shorter than I imagined him. It may not be him, I thought, but then spotted RJS embroidered on his canvas briefcase. He looked comfortable in business suit and briefcase, which struck me as incongruous—I would've pegged him as a backpack-on-the-front-when-in-the-city kind of guy. (You know, to guard against robberies.)

Once everyone settled into the comfy Metroliner seats and we were well on the way, I decided I had to find him. How could I pass up an opportunity like this? He is the staunchest of staunch fundamentalist anti-choice movers. He's exactly the kind of blinkered mind that's choked progress on the birth control issue.

And so I grabbed a copy of my book (How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America) and began making my way down the aisle. He was in the next car and I gingerly walked up to him and extended my hand. "Hello Senator. My name is Cristina Page and I just wanted to say hello and give you my book because we have an interest in common." I paused; he smiled. "Although we come to it from different places." Still, he smiled.

I handed him my book, which he's in, on page 164. He read the title and seemed to brace himself. I kneeled before him – a little dramatic, maybe, but on Amtrak it's actually the only option besides literally talking down to him and said, "Before you draw any conclusions, I want you to know that I make a lot of common ground arguments in here. In fact, the book was really written for 'pro-life' people." Which is true.

"Well, what are some of your arguments," he asked, offering me the perfect opening. It was a delicious moment, one I'd long imagined – face to face with an opponent of cartoonish proportions. Of course, it's easier to be angry (and at the same time articulate) in your imagination. In person, I found Santorum an almost sympathetic presence; he wanted to listen.

And so I launched into my best point. "I argue that the pro-choice movement is doing a better job at what the American people view as pro-life goals than the pro-life movement is." Was he interested? Who cares. No stopping me now. "Just one example: the countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world are the ones that have adopted the strongest pro-choice policies, and the countries with the highest abortion rates in the world are the ones that have adopted the strongest pro-life policies. If pro-life Americans knew this I think they'd be really concerned."

Santorum seemed to actually consider this. And so I kept going. Could he be reasoned with? Had he just not been presented with the data?

"I don't need to tell you," I said, "that most pro-life groups classify many forms of contraception as "abortion" (as he did on the Senate floor) — "even though there's no scientific evidence that contraception can work the way they suggest it does. There's no evidence that a fertilized egg can be prevented from implanting in the womb—in fact, all studies suggest it only works to prevent an egg from releasing or the sperm from reaching the egg—and that there's no action after conception. This should be a huge relief to pro-life groups especially considering contraception is the only proven way to prevent abortion." All this, I said while on my knees.

At which point I paused. One always imagines that having the truth on your side helps; that maybe just maybe when presented with the facts sensible people will come to their senses.

"Well, you know it's not all about preventing abortion," he told me. And, after a little throat clearing, continued, "It's about sex too."

It wasn't that deflating; I knew common ground right there on the Amtrak wasn't going to happen. In fact, his casual mention of this factoid brought me back to the great divide that really separates the sides.

For so long, people have thought the heart of the conflict is differences over abortion. Not so. In a way, I was glad to hear Santorum acknowledge it. He confirmed the main point of my book, and he, by any measure, is an unimpeachable source. For the anti-choice side, abortion is only secondary. They're fighting a culture war. And their side, amazingly, simply doesn't want people to have sex, except in the God-mandated cause of procreation.

I couldn't resist. After all, I think he's wrong on his view of the culture war, too. "I don't want to take up too much of your time, but just on that point—on the values issue—I spend a lot of time on this in my book and what I try to show is that all the values that the Christian right holds most dear; stronger families, more involved fathers, children with greater supports—have all come about as a result of family planning. If you ever have the time I'd love for you to read my book, and I know this is unlikely, but I put my card in the book if you wanted to correspond about it."

"Well," he said, "I don't really work on the issue too much these days."

"That's a relief." I said. It just slipped out.

Then, he added (discouragingly), "I plan to in the future." (He's got about ten different projects currently.)

Oh well. I headed off leaving him with, I suspect, some reading not to do.

family and the '50s

Few women today would trade places with the ‘50s woman and mother, the one fervently idealized by so-called "pro-family" groups. In the ‘50s, women didn't approach parity with men in education and – guess what – their housework time was constant, despite having new "time-saving" technologies. This era, in which birth rates soared, doubled the time devoted to child care. And with women assigned to endless tasks of the home, men shouldered the full responsibility of supporting the family economically. One dire consequence was that one in four Americans in the mid-1950s lived in poverty. By the end of the 1950s, one in three American children lived in poverty. Not surprisingly, researchers in the ‘50s found less than one in three married couples reported being happy or very happy with their relationship. Compare today, when 61 percent of married Americans report themselves to be "very happy" in their marriage. Part of the sour spouse problem of the ‘50s was that many couples didn't really want to be married to each other. Often, they were trapped into marriage by unintended pregnancy. With no sex-ed, no birth control, no legal abortion - the exact legislative agenda of today's pro-life movement! -teen birth rates soared, reaching highs that have not been equaled since: there were twice as many teen mothers in the ‘50s than today.

