An Op-Ed published in The Daily Cardinal titled “The social impact of contraception” claimed the increased use of contraception has had a “devastating impact on our families, relationships and our society.” The author, Ben Miller, cites Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, an encyclical published in 1968 that predicted an increase in infidelity, objectification of women, overreach and corruption by public authorities, and immoral attempts by humankind to control their bodies if contraception use became widespread. Due to the flawed logic of his argument and disregard for the positive effects of contraception, we felt it necessary to respond.
As two men writing about contraception we cannot fully understand the female experience and we underline the need for the inclusion of women in this discussion and the development of policies related to sexual health.
A quick evaluation of the author’s argument illuminates a disconcerting lack of statistical knowledge. The author’s assertions are presented in the following manner:
1. A occurs before B
2. Therefore, A is the cause of B.
The logic collapses because Miller tries to create an artificial cause-and-effect relationship. While correlation is an important indicator, the strength and direction of a relationship must not be confused with causation. A lack of experimentation and investigation where dozens of variables are uncontrolled has led Miller to leap to the unjustified conclusion that contraception has caused a number of phenomena.
Miller’s argues access to contraception has increased since 1968 and as a result divorce and marriage infidelity rates have increased.
Based on this logic, one could write about the coinciding fall in divorce rates in Maine and the decreasing consumption rates of margarine. Or consider the more convincing relationship between an increase in Japanese car sales in the U.S. and an increase in suicides by crashing a motor vehicle from 1999 to 2007. Both situations have extremely high correlations but are spurious relationships, as the presence of other variables goes unaccounted for.
Miller’s first argument is that widespread use of contraceptives has led to “marriage infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” He cites an increase in the divorce rate and marriage infidelity in the U.S. This claim is simply unsubstantiated. According to a New York Times article and Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economist, the rate of divorce has actually fallen in the U.S. and Europe after peaking in the 1980s. Reasons for this drop are varied but include later marriages, birth control and changing gender roles.
Additionally, he states an increase in abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and sexually transmitted infections as evidence for decreased sexual morality. Here is why he is wrong: first, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a source also cited by Miller, abortion has been trending downward and recently reached its lowest point since 1973. If the author wishes to see further decrease in abortion we suggest supporting access to contraception, as it is arguably the most indispensible tool for preventing unplanned pregnancy. Abstinence, which he mentions, is an unrealistic, didactic solution that robs humans of one of life’s greatest pleasures. Furthermore, in many male dominated societies women are not afforded the option of adhering to abstinence.
Along with his use of inaccurate statistics Miller insinuates that out-of-wedlock pregnancies are an indicator of moral decay. On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with having children outside marriage. The majority of children in Scandinavia are born “out-of-wedlock” and yet somehow the fabric of their society remains intact. Finally, while sexually transmitted infections are a huge problem across the globe, they are not a sign of moral deficiency and contraceptives are one of the most important tools to battle these diseases. UHS and Sex Out Loud are more than willing to provide education on the use and purpose of contraceptives.
In his second argument, the author contends, “our relationships have universally suffered” as a result of increased sexual objectification of women. This argument shows a complete lack of respect for history and the progress made by early feminist movements to improve economic, career, and social fulfillment for women. Before 1977, women could lose their jobs for getting pregnant, marital rape was not recognized as a criminal offense, sexual harassment was not recognized in the workplace and women were not allowed to hold credit cards. While issues such as rape culture, the gender pay gap and unequal representation in business and government still plague women, their place in society has undoubtedly improved.
The author’s dogmatic view on contraception ignores the tremendous good it has done throughout the world. The benefits of contraception include protection against STIs, the empowerment of women through the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, a reduced need for abortion, and a decrease in the risk of ovarian cancer. This is particularly important for women in developing countries where accidental pregnancy can have dramatic consequences on their health and economic situations. Furthermore, contraception can be used for reasons not related to the prevention of pregnancy such as regulation of menstrual cycles.
In nearly five decades since Pope Paul VI published his encyclical, society has improved due to greater access to contraception. His argument and that of the author is neither enlightening nor truthful, and we are concerned about the effect such views have on public policy. As Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens said in response to Pope Paul VI, “I beg you my brothers let us avoid another Galileo affair. One is enough for the Church.”
Eoin and Matthew wrote this article as a response to Ben Miller’s Feb. 4th article titled “The social impact of contraception.” Eoin is a senior majoring in geography and journalism, and Matthew is a senior majoring in political science. Email us at opinion@dailycardinal.com.
