Who would have thought that birth control would be in the news in 2022?
The House of Representatives recently passed the Right to Contraception Act (H.R.8373). The bill “sets out statutory protections for an individual’s right to access and a health care provider’s right to provide contraception and related information.” The vote was 228–195, with just eight Republicans voting with the Democrats to pass the bill. What would prompt the House to pass legislation like this?
In his concurring opinion in the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) is the case that established the “right of married persons to obtain contraceptives.” Lawrence v. Texas (2003) is the case that established the “right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts.” Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is the case that established the “right to same-sex marriage.”
In the Griswold case, the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) challenged a law in Connecticut that made it illegal to use “any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” Estelle Griswold was the PPLC executive director. She and physician opened a birth control clinic and began to see married women who wanted birth control advice. They were soon arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each. Their conviction was upheld by the Circuit Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court but then overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Both prescription and nonprescription birth-control products and devices have been advertised on television for many years now, and birth-control devices like condoms can be purchased at most major drug stores and even at grocery stores. There is no stigma in using birth control.
Yet, even in 2022, some religious people believe that the use of birth-control products is immoral or sinful. They believe either that no birth control measures should ever be taken or that only natural birth control methods like the calendar rhythm method, the basal body temperature method, the mucus inspection method, or the withdrawal method should be used.
Abstinence, of course, is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy. Some religious conservatives still think that abstinence education should be taught in public schools. Most Americans probably don’t realize that over a billion dollars of their tax money had been spent on abstinence education programs between 1981 and 2007. In 1981, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) to encourage adolescents to postpone sexual activity until marriage and promote adoption over abortion. Title V of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 set up a new system of grants for states providing abstinence education that used a specific eight-point criteria. Congress created a third abstinence education program in 2000 that bypassed the need for state approval. These programs have since been eliminated and replaced by others. In 2017, one-third of federal funding for teen sex education programs was for abstinence education. On the state level, 37 states require that when sex education is taught, it must include abstinence education.
What, then, is the libertarian position on birth control? There isn’t one, other than that no tax dollars should ever be used to promote abstinence education, family planning, birth control, sex education, adoption, or abortion for the simple reason that no tax dollars should ever be used to educate any American about anything. Education — whether it be math, science, English, history, or sex education — should be completely private. Individual libertarians may use various birth-control measures, or they may not. They may believe that the use of birth-control products is immoral or sinful, or they may not. But regardless, libertarians believe that the decision to practice birth control — whatever form that might take — is an individual decision between sexual partners and no one else’s business, especially none of the government’s business.
So, what is it about birth control that is newsworthy?
Well, employees at some Walgreens drug stores have recently refused to sell birth control pills or condoms because of their moral or religious beliefs. So much so that some customers are using the hashtag #BoycottWalgreens on social media platforms.
A woman with her husband who tried to buy condoms at a Walgreens store in Wisconsin was told by the cashier that he couldn’t sell her the condoms because of his “faith.” The cashier “proceeded to embarrass me in front of other customers because of my reproductive choices,” the couple said in a complaint to Walgreens.
Another woman who tried to refill her birth control prescription at her local Walgreens was told by a worker wearing two crosses that she couldn’t refill the prescription. When the woman called Walgreens, she maintains that she was told by a representative: “I know exactly who you’re talking about and we’ve been having this problem for the last two weeks.”
According to Walgreens: “Our policy allows pharmacists to step away from filling a prescription for which they have a moral objection. At the same time, they are also required to refer the prescription to another pharmacist or manager on duty to meet the patient’s needs in a timely manner.”
So, Walgreens grants religious accommodations when it comes to filling prescriptions. This is nothing new. Other companies have granted religious accommodations regarding Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists working on Saturday, Christians working on Sunday, Muslim women wearing head coverings, religious people wanting to pray, as well as dress and facial hair.
The question is not whether companies should grant religious accommodations for this or that but whether they should be able to grant or not grant them. In a free society, companies would not be required by the government to grant religious accommodations for anything. So, for example, if someone working for a company without any religious accommodations refused to sell one of the company’s items that was for sale, he could be fired and not be allowed to sue because he was suffering religious discrimination.
In a free society, that is, a libertarian society, using birth control would be an individual decision, and religious accommodations would be entirely a matter between employers and employees.
The post Libertarianism, Birth Control, and Religious Accommodations appeared first on The Future of Freedom Foundation.
The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy. The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Visit https://www.fff.org