Postponing or planning marriage and children has allowed women to get a foothold in the workforce, and this has led to important benefits: They have made their families wealthier. Today, the rate of poverty is half what it was in the 1950s. In fact, now if a husband is the sole breadwinner, the family is four times more likely to be poor than one in which the wife brings home an income too. Dual income homes earn nearly two-thirds more than that of families in which only the husband works. Consequently, the percentage of children living in poverty has decreased 50 percent since 1959. Money may not be everything. But it's something.

Husbands count on their wives to bring home a significant share of the family wealth now; nearly one in four women now earn more than their husbands. With this, men have options to leave a negative work environment, change careers, take more career risks and be more involved – indeed better – fathers than ever before. You'd never know this if you listened to the so-called 'pro-family' groups set on convincing us that the way we live now is tearing our country apart. Because of the pro-choice movement's efforts, we now have a true "Family Man," the very one the right wing seems to still be looking for.

With the religious right's intensifying attacks against family planning, men have as much at stake as women, if not more. A University of Michigan study found that children's time with their fathers increased significantly only in families in which the mother worked outside the home. Fathers today spend much more time with their children than ‘50s fathers — a difference of more than one hour each day. And most, by the way, are aware of this difference. Eighty-four percent report that they spend more time with their kids and get more joy out of fatherhood than their fathers did.

The vast majority of men, 72 percent, say they would sacrifice pay and job opportunities for more time with their families. Dads today are even more affectionate with their children: 60 percent hug their school-aged kids every day and 79 percent of fathers tell their children they love them several times a week. James Levine, who heads the Fatherhood Project, says that "Children whose fathers are involved with them show better education achievement, fewer problems in school, and they're better off socially."

So much for the break up of the family caused by sexual liberation and pro-choice, pro-birth control movement. Just the opposite is true. The family is more financially secure and more enjoyed than ever before. And what better family value is there than valuing family?

On the 42nd Anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut - Looking Towards Prevention First

Guest Blog by Representative Louise Slaughter

On this important day, the 42^nd anniversary of the Supreme Court's Griswold v. Connecticut decision, I was honored to join the Women Donors Network and Communications Consortium Media Center as they launched their new website BirthControlWatch.org.

I spoke about my Prevention First Act, which serves an innovative and comprehensive way to protect women's reproductive health, decrease the spread of STDs, and reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

Prevention First achieves this goal by providing comprehensive access to all forms of contraception and sex education. I wanted to take a moment to review why it is necessary and what it will accomplish.

Why Prevention First, and why now?

Today the U.S. has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations. Each year, half of the three million pregnancies nationwide are unintended. Half of those pregnancies, in turn, end in abortion. 1 in 3 girls in America become pregnant before the age of 20. The vast majority of those pregnancies are unintended. Additionally, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases among industrialized nations.

>So, after realizing this, if we ask ourselves why Prevention First, and why now, then the answer should be as clear as day. If we want to reduce the number of abortions and the spread of STDs in this country, we must empower women through education and access to contraception.

>And that is precisely what the Prevention First Act does.

>I first introduced this legislation over five years ago as a revolutionary approach to reducing unintended pregnancies. And today marks the 42^nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut which effectively legalized the right of women to access contraception. This decision was groundbreaking. It allowed women control over their own bodies and to choose the size and spacing of their family. Make no mistake: access to contraception single-handedly improved women's equality in American Society.

But throughout the years, prominent conservatives have sought to limit women's rights and freedoms by imposing stricter penalties and enacting laws to criminalize doctors and women.

At the same time, these leaders have done next to nothing to ensure that millions of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are prevented in the first place. In fact, they have time and again done just the reverse. Clearly, if they are opposed to abortion, they should be for preventing unintended pregnancies. It's just plain common sense.

That is why for most women, including women who want to have children, contraception is not an option; it is a basic health care necessity. Contraceptive use saves scarce public health dollars. For every $1 spent on providing family planning services, an estimated $3.80 is saved in Medicaid expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care.

Many poor and low-income women cannot afford to purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own. Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, need publicly funded services to help them gain access to public health programs like Medicaid and Title X, the national family planning program. Each year, publicly funded family planning services help prevent an estimated one million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions. Unfortunately, these programs are struggling to meet the growing demand for subsidized family planning services without corresponding increases in funding. I am pleased to say that the Prevention First Act authorizes increased funding for Title X clinics and strengthens states' coverage of Medicaid family planning services.

