Last week I shared here a Guttmacher Institute study about contraceptive use in society as a whole. Guttmacher also has studied Catholic women as a subset, and their contraceptive use.
One fella I know, a former student, a solid student and a man who is Catholic, told me last week that Catholic women who defy the Church as to contraception, are (his words), "failed Catholics".
I asked him if he really wanted to label all but 2 % of U.S. Catholic women as "failed". He would not answer.
As the Right gears up yet again--and certainly the Right encompasses millions who are not Catholic and not men--gears up to tear women down, I thought this would be useful to you.
All of us stopped Komen's collusion with misogynists; we can end this, too.
- JW
CATHOLIC WOMEN’S CONTRACEPTIVE USE
In April 2011, the Guttmacher Institute published the results of an analysis finding that
99% of all women of reproductive age who have ever had sex—
including 98% of such Catholic women—
have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning.
These data have been ubiquitous in the recent debate over the requirement that private insurance plans cover contraceptive services and supplies without cost-sharing. However, there has been some confusion about various aspects of the research that produced this statistic.
Women who “have ever used” contraceptives
Guttmacher’s analysis of data from the federal government’s National Survey of Family Growth found that the vast majority of American women of reproductive age (15–44)—
including 99% of all sexually experienced women and 98% of those who identify themselves as Catholic—
have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point. Women may be classified as sexually experienced regardless of whether they are currently sexually active, using contraceptives, pregnant, trying to get pregnant or postpartum.
By their early 20s, some 79% of never-married women—and 89% of never-married Catholic women—have had sex. (Presumably, all married women have done so.) In short, most American women (including Catholics) have had sex by their early 20s, and virtually all of them have used contraceptives other than natural family planning.
These statistics look only at women of reproductive age because that is the group impacted by policy changes related to insurance coverage of contraception. Women who are “currently using” contraceptives
The above statistics on women who have ever used contraceptives are not to be confused with data on women who are currently using contraceptives. Among women who are currently at risk of unintended pregnancy, 88% overall—and 87% of Catholics—use a method other than natural familyplanning.Women who are at risk of unintended pregnancy—that is, who are sexually active and are able to become pregnant but want to avoid pregnancy—comprise about seven in 10 of all women of reproductive age. Importantly, this category excludes women who are pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant; women who have never had vaginal intercourse; and women who have not had sex in the last three months. Women who are not at immediate risk of unintended pregnancy are relatively unlikely to have reason to practice contraception. However, just because a woman is not currently using contraceptives does not mean that she has not used a method previously or that she will not use one in the future.
Among all women who are at risk of unintended pregnancy, 69% (including 68% of Catholics) are currently using a highly effective contraceptive method—male or female sterilization, the IUD, the pill or another hormonal method. Another 14% (15% among Catholics) are relying on condoms, and 5% (4% among Catholics) are relying on other methods, such as withdrawal. Only 1% of all women at risk of unintended pregnancy (2% of Catholics) use natural family planning, the only method of contraception sanctioned by the Catholic hierarchy.
Non-use of contraceptives among women at risk of unintended pregnancy
Eleven percent of all women at risk of unintended pregnancy (and the same proportion of such Catholic women) are not using a method of contraception even though they aresexually active and are not trying to become pregnant. Some of these women may feelambivalent about pregnancy and may therefore be less motivated than others to use contraceptives. Others may have sex infrequently or think they are unable to become pregnant. Finally, some may not be able to afford contraceptives. Importantly, the vast majority of women who are at risk but are not using contraceptives have used a method in the past and will most likely do so again in the future.
Regardless of religious background, women use contraceptives to help them time and space their childbearing and to achieve healthier pregnancies. A significant body of research shows that planned pregnancies involve healthier behaviors and outcomes than unplanned ones—the mother is more likely to seek and receive prenatal care and to breast-feed her infant and less likely to smoke or drink during pregnancy. Contraception also helps women avoid pregnancies that are spaced too closely and thus to avoid adverse outcomes that can negatively affect a child’s development—including delivery of an infant who is low-birth-weight, preterm or small for gestational age.Women who use contraceptives and women who have children are overwhelmingly the same women at different points in their lives. U.S. women, on average, want two children; as a result, they spend about five years of their lives pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant, and about 30 years trying to avoid unintended pregnancy.
