nerd’s eye view

Prevent Unwanted Presidents

Welcome to Nerd's Eye View. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Want to know more about this site? See the Meet the Nerd page. And thanks for reading!

Warning: Contains rambling and ranting. It’s mildly better than sputtering.

George Pataki - in a move that’s been interpreted as pandering to the right as part of an upcoming bid for the 2008 presidency - wants to restrict access to emergency contraception. Preventing abortion has been a constant theme with conservatives in this nation. If you want to, you could jump to the conclusion that access to birth control prevents abortions. Crazy talk, I know.

It’s also possible that - get this radical idea - honest sex education might lead to responsible behaviors among teenagers, the population that seems most likely to need emergency contraception. But policy seems to be set by an anti-sex pro-pregnancy faction. The abstinence campaigns I’ve seen imply that sex is bad. (Plus, jeez, those kids in the ads seem awfully young to be thinking about sex. How old is that kid, like, eight?) No glove, no love has been replaced by, well, no love.

Last I checked, teenage boys spent a lot of time thinking about sex and not nearly as much time considering the results. I could be out of date on this, not knowing so many teenage boys, but I’ll go out on a limb and guess that they’re a pretty consistent population and are still thinking exactly the same way. Seems like a basic human truth. The guys are mostly about getting some and the girls about dealing with the consequences. I’m not saying girls don’t think about having sex, I’m just saying they have to deal with the results, whereas the boys get to walk away. Don’t get on me about this, you know it’s true.

I get that it’s a better idea to have parents involved in the health care decisions of their kids. But I can think of dozens of scenarios in which a teenage girl might not talk to her parents about birth control, emergency or otherwise. It doesn’t even have to be a “bad” home. It just has to be a place where sex and/or the implications of sex aren’t talked about and there’s a sense of great privacy around the issue. It can go downhill from there.

George Pataki proposes to restrict access to contraception to the girl who just doesn’t feel like she can talk to her parents about the place she’s in. Does the governor’s proposed policy affect teenage boys? Can a boy get emergency contraception by showing up at the pharmacy and saying, “Um, um, say you were, um, with a girl, and um…say her parents were on vacation…” Hey, maybe he can, but come on, be real. Is he going to?

I do not support the use of emergency contraception as standard birth control. (See above under my outrageous ideas about sex education.) But let’s break this down to it’s simplest scenario. A teenager fears she will become pregnant if she doesn’t get access to emergency contraception. She needs it NOW. She doesn’t want to be pregnant or she wouldn’t be standing in front of the pharmacist in the first place. In what scenario is it a good idea to deny her access to emergency contraception? And since when is the pharmacist the one who gets to decide if she will or will not become pregnant? This sure seems like the decision of the young lady with the uterus. This is not the time to get all high and mighty and say things like, “Oh, ho ho! You should have thought of this before you got in that car with that boy, Miss Sluttypants. Welcome to motherhood, you whore.” Another day of business as usual at the Taliban Pharmacy. “Thank you, come again!”

In addition to the right to privacy issues, restriction to contraception is blatant sexism. Birth control is not - nor has it ever been - the responsiblity of men. You can not convince me otherwise. Sure, there are some very thoughtful and responsible guys out there, but until men get pregnant, responsiblity for contraception will remain firmly in the hands of women. Men who pass judgement and legislation on this matter should consider that carefully before they sign anything in to law.

I am not among those who thinks that nationally, the Dems should back down on the right to choose. It’s clear that you can’t count on the states to protect that right. And everyone, EVERYONE, please note: we’re talking about the right to CHOOSE. Sure, this means that you can choose to have an abortion. This is only one portion of the choice debate. This isn’t about just being pro-abortion. Was it President Clinton who said that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”? Lowering abortion rates means increasing - not decreasing - access to contraception and information that helps people prevent unwanted pregnancies. Choosing contraception is one way of acting on the right to choose.

Mr. Pataki. I applaud you if you are the kind of father whose daughters will come to you in their time of distress or, even better, if they’ve come to you before then to discuss sex and its implications. But with all due respect, until you can ensure that all girls in America are so magically parented, you should Shut the Hell Up.