Ronald Merullo’s Jan. 22 op-ed “Beyond pro-life and pro-choice” suggests that those on both sides of the issue should agree to increase the availability of contraception. He postulates that this will reduce the number of abortions. Unfortunately, empirical evidence shows that greater availability of contraception may not reduce the number of abortions.
In countries across the world, greater availability of contraceptives has paralleled increases in the number of abortions. Easier access to contraception appears to increase the population of sexually active people and the frequency of their sexual encounters.
Comments
Very well said. Birth control is so cheap and easy to access now, it is hard to imagine how making even easier to obtain would make any difference. Of course, there are many Sandra Flukes who think it should be free of charge. But these people are NOT the ones who get pregnant out of marriage, and abort their babies.
If the "many Sandra Flukes" are not "get[ting] pregnant out of marriage, and abort[ing] their babies", why bring it up? Sandra Fluke was talking about women who use contraception medication for other medically approved uses and not contraception. If a doctor prescribes a contraception medication to treat another illness then it ought to be covered by a health plan (not free) just like any other prescribed drug. That was her point and it has nothing to do with this discussion.
"Easier access to contraception appears to increase the population of sexually active people and the frequency of their sexual encounters."
Evidence? The key word in your statement is "appears". You are just speculating.
And why would we be inclined to give credence to the Mass. Citizens for Life on this issue? The people who are "pro-life" are also the people who are anti-contraception.