I spoke with Congressman Tim Ryan, D-OH, after his press conference announcing the Ryan DeLauro bill, Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. Congressman Ryan is rarity in Congress, a pro-lifer who is pro-contraception. However, he is far more representative of the American pro-life public, 80% of whom support contraception. He spoke about the difficulty he has had convincing pro-life groups and individuals to support the proven effective approaches to reducing unintended pregnancy and the need or abortion.

CP: You and Congresswoman DeLauro have spent several years working on legislation that both pro-life and pro-choice people can agree on. Can you tell us the purpose of the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act?

Congressman Ryan: We can all be in agreement to reduce the need for abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies. Four in ten unintended pregnancies end up in abortion and 57% of abortions are with women who live within 200% of poverty. Both sides are in agreement that by focusing on prevention, focusing on family planning, women’s health issues, that we can put a significant dent into the number that we have and not put women in the difficult situation that many find themselves in. There is an agreement there. We can still have fights about other things and that’s perfectly okay, but when you agree on something I feel that we have a responsibility as elected officials and different members of leading groups to try to solve those problems. Today we took a big step in doing that.

CP: Polls show that the vast majority of pro-life Americans support contraception. 98% of Americans use contraception at some point in their lives, including Catholics who favor and use artificial contraception at the same rate as the general public. Yet you are one of the only pro-life leaders who is pro-contraception. Why is the pro-life establishment so adamantly opposed to contraception while its constituents are fine with it?

Congressman Ryan: I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream. I think they are finding themselves on the fringe of this debate. When you hear their comments they clearly are seeing themselves as being marginalized on this issue and on the fringe. I think there are number of pro-life democrats who support contraception, support stem cell research, support a lot of different things. But in the abortion debate the fault line, quite frankly, is within the pro-life community: Are you pro-life and support contraception or are you pro-life and you somehow think that contraception increasing the number of abortions, which is where National Right to Life and the Ohio Right to Life and other pro-life groups that aren’t part of this solution find themselves. The new fault line, after this press conference today and the agreements that we struck today, is not pro-life/pro-choice. It’s within the pro-life community—are you pro-life and pro-contraception therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people’s lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.

CP: As a result of championing contraception and other policies proven to the reduce the need for abortion you were recently, as you say, “booted” from the advisory board of the group, Democrats for Life of America. What was it like struggling internally to convince a pro-life group to support prevention?

Congressman Ryan: To me, it became very frustrating because it seemed so obvious. I guess we all think our ideas are obviously the right ones. So, you gotta take a deep breath and go out and persuade but after a while you find yourself running into a brick wall and then you say let’s work with groups that are for contraception and are for women’s health and work that way to try to address both of these issues. It was really frustrating to try to convince people that just really didn’t want to hear it. I went to the Democrats for Life of America national board meeting that they had in DC a few years back and there were 50 board members or so and I gave them my pitch: 'If you’re really for reducing abortions you’ve gotta be for contraception.' I gave them all the statistics on unintended pregnancy and 200% of poverty and all this stuff and it just didn’t resonate with them at all and so we had this stark disagreement and I got the boot.

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) is, in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and, because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception -- primarily because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thereby abortion. And yet because of this, Ryan no longer qualifies as "pro-life." He was recently banished from the board of a national pro-life group he served on for four years. Ryan, in return, has turned vocal. He's leading the call for common ground and pragmatism, and rallying the no longer silent majority of pro-lifers who support contraception. And he is provocatively trying to fight what he views as an unrepresentative slice of pro-lifers, those who can't bring themselves to support contraception. "The new fault line," says Ryan, "is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"

Ryan is committed to preventing abortion so much so that he, unlike every other pro-life legislator in Congress, spent the last few years working to identify the policies proven to reduce the need for abortion. This work, which he undertook with The Third Way, a center-left think tank, resulted in the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." It's also called the Ryan-DeLauro bill, named for him and his co-sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT.) As thanks for his outspoken leadership in trying to make abortion less prevalent, Congressman Ryan was removed from the board of Democrats for Life of America, and with it, disowned by the pro-life movement at large. Pro-life publications have taken to qualifying his pro-life status as "allegedly" pro life or referring to him as someone "who claims to be" pro-life. Because of his support of prevention in 2007-2008 congressional session, Ryan received a "0" rating from National Right to Life Committee. According to the pro-life establishment's new standards, his support for prevention means he no longer qualifies as "pro-life." And that means very few pro-life Americans will either.

It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there's not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As Congressman Ryan explained, "I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they're on the fringe of this debate." Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.

