In this FindLaw column Sherry Colb “discuss[es] a recent speech by a spokesperson for Feminists For Life (FFL), in which she said that FFL does not take a position on contraception (because some members favor it and some oppose). [Colb] criticize FFL’s failure to take a position and argue that especially for an organization that is categorically opposed to all abortions yet prioritizes feminism, it is critical to support women’s access to contraception.
In a post at Dorf on Law, Colb considers:
… an argument that some people have made about one form of contraception: birth-control pills. The argument has several components. First, birth-control pills have side effects that its makers did not initially fully appreciate and thereby gave women the illusion that they could “harmlessly” avoid the risk of pregnancy. Second, birth-control pills provide protection against one risk of sex (pregnancy) without doing anything to protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s). As a result, some have suggested, various S.T.D.’s have proliferated to a point at which virtually everyone above a certain age is a carrier. And third, birth-control pills suppress women’s natural hormonal cycles, which has the consequence of obscuring an important physiological basis for selecting a mate: pheromones (which, among other things, attract women to men with whom they are unlikely to be close genetic relations).
Via Nariessa Smith