Improved access to emergency contraception also goes a long way toward reducing the staggering rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in this country. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, emergency contraception can prevent 89 percent of unintended pregnancies. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of EC accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. In addition, emergency contraception is often the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 women who are reported to be raped each year. The Prevention First Act requires that hospitals receiving federal funds provide victims of sexual assault with information and access to emergency contraception.

Despite the fact that contraceptives have a proven track record of enhancing the health of women and children, preventing unintended pregnancy, and reducing the need for abortion, far too many insurance policies exclude this vital coverage. Women of reproductive age currently spend 68% more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men, much of which is due to reproductive health-related supplies and services. To remedy this problem, the Prevention First Act requires that private health plans cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services.

We must break the unfounded and inaccurate stereotype that improving access to contraceptive services and information causes non-sexually active teens to start having sex. Instead, teens need information to help them both postpone sexual activity and to protect themselves if they do become sexually active. A November 2006 study of declining pregnancy rates among teens concluded that the reduction in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 is primarily the result of increased use of contraceptives.

The Prevention First Act provides funding to public and private entities to promote the establishment or expansion of their teenage pregnancy prevention programs. The bill also provides for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs that teach young people about abstinence, health, and contraceptives. Moreover, Prevention First requires federally funded programs that distribute information on the use of contraceptives to ensure that the information is medically accurate and includes health benefits and failure rates.

Reducing unintended pregnancy and infection with STDs are important public health goals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included family planning in their published list of the "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20^th Century."

The Prevention First Act will improve access to family planning services for all women in need, and will go a long way in fulfilling the promise of this important public health achievement. By emphasizing prevention first, this legislation will help protect women's reproductive health, reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the spread of STDs, and give women the tools they need to make the best decisions possible for themselves.

We still have a long way to go, but websites like BirthControlWatch.org and legislation like the Prevention First Act are an important step to ensure every woman across the country has easy and affordable access to contraception while also being given the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their reproductive health.

family planning is a family value...

The anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that legalized the use of contraception for married people, usually comes and goes with little notice. (While each year Roe v. Wade rakes in the column inches.) Today is the anniversary of Griswold. It's 42 years old today, a reproductive lifetime (and one that saw nearly all the social barriers for women fade away). Griswold is, no doubt, one of the most important Supreme Court decisions ever rendered.

Even the religious right agrees with this, though for its own confused reasons. If you listen to the apocalyptic rhetoric of the religious right, you'll learn that contraception is the root of all of society's ills, from the imagined breakdown of the family to an undocumented surge in crimes against children. It's a cornerstone of right-wing scolding and accusing – and wow are they scolders and accusers. And, no doubt, it's also the reason that not one pro-life group in the U.S. supports the use of contraception even though it's, ahem, the only proven way to prevent abortion.

Sadly, most Americans seem afflicted by some strain of this right wing prejudice. As much as 98 percent of Americans have used artificial birth control. Still, they don't think it's quite kosher. It's as if they too have felt the scolding and don't feel good about themselves for using birth control, regardless that much of their lives have been designed by family planning. The public appears to suspect (along with the right wing) that the pro-choice, birth control movement is somehow protecting (and even promoting) vice. No one realizes that the opposite is true or that groups like Planned Parenthood are the real pro-family values groups. There has never been a greater oversight. Here's why.

The religious right is right in this: Birth control is the source of seismic change. Family planning has led to a transformation of our society so head-spinningly rapid we've only recently had the occasion to take stock. For example, the past century has actually witnessed a steep decline in extramarital affairs as a result, it would seem, of the very changes that drive the pro-lifers wild: the more lengthy and thoughtful trying-out of marriage partners in combination with greater candor about sexual desires within marriage. Studies conducted in 1948 and 1953 found that 26 percent of women and a whopping 50 percent of men had an extramarital sexual experience. But today, in our sex and sin-happy culture, the number of married people who have had an extramarital affair has plummeted to six percent of women and 10 percent of men, according to (conservative) Ben Wattenberg in his book The First Measured Century. Preaching about faithfulness didn't lead to this family value upgrade. Rather, the uptick in fidelity today is the result of a society that accepts our sexual urges as natural, and couples can look within marriage for fulfillment of desires, even those once branded indecent. (It is also this belief system which supports gay marriage and the children that result from it. To us, family is so important that we believe everyone has a right to make one.)

Another truth is that when the birth control revolution got under way, women waited to marry and start a family. In 1970, the average age of a new mother was 21 years old. By 2000, the average age was 28. Harvard researchers recently reported that legalization of contraception is directly linked to the spike in the number of women becoming more highly educated and entering "career" professions. In 1970, five percent of all lawyers and judges were women; today they are six times that. In 1970, one in ten physicians was female; today it's one in three. Similar patterns are true for women architects, dentists, veterinarians, economists, and women in most of the engineering fields. No doubt, these advancements were set in motion by the birth control movement. It also is responsible for happier marriages, wealthier families and more involved fathers. More on that on Friday.