Ryan's legislation increases funding for contraception, expands supports for poor women who wish to carry to term, backs comprehensive sex ed programs that have been proven to work, and creates more incentives for adoptive families. His bill is supported by many prominent pro-life individuals including, Dr. Frank S. Page, Rev. Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis, and many pro-choice groups including Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Not one leading pro-life group signed onto the bill.

Lucky for Congressman Ryan, his support for contraception places him in a good position with pro-life voters. He is a pioneer in this rich common ground frontier. The vast majority of pro-life Americans, 80%, support contraception. Even among Catholics, followers of the only religion to oppose artificial contraception, 90% support contraception. Of evangelicals, including the most vehemently anti-abortion, the born-again, only 28% support abortion rights, yet 88% support contraception. Indeed, among all religious groups, support for contraception is off the charts: 94% of Baptists, 99% of Presbyterians, 95% of Methodists, 95% of Lutherans, 97% of Jewish want greater access to contraception. And have you ever seen a poll to report 100% support for anything? You can count on the easy-going Episcopalians for that unanimous support for contraception. (Support for puppies and goodness score lower.) Even a cozy majority, 70%, of Republican and Independent voters are strong supporters of expanding access to contraception. What percentage of these voters supports the pro-life establishment's agenda to restrict access to contraception? 2%.

Pro-life Americans favor expanding access to contraception because of the undeniable pro-life results. Unintended pregnancy is the root cause of abortion. We know, when used properly, contraception works. Two thirds of American women on contraception are using it correctly. And from this group comes 5% of the nation's unintended pregnancies. Compare this to the 16% of women who are sexually active, at risk of getting pregnant and not using any form of contraception. That group, though much smaller, represents 52% of nation's unintended pregnancies. Then there's the 19% of women who are using contraception but incorrectly or inconsistently; from that group comes 43% of unintended pregnancies. The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple: address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception. (Article continues below graphic.)

1. Gold RB et al., Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System, New York: Guttmacher Institute 2009, Figure 1.2.

To his credit, Congressman Ryan did his best to try to convince pro-life groups of this. I spoke with Congressman Ryan last week after his press conference to announce his bill. He explained, "It was really frustrating to try to convince people that just didn't want to hear it. I went to the Democrats for Life of America's national board meeting that they had in DC a few years back and there were 50 board members or so and I gave them my pitch: If you're really for reducing abortions you've gotta be for contraception. I gave them all the statistics on unintended pregnancy and that most abortions take place for women within 200% of poverty and all this stuff and it just didn't resonate with them at all and so we had this stark disagreement and I got the boot."

The anti-contraception minority, which represents just 20% of pro-lifers, has disproportionate influence and, with it, hopes to derail common ground efforts the public has longed for. It's time for the disagreement over contraception to be addressed by the pro-life community at large. We will have no chance of making a real impact on unintended pregnancy and abortion rates without dramatic, informed strategies on prevention. The pro-life public must demand accountability and representation for their pro-contraception values. Considering that 80% of pro-life Americans support contraception, isn't it time to establish at least one pro-life organization in support of it too?

Congressman Ryan thought that would be a great idea. He predicted such a group would expose those who really aren't interested in reducing the need for abortion. "We have an opportunity here to solve this problem and give pro-life members of Congress and pro-life legislators a common sense approach to this and boy does it marginalize those people who have really beat the drum on the pro-life issue and have not provided any solution to it."

Can you imagine how much greater the scandal would have been if Bill Ayers was actually a Facebook friend of Obama's? That would have been considered hard proof of a relationship, and a sign of the degree of intimacy and access they granted each other. Of course, they weren’t Facebook friends because, indeed, that wasn’t kind of relationship they had. But it was exactly the sort of tie those making the accusation against Obama were hoping for. It’s telling who we Facebook friend, but it can be a real statement for political leaders.

When PBS asked me to debate Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, I did a little research on him. I discovered his Facebook page and with it proof of his insincerity. Newman has been in the news more than most anti-abortion leaders these days because his organization has been ensnared in the murder of Dr. Tiller. Seven years ago, the group moved its headquarters to Wichita—to focus exclusively on protesting Tiller, his employees and his patients. In the days and weeks before the murder, the alleged assassin, Scott Roeder, was in regular touch with Newman’s second in command at Operation Rescue (who herself spent nearly two years in jail for conspiring to bomb and abortion clinic). A post-it note with her name and phone number was stuck to the dashboard of the Roeder’s get-away car.