As Guttmacher’s April 2011 paper concluded: “Policies that make contraceptives more affordable and easier to use are not just sound public health policy—they also reflect the needs and desires of the vast majority of American women and their partners, regardless of their religious affiliation.
*
Further Reading:
HOW ON EARTH CAN SERIOUS CANDIDATES FOR ANY OFFICE, LET ALONE THE PRESIDENCY, IMAGINE THAT THREATENING THE ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION CAN END IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN DEVASTATING LOSSES FOR THESE CANDIDATES?
Max Rivlin-Nadler
Linda Seccaspina
nerd cred
SagCap
jmac1949
tg within
Salon.com
Comments
People seem to believe that the practice of religion (in the areas they choose) should be immutable, all while life and living progresses. My problem with the Catholic debate is simple...don't want to follow the law, don't accept federal funds. More importantly, there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy surrounding the "religious freedom" debate.
The law already exists in over twenty states and eight provide no religious exemption. One has to wonder why the provision was not contested before now. My conclusion is that the recent outcry has less to do with religion than it has to do with outright politics.
Finally, this confusion about faith v religion is a bother to me. One's faith cannot, or should not be guided; cannot be imposed upon by a set of laws. Religion of course is another matter. Having said as much, I can appreciate that people don't want impositions on their religious practices, however I'm not interested in having my practices imposed upon either.
In the final analysis, it's either a bunch of whooey or we're all going to Hell.
Rated.
So far, of the states that have voted, only 11% of registered voters voted. In some states, particularly those with caucuses, the number is far lower. In swing state Maine, 1% of registered voters voted in the Republican primaries. (As a side note, Maine does have a relatively new Tea Party governor, and I wouldn't be surprised if Governor LePage is single-handedly swinging Maine Democratic.)
The people who are voting are overwhelmingly older, white and Christian --- and not representative of the country at large. Look at South Carolina, a state that is 64% white. Around 95% of the voters in the Republican primary were white. Florida is 60% white, but 83% of the voters in the Republican primary were white. Florida's population is 15% black, 1% of the primary voters were.
Then there's the impact of money. Fleiss, of 'gals put aspirin between their knees' fame bankrolled Santorum so he was able to stay in the race long enough to see Gingrich flame out and get his turn as the not Romney of the week.
Part of Santorum's appeal to the Republicans is his authenticity, compared to Mitt Weathervane Romney. Santorum stands on his principles, which means whenever he is asked about his looney, reactionary social ideas, he answers honestly.
What kind of doctrine is that?
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
-R-
I could see Santorum gaining ground, sadly. In fact, I had an odd premonitory chill on Sunday when reading the NYT headlines in the politics section where Feckless Rick seemed to be gaining ground in the polls on Romney to the point where they're actually calling it neck and neck.
This premonitory chill raised the hairs on the back of my neck. I note in reading the other comments before posting (sometimes I do, other times, I don't want my view 'tainted' by others with great insights pre-post) that the majority of registered voters are not voting in the Republican Primaries (note that the Dems are not yet hitting the actual polls as of now) and the ones that do are primarily white, older (but not too old as to want for SS, Medicaid, Medicare) and predominantly Christian.
Could this be a harbinger of how the actual polls will end up in November? If so, we could be in real trouble.
As to the whole Religion claim of government intrusion on their faith. I wonder, why don't they shut their yaps when Imams claim they should be allowed to insist their parishioners practice Sharia? Why don't they shut the hell up when Sikhs and Hindus run through the streets, "honor" killing their children? Aren't those religious matters of faith, not to be intruded upon by government?
The simple answer is not only no, but Hell No. One cannot use their religious point of view to excise, disenfranchise or exclude portions of our society from equal protections under the law. If the parishioners wish to be good parishioners, they will obey the laws of the land and the laws of the Church -- in that order. The leaders of the Churchs, be they whichever faith, sect, order or denomination, must subrogate themselves to following the laws of the land where possible (and this includes providing contraception under the law to those who request it) and rule within their faith according to their rules -- as long as those rules don't violate the laws of the land against their unwilling subjugates.
