The toxic debate over contraception among American Christians

The debate over reproductive rights among American Christians is childish and embarrassing.

The whole religious liberty kerfuffle in America today has nothing to do with people having the right to worship as they choose. Instead, we have been treated to an intellectually dishonest debate over contraception. Catholics and some Evangelical Protestants claim that contraceptives should not be included in health insurance because some hormonal methods cause abortions. They have even coined a clever monicker for these hormonal treatments - "abortifacients."

Let me illustrate how the "debate" over religious liberty and conception takes place among Christians.

Fred Clark, a progressive Christian writer, noted the tendency among some Christian leaders to equate contraception with abortion. To illustrated the point, he used the lawsuit by a Christian publishing company claiming its religious liberty had been trampled by being forced to cover contraceptives it labelled "abortifacients." The debate was also politicized by several references to the "religious right."

Timothy Dalrymple,  a prominent evangelical Christian writer, punched back.

Fred Clark (“slacktivist”) and other hard-left progressives have accused evangelicals of lying about the abortifacient nature of some contraceptives. According to this view of things, evangelicals are really just dead-set on opposing anything associated with President Obama, so they have invented the excuse that some contraceptives are abortifacient (abortion-inducing) in order to give themselves a justification for joining Catholic efforts to overturn Obamacare or at least eliminate its contraceptive mandate. In fact, with his usual charity and subtlety (/sarcasm), Clark conflates opposing contraception in principle (which evangelicals generally do not) with opposing the use of specific contraceptives that can cause the destruction of a fertilized egg (which evangelicals generally do), and likewise conflates opposing contraception (do not) with opposing church-supported distribution of condoms to unmarried young people (often do).

Notice the rhetoric. Dalrymple paints those who support health insurance coverage for contraceptives as political extremists - "hard-left." He also claims that Clark called evangelicals liars for equating contraception with abortion. That is more polemics because Clark questioned the factual basis for the equation rather than calling it a lie.

Clark fired back, this time calling evangelicals a bunch of liars.

So, my dear evangelical brothers and sisters, can we please stop lying for Jesus by saying that emergency contraception is “an abortifacient”?

It will not be long before 'poopy-head', 'terrorist', and 'baby killer' are thrown around as epithets. Beyond the name-calling, the debate is counterproductive and ultimately harmful to the body of Christ. We serve Christ, not religious or political leaders. You would never know that by the hyperbolic discussion of contraception by Christians in America.

First of all, Clark is correct in stating that emergency contraceptives do not cause the body to abort a fertilized egg. People that call it an "abortifacient" are wrong. Here is a clear statement of the biological mechanism of action (emphasis added) from the medical literature.

A major barrier to the widespread acceptability and use of emergency contraception (EC) are concerns regarding the mechanisms of action of EC methods. Today, levonorgestrel (LNG) in a single dose of 1.5 mg taken within 120 h of an unprotected intercourse is the most widely used EC method worldwide. It has been demonstrated that LNG-EC acts through an effect on follicular development to delay or inhibit ovulation but has no effect once luteinizing hormone has started to increase. Thereafter, LNG-EC cannot prevent ovulation and it does not prevent fertilization or affect the human fallopian tube. LNG-EC has no effect on endometrial development or function. In an in vitro model, it was demonstrated that LNG did not interfere with blastocyst function or implantation.

In other words, emergency contraception messes with the hormones (particularly progesterone) to stop ovulation, but does not prevent fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg. It does not destroy a fertilized egg as some Christian leaders claim. The only thing that is aborted is their credibility.

The second problem is that the debate over contraception coverage by health insurance is not really about emergency contraceptives. The most widely used emergency contraceptive is available over the counter. The coverage requirement is for commonly used prescription contraceptives. It is not because the primary mechanism of action destroys a fertilized egg, but because there is some risk to prevent implantation.

“In summary, the primary contraceptive effect of all the non-barrier methods, including emergency use of contraceptive pills, is to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. Additional contraceptive actions for all of these also may affect the process beyond fertilization but prior to pregnancy. For some methods these actions may be significant in contributing to their overall contraceptive efficacy.” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Equity Toolkit (Accessed 2012-02-26). From ACOG Statement on Contraceptive Methods (July, 1998).

Some Christians have become so rigid and arbitrary that any hormonal treatment that can potentially interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg is considered an "abortifacient." How touching that we are so very careful with the well-being of a fertilized egg, even before it is even capable of further development beyond a single cell.

The controversy boils down to whether you consider a fertilized egg a fetus. The medical community defines pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg. The reason is simple. A fertilized egg is not viable until it is implanted in the uterus and the cells begin to multiply and differentiate. Some Christians, particularly politically powerful Catholic and Evangelical leaders, want to call a woman pregnant when an egg is fertilized and treat the disruption of implantation as an abortion. That belief has a very interesting history.

The debate over contraception also undermines any meaningful discussion of abortion. Calling the use of medications that might interfere with implantation of fertilized egg murder and an assault on human dignity is a sham.

Additionally, both Evangelical Protestants and Catholics believe abortion is the extinguishment of a person created by God, a being at whose conception personhood begins. Thus, abortion is a profound assault on human dignity and a violation of the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

This is cynical politics and sloppy theology. The very next chapter of Exodus prohibits retribution for causing a miscarriage (Exodus 21:22-25).

“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise.

From an ethical standpoint, if I want to err on the side of caution out of reverence for life and avoid contraceptive methods that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, there is nothing that stops me. There is no requirement in our society to use contraception. I can act freely within the dictates of my conscience. The ethical high ground, however, collapses when I want to impose my value system on others. Some Christian leaders want all employers to have the right to deny coverage for family planning. It does not matter whether you work for a university, hospital, nonprofit, publisher, or any other business. It does not matter what your own personal beliefs about contraception happen to be.

What do you call Christians that want to protect every fertilized human egg but barely lift a finger to stop the already born from dying of hunger, thirst, disease, war, or execution? Mental gymnastics over a fertilized egg require even more time, money, blood, sweat, tears, and political capital for the already born if one's concern is truly rooted in respect for life. If you want to protect every fertilized egg but cannot be bothered about the already born, you better hope the Lord has a well-developed sense of humor about hypocrisy.

And let's not forget that by opposing the most effective forms of contraception, you are deliberately increasing the chances a woman will have an unwanted pregnancy. There are few good outcomes with an unwanted pregnancy, but the advocates of prohibiting hormonal contraceptives do not care. The woman's choices at that point are extremely difficult. She can terminate the pregnancy, but wrestle with the emotional and moral issues for a lifetime. Or she can bear the emotional, physical, and financial costs of carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption. Lastly, she could become a parent despite not being prepared for the responsibility and perhaps lacking the resources to effectively raise the child.

The authoritarian streak in some Evangelical and Catholic leaders is on display in the fight over contraception. Perhaps if they cared less about their own power and more about the well-being of their flock, the debate would not be so unbecoming to the body of Christ. Do these people seriously think they bring glory to Christ by equating the use of hormonal contraceptives with abortion and murder?