A Second Response to Michael

Thanks to Michael and Rick for exploring further issues on the contraceptives-for-collegians issue. 

Michael has posed a new issue. In his first posting he asked this: assuming that you want to minimize the number of abortions in the United States, how would you vote on the proposed legislation referenced in The New York Times article of November 22. From my reading of this article the legislation is designed to reinstate subsidized or “deeply discounted” contraceptive drugs available at campus health centers. The question was framed by Michael: “how would ‘you’ [I took that to mean me, and I think Rick took it to mean him] vote”. That was the question asked and answered.

Michael has now raised a new question: “whether one who neither opposes nor is (inordinately) skeptical about the use of contraceptives generally should vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’”. I would hope and pray that my earlier five points would be considered by anyone studying the proposed legislation mentioned in the Times article. But now Michael has narrowed the class of those who are neither opposed to contraceptive use nor have serious questions about their use. I take this characterization to be a class of persons who, given the conditions stipulated by Michael, desire the reinstatement of the subsidized or deeply-discounted pharmaceuticals. It is not clear if the previous assumption about wanting to minimize abortions still applies to the narrowed class. If it does not, I would imagine that advocates for contraceptives-for-collegians would be essentially concerned about maximizing availability with-a-minimum-of-fuss (and expense), period. But if the assumption still applies, as I think it should, then would not these advocates, assuming they are reasonable people, be open to considering the objections that were previously raised by Rick and I?

Michael has posed some concerns about my previous posting on this topic. However, it seems that he agrees that some of what I have had to say and proposed could dissuade some couples from engaging “in some forms of pre-marital sexual intimacy.” But then he suggests that several of my proposals may encourage them to engage in “other forms.” I am not sure what Michael’s reference to “other forms” means. I look upon the topic he has raised as asking the question in the context of collegians who are having sex and want someone to pay for their contraception—regardless of the issue of whether they want pregnancies and abortions to be reduced.

By saying “yes” to the several questions Michael has raised, a person is encouraging collegians to engage in sex, regardless of the “form.” Should collegiate administrators, should legislators participate in this encouragement? My answer is, was, and will be: no. Moreover, if we are discussing what legislators and collegiate administrators should be doing, might we, as citizens and as legal educators, encourage them to discourage collegians from continuing to accept the perilous myth that pre-marital sex (regardless of the “form”) is okay? I think that voting “no” is a good step in the right direction whereas voting “yes” is a big step in the wrong direction.     RJA sj