This is why Sharia Law will not be practiced in this country -- it violates the laws of the land and the laws of the land are a higher authority in this United States than any religious Law. Separation of Church and State is a good thing, people. It is also why, the Catholic faith has no business crying foul in this instance.
Their faithful parishioners will not ask for contraceptives, so no religuous ethical violations will occur. And if they do ask, well, the Church Police (what's their Diocese?) can file a report and the Church can then whack them with papers of excommunication.
Personally, I think the Catholic Church should get into the Indulgences Business again, where they can sell forgiveness to those using contraception -- for a fee, that will guaranty one person per fee, to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It'd be like purchasing a time share at the Disney Hotel. You might not ever use it, but you could make sure someone else could go.
Plus, that would allow the Church to fill it's coffers again in a time of lowered tithing (just like back during the Crusades, history repeats) whereby they can sell religious comfort in the afterlife. I mean, if you buy into the idea, then buying into the Indulgence is a logical next step, right?
Excellent article Jonathan. Too bad those who might make the most of this information will completely ignore it. After all, it impinges on their religious freedom to be stupid, ignorant and completely oblivious of facts as a matter of faith.
--rr--
My eclectism allows me to make many choices, regardless of what others believe, the consequences of my sexual activities should not ever be considered failures.
The other momentous event would be the collapse of the Republican party, but as long as there is greed, the corporate widgets will keep it around to do their bidding, enticing other radical elements who with ideology will whip themselves up over some small particle of belief and once again bolster the corruption enough to bring them more power. It is the only party I know of the users and those being used working at some significant main purpose and each prostituting themselves by numbers to achieve the small goal. The people must awake and see the gimmicks for what they are, who is using whom and that they must speak, vote, and get their own numbers in power. That is the only way to secure their power, their idea of this republic which is by all measures known as a democracy.
There were a handful of notable exceptions--three families I knew with 10 or more kids, and all of them were doctor's families. Meaning they had the money to have 10 kids. One family (one) did it on a millworker's salary... a whole string of kids in hand-me-down clothes and ugly glasses from the Lions club bin. The lady who gave the speeches at church on "natural family planning" was the wife of a grocery store butcher, with five kids, one of whom had special needs. (How's that family planning working out for you?)
Jeesh.
Evangelical christian teens are least likely to use contraception and most likely to become pregnant with onset of sexual activity. They aren't avoiding sex, they are getting more diseases and unplanned children. After the fact, their birth control might be abstinence, avoidance, fatigue (Go Bristol Palin!), but eventually they will get contraception when they realize a life of teenage poverty parenting is really lousy.
So all Catholic women are given an F. From Big Daddy on High. The comparison to Iran is not a facetious one. Their theocracy is built on the idea that the Clergy has the responsibility for the “orphans, insane, and all unclaimed property”. Meaning society. I just read that yesterday in a big fat wonderful book by the late great Hitchens…”arguably”…
Freud said it best:
“Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines
increases our respect for them,
but does not invalidate our proposal
that they should cease to be put forward
as the reasons for the precepts of civilization.
On the contrary!
Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings,
as it were, as neurotic relics,
and we may now argue that the time has probably come,
as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression
by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.”
I shall reread my new testament and see where jesus says anything about contraception.
NO one should have a right to tell you or your body what to do or made to feel badly about your choices.
HUGGGGGGGGGG
And, I say to the church, there is no such thing as "natural family planning," as it is the most unnatural thing to attempt there is. My parents practiced "rhythm." Wow. That really worked well...7 children later. Heck, had they not planned better, there may have been 12-16 kids, for crying out loud. I do love my big crazy family, all the cousins, nieces and nephews and the gatherings of the clan when they occur.
Being the more "relaxed" version during my "productive" years, I did practice birth control (mea culpa) and regrettably took the BC pill for a total of 22 years, going off of it only when planning to be preggers with my 3 daughters. Still wonder today, what the long term effects of the bad pill will or is having on my brain in this moment. Too late.
