Birth Control

Last week we learned that adult children of divorce will almost always revert to childish behaviors. Case in point, Briana, the daughter previously known as The Most Reasonable Person in Orange County, dissolved into a impertinent, recalcitrant, petulant brat upon meeting her mother's boyfriend. This week Briana grows up and fights like a big girl … but we'll get there soon enough. Elsewhere in the O.C., there are tiaras to be worn and bling to be bought as Alexis goes all out for her little princesses, and Slade decides to declare Gretchen his queen.

My 16-year career in two legislatures (eight in the Maryland General Assembly and eight in Congress) included many debates on the most divisive issues of our time: Capital punishment, affirmative action, war and peace, impeachment, entitlement reform and abortion rights were guaranteed to generate partisan strife and emotional debate. No issue generated more emotion than a woman's right to choose. Intense, emotional debates produced a unique lexicon, as legislators debated the merits and implications of "judicial bypass," "parental consent," "partial birth" and the many complexities attendant to Medicaid (taxpayer)

I can't believe that I actually agree with something President Barack Obama has done. Granted, I'm one of those conservatives who has never subscribed to the full-meal-deal checklist, preferring to critically consider whether each of my positions is the most logical and sensible given the available information and my own values. Usually that process results in coming down on the "right" side of things. In this case, though, I somehow find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Mr. Obama and being rather miffed at his opponents.

Regarding the recent debate on birth control pills and their morality, if a Roman Catholic woman can afford to buy the pills and then uses them, is she a sinner? No one seems to address this conundrum. Given their ability to purchase the pill, how do Christian women who use birth control against the rules of their religion rationalize that decision? One way is a perpetual confession of one's sins, which suggests hypocrisy. Another is to stand up and challenge one's religion.

Regarding the recent debate on birth control pills and their morality, if a Roman Catholic woman can afford to buy the pills and then uses them, is she a sinner? No one seems to address this conundrum. Given their ability to purchase the pill, how do Christian women who use birth control against the rules of their religion rationalize that decision? One way is a perpetual confession of one's sins, which suggests hypocrisy. Another is to stand up and challenge one's religion.

Susan Reimer 's moral indignation regarding the dearth of women's responses to the political furor over birth control is misplaced ("In birth control debate, where are the women's voices?" Feb. 16). Women are not speaking out because birth control availability is not the issue, religious freedom is. President Barack Obama reneged on a promise to faith-based organizations that they would not have to violate their religious beliefs when providing health care coverage for their employees.

The disclosure that Baltimore's health department dispenses birth control pills and condoms at seven city schools has upset some parents and clerics. Schools are supposed to educate, not pass on moral judgments, they contend, adding that dispensing birth control not only crosses that line but sends the dangerous message that teen sex is permissible.Such concerns are understandable. Changing mores, together with alarming increases in teen pregnancies and venereal disease, are frightening realities.

In 1968, when Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical upholding the Catholic Church's ban on artificial means of birth control, talk of a population explosion was frequently countered by arguments that impressive advances in food production proved the Earth could easily accommodate the expected growth. Now, 25 years later, the signs are not encouraging. Sometime soon, the Earth will reach its "carrying capacity," the point at which its resources cannot sustain greater numbers of people.Many people who watch critical indicators think this point is now within sight.

Conventional wisdom has its uses. Relied on too glibly, however, it can blind us to richer understandings of reality. Such is the case with the usual demographic explanations for population growth.Demographers have long linked falling fertility rates to rising economic prosperity. There is ample evidence that prosperity brings with it a lower birth rate, lower death rates and a relatively stable population. For years, this thinking helped shape foreign-aid policies. The idea was to jump-start economies of impoverished countries, then wait for soaring birthrates to fall as the development strategy took hold.

At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman's ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports teaching only abstinence to teens. But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception.

I have to totally agree with Susan Reimer 's assertion that Democrats must be living in a lovely dream waiting for the November elections ("Women will remember in November," March 12). True, some Republican presidential hopefuls have come down with foot in mouth disease, and there seems to be no shortage of eyebrow raising sound bites coming from the endless parade of televised debates. However, it's not the gaffes or the "I shouldn't have said that" moments that are making Democrats salivate for the coming elections but the realization that once again, the women's vote will lock onto a single issue and make it a major election point.

Your editorial, "Rush to judgment on birth control" (March 7) completely misses the point on this issue. Rush Limbaugh's lack of judgment aside, this is not about access to contraception. The real sticking point is the Obama administration's presumption in mandating that Catholic institutions' health insurance plans must cover contraceptives, even though that runs directly counter to those institutions' core religious beliefs. Birth control pills are readily available at Walmart or Walgreen's at less than $10 per month for generic brands, so access and affordability are hardly an issue.

Rush Limbaugh is the reigning shock jock of conservative political punditry - insults, outrage and outsized bluster are his stock in trade - so it takes quite an uproar for him to apologize. But that's what he has done at least twice now, if unconvincingly, after calling 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" for testifying to a Congressional panel in favor of the Obama administration's birth control mandate. Last week's personal attack was outrageous, particularly given that Ms. Fluke's testimony was never about her desire to have "recreational sexual activities" as Mr. Limbaugh continued to describe the matter in his on-line apology.

Maybe it's time we change the name of the birth control pill. What Rush Limbaugh doesn't understand is that women are not always about men. The so-called "pill" has been out for over 50 years now, and we aren't going to give it up. It changed our lives. We are in control, and it's not always about not getting pregnant. It really should be called "the regulator," or perhaps the "health pill. " There are many benefits for going on this course of medicine. We can control our periods (something men don't understand)

As a woman and a life long Roman Catholic, I would like to comment on the recent debate between U.S. bishops and the federal government on requiring birth control insurance coverage for employees of Catholic institutions. Despite what Republican politicians insist, Catholic bishops' refusal to provide such coverage relates to their stand on birth control, not to concern about denial of religious freedom. I believe the bishops' statements are based on strict adherence to religious tradition rather than to any reasonable interpretation of Christ's teachings as applied to family life.

In response to Max Romano's commentary regarding the "right" to birth control, to which constitutional right does he refer? I searched my copy of the Constitution and could find no reference to any such right ("The right to birth control," Feb. 15). There are so many holes in his argument I hardly know where to begin. Start with "reproductive justice," whatever that is. Men and women do indeed have control over their future, sexual or otherwise; it's called making responsible decisions, not depending on a government mandate.

I have been married over a year and use the pill as my form of birth control. When I need an antibiotic, I've been warned that such medicine can counteract the birth control pill. As a science major, I'm not satisfied just knowing that something "is"; I like to know "why." Can you explain exactly how oral contraceptives and antibiotics interact? And is it true that my husband and I should use backup contraception for a month after I stop the antibiotic, just to be sure?This interaction is both complicated and controversial.

I can't believe that I actually agree with something President Barack Obama has done. Granted, I'm one of those conservatives who has never subscribed to the full-meal-deal checklist, preferring to critically consider whether each of my positions is the most logical and sensible given the available information and my own values. Usually that process results in coming down on the "right" side of things. In this case, though, I somehow find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Mr. Obama and being rather miffed at his opponents.