On June 16, 2005, the Republican controlled State Assembly of Wisconsin voted 49-41 in favor of Bill 343, the so-called "UW Birth Control Ban." The bill prohibits University of Wisconsin System health-care centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception. The drug at issue is otherwise known as Plan B, or "the morning-after pill." The pill provides a high dose of regular birth control that can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if it's taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
Bill 343 was introduced by State Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, after UW Health Services published ads inviting students to request prescriptions of the drug before they left for Spring Break. The state Senate has not yet approved the measure and it's expected to be vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle. Elizabeth Nash of the Alan Guttmacher Institute points out that the assembly vote makes Wisconsin the first state to seriously consider banning emergency contraception on college campuses. Similar bills in Virginia have foundered in the past two years.
Rep. LeMahieu seems to be worried that by ensuring women know they can have access to the contraceptive, UW Health Services will be using our tax dollars to condone irresponsible and promiscuous sexual behavior. In citing this "reason" for introducing the legislation, Rep. LeMahieu conveniently omits the following piece of relevant information: the FDA has already conducted six independent studies confirming that even expanded over-the-counter access to "Plan B" does not, in any way, increase sexual activity among young teens. Unless Rep. LeMahieu would like to insist that UW undergraduates are less aware and responsible than young teens, then he ought to accept the obvious fact that these empirical studies undermine his principle reason for introducing Bill 343.
But perhaps its not promiscuity and "irresponsible sexual conduct" per se that Rep. LeMahieu objects to but rather the idea that women are free to engage in sexual activity whenever they want with whomever they want while retaining full control over their own bodies, irrespective of what the government or fundamentalist pressure groups may think about their choices. As many people have pointed out, Bill 343 is vaguely worded and abstract enough to justify prohibiting UW pharmacies from dispensing all forms of birth control to thousands of female college students, presumably because taking the pill allows them to engage in the terrible sin of having sex multiple times for the sake of something other than procreation.
Keen observers will also have noticed that social conservatives tend to apply their "values" or "morals" in very selective ways. If we assume for the sake of argument that Rep. LeMahieu is actually concerned with the rise of irreverent attitudes towards the sexual "act" rather than sexual freedom for women, then we could be forgiven for wondering why the text of his legislation doesn't include a proposal to ban UW clinics from prescribing or dispensing Viagra. After all, the absence of an erection increases the likelihood that male college students will abstain from engaging in the sacred act of penetration that bothers Rep. LeMahieu so much. But the story is that sex within the bounds of marriage has a different moral quality, so why not introduce further nuances into the legislation by making access to Viagra contingent on producing proof of marriage at the pharmacy?
Bill 343 and the discourse in which it is embedded is not some "isolated incident" or "freak event." It is, as the title suggests, the local front of a war on women waged by the combined forces of traditional social conservatism and right-wing Christian fundamentalism. The latter group has been a consistent base of political support for the Bush administration and is now being amply rewarded for its efforts. A quick glance at the national debate over Plan B provides a clear illustration of how the administration has subordinated the legitimate interests and concerns of women to the reactionary and atavistic social outlook of these groups.
In early 2003, Barr Pharmaceuticals submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration requesting that Plan B be made available to the general public without a prescription, just as members of the general public can walk into a pharmacy and buy a packet of condoms, another subversive tool that encourages "irresponsible sex," Orwellian doublespeak for "sex outside of marriage and for purposes other than procreation," and "undermines parent's message of abstinence" as Rep. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, claimed that educating students about Plan B would do. Eight months after Barr submitted its application, an FDA advisory committee voted overwhelmingly (23 to 4) to recommend that Plan B be sold over-the-counter.
Rigorous scientific investigation had shown the drug to be both safe and effective. The advisory committee made it clear that good empirical evidence exists to show that easy access to Plan B would help significantly in preventing unintended pregnancies and this in turn would reduce the need for abortions.
Given that Plan B is not itself an abortifacient, could it be that misogyny is a higher "value" than "life" for the members of the advisory committee who voted against over-the-counter sales of the drug? There's more than a hint that this may be true in the case of Dr. David Hager, a Bush appointee to the FDA advisory committee. In both his medical practice and through his advisory role at the FDA, Hager's religious beliefs have grounded his opposition to emergency contraception, abortion and premarital sex. In his numerous books, Hager outlines a theory of gender relations according to which "good" men act as benevolent "protectors" and authority figures whose job it is to "guide" women towards "appropriate" life decisions. Unfortunately, no one was there to protect Linda Carruth Davis — Hager's ex-wife — when he repeatedly raped and abused her throughout their long marriage (see "Dr. Hager's Family Values" by Ayelish McGarvey, The Nation, May 30).
But why be concerned about the opinion of one person? Concern is an apt reaction when an individual's ideological orientation allows him or her to have a disproportionate influence on the policies of the federal government. With the 2004 election looming on the horizon, Bush administration officials became concerned that the advisory committee's recommendation would not sit well with the right-wing evangelical communities whose votes Bush was depending on. As a result, the FDA was pressured into requesting that Hager write a "minority opinion" to further amplify his concern that over-the-counter sales would contribute to an increase in sexual activity amongst younger teens, a view that had already been discredited by several of the FDA's own studies.
Nevertheless, reason and scientific evidence were set aside and the FDA rejected the committee's recommendation, to the detriment of millions of women around the country. In July 2004, the manufacturer of Plan B submitted a second application based on a compromise formulation that would allow over-the-counter access to women over the age of 16. No decision has yet been reached; the compromise formulation is mired in controversy, partly as a result of stiff opposition from the religious and secular right.
Whether it's in Wisconsin or in the halls of the FDA, the drive to make government policy responsive to the demands of sectarian ideologies — whether they are secular or religious — is a dangerous road to take. Invariably, the institutionalization of ideological conformity requires the abuse and violation of whole categories of people. This situation is no different (and likely worse) in the case of women.
Mohammed Abed ([email protected]) is a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He would like to thank Henry Breitrose, Professor of Communication at Stanford University, for his FEMA timeline.