And, as I have previously mentioned in another post of yours, I believe, contraceptives of any kind were never covered by an insurance company I have ever had. It seemed lumped in with other medical procedures that were considered "elective" and not necessary. Guess for decades, insurance companies did find female contraception to be necessary or worthy of coverage. Not sure when that changed, but do know baby daughter's is now covered. Thank the dear Lord!
So, in conclusion, I may have been a failed Catholic but I was never a failed mother to my kids. They were planned, very desired, so loved and appreciated and the best part of me. Guess the net result of your post was to put me in a very maternal, mushy place this morning. Nicely done, Jon.
The 1983 Bob Jones Univ Supreme Court decision may be useful to raise here.
A fundamentalist college, it refused on religious grounds to integrate racially in defiance of the Civil Rights Acts and it also, as a religious educational institution, claimed tax-exempt status.
It lost that status bc the Court rightly agreed w the complainants that any tax-deductible contribs to the university were, in fact, taxes the government would otherwise have taken in and, in essence, allowing BJU to maintain its tax-exempt status in contravention of federal law was not legal.
Fortunately, I believe, it is impossible to return- regardless what the polls say. Over thirty years of emerging equality as natural entitlement is embedded in us, and our children cannot possibly believe that inflicting class status warfare (yes, it is class warfare, but it is the other direction of social engineering of fake "classes" of people). Democracy and equality is winning, it really really is. The old white entitled dudes haven't died out yet- and their sons have fewer and fewer children. But they are going the way of the dodo. Nobody wants larger families for everyone. With all the kids having to stay at home until they are in their 20s and 30s, how would this even be possible?
rated-
Rated.
It's time for catholic women to speak up and make some noise - not just as women but as catholic women. Its time to speak up when you hear a priest tell you how to vote and how to live your sex life.
Write a damn letter to your bishop and let them know where the vast majority of catholic women are vis-a-vis the church's continued opposition to birth control
r
2%?
That's the percentage of the female Catholic population that follows the Church's teaching on family planning?
How the Hell can that add up to the Appearance of viable electoral numbers?
I have a bigger question:
Why is the Church willing to risk all those extra potential abortions from unwanted pregnancies? If you want to prevent abortions and you can't do it electorally (which the Church can't necessarily manage in majority Catholic countries), isn't the obvious way to achieve this to prevent unwanted pregnancies?
What bothers me here is trying to have it both ways. Sometimes in ethics, including religious ethics, you get dilemmas. Someone sure isn't facing this one.
The Catholic Church isn't a democracy and isn't about to behave like one. They won't necessarily care that Catholic women object to Church stands, certainly not to the extent of altering policy.
However:
The Church is more likely to listen to questions about logical inconsistencies. Because one form of (mostly ineffective) birth control is sanctioned (sometimes called the rhythm method), birth control can't be completely prohibited on principle. Because abortion is defined theologically as homicide, its prevention should presumably be a big deal. Therefore, presenting some form of birth control as contributing to a reduction in the number of abortions might in the long run gain some internal traction, at least enough to cause some friction among the clergy. That, I would think, would be the best shot; it will at least get more serious consideration than telling these guys that you think they're sexist assholes.
My problem is I don't understand why religion must be viewed like a club with a membership card -- you're in or you're out. If only what mattered most were the comfort and guidance people get from whatever they believe individually, particularly since patriarchal religions like Catholicism, and the extreme forms of some other religions, ignore the realities of things like sexuality and biology. Why can't someone believe in Jesus Christ as well as the appropriateness of women/people making their own reproductive decisions, for example? Personally, I believe in what I have come to believe in, and I'm glad that's not inconsistent with the religion I was raised in. But if it weren't, and if I could no longer identify myself as a member of that religion, so be it. I don't need a name for my faith.
❤.•*`*•(¯`••´¯)
(¯`••´¯)°•.¸.•°❤•(¯`´¯)
.°•.¸.•°❤ PEACE ❤°•.¸.•° •.¸¸.•*`*•❤