After the shooting, Operation Rescue was one of the first organizations out with a statement, condemning and distancing itself from the act. The statement, released within a couple of hours after the murder, read,

“We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning… Operation Rescue has diligently and successfully worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see to it that abortionists around the nation are brought to justice. Without due process, there can be no justice.”

Newman has continued to make strong statements against violence. Most recently, in our PBS online debate, Newman claimed the murder of Dr. Tiller, “was not justice, but vigilantism, which must be abhorred by a society that embraces the rule of law over anarchy.”

But, it appears that those in favor of these abhorrent acts are not disqualified as Facebook friends of Newman’s. He may want to distance himself and his organization from violence against providers, but he doesn’t want to go as far as stopping socially networking with individuals who endorse it. Of the twenty people that Wikipedia lists as associated with the Army of God, described as “an extremist anti-abortion organization that sanctions the use of force to combat abortion in the United States,” Newman is Facebook friends with three. (Keep in mind, of the other 17 listed, three are currently in jail for killing abortion providers, and one is incarcerated for attempted murder.)

Dan Holman is one such friend. Holman told CNN he ‘cheered” when he learned of the murder of Dr. Tiller. Holman, of Missionaries to the Pre-born, has long supported violence against abortion providers. He wrote on the website Army of God, “Those who object to the use of force to protect pre-born children do no truly believe in their humanity and worth!” he continued,

“To condemn the use of force to protect unborn children is a tacit admission that their lives are not worth defending. It is to say that that some have more of a Right to Life than others. It is a frank admission that pre-born children are somehow sub-human. If they truly believe the life of the unborn is worth less than the life of the abortionist than why defend the babies at all?”

About Paul Hill, who murdered abortion provider Dr. Dr. John Bayard Britton and James H. Barrett, a volunteer clinic escort. Holman wrote,

“Most of us are not as courageous as Paul Hill. There are no Christian suicide bombers blowing up abortion clinics. We need to confess and acknowledge our lack of love toward God and the pre-born. It is wrong to vilify the courageous acts of Paul Hill to put our own weakness and cowardice in a better light.”

Another Facebook friend Newman shares status updates with is Neal Horsley. The Guardian UK interviewed Horsley after the murder of Dr. Tiller. Horsley states,

“The thing about Tiller's assassination that was really appropriate is that they killed him in church. While he was there collecting the money, counting the money, his blood poured in to those thick carpets in that church. That was a fitting send off."

Matthew Trewhella, the third of Newman’s pro-violence-against-providers Facebook friends, is a signatory of the infamous 1993 letter supporting the murders of abortion providers and calling for all charges be dropped against Michael Griffin, the assassin of Dr. David Gunn. The letter read,

"We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him."

Newman, if he wishes to be taken seriously as an anti-abortion leader who is opposed to violence, should, as a first step, break all ties with the small band of anti-abortion figures who encourage violence. You don’t need a PR genius to tell you that. As I suggest to him in the debate, “You, more than anyone, are poised to help prevent future acts of violence by alienating and condemning these forces or by helping to try to rehabilitate these extremists. Otherwise, all the anti-violence talk is simply meaningless.”

My PBS online debate with Troy Newman is here. They ask you to vote on who won. Please take a look.

There’s a bunch of interesting stories about contraception I came across in my news round-up this morning. The first is the announcement of a new and completely natural birth control pill. Lauren Proper at Empowerher reports on oddly-named Qlaira, “the first “natural” contraceptive pill made from a bioidentical hormone.” It’s been developed by Bayer Schering Pharma and is now available in the United Kingdom and several other European countries. Proper explains, “Bioidentical hormones are formulated from plants and produce effects identical to the actual hormone. This could mean decreased chances for cancer, blood clots and other negative side effects that are present with typical contraceptive pills.”

Weighing in with a cure for another potential negative side effect of birth control, the blogger TaxGirl offers advice to those whose health insurance coverage doesn’t cover contraception. She writes,

“You can absolutely deduct the cost of birth control pills as a medical expense…Almost anything that requires the services of a physician would qualify - IUD, Norplant, etc. Additionally, the costs of sterilization for women and vasectomies for men are deductible. What you won’t see on that list are other non-prescription forms of birth control, like condoms. As a general rule, non-prescription drugs and medicines, as well as “personal use items”, are not deductible.”

Of course, contraception should be covered as any other prescription is and not a personal expense great enough to need to involvement of your accountant. If passed, Prevention First legislation, which was introduced in the Senate on the first day of session (a signal its importance,) includes a provision that would require all health plans that cover prescription drugs cover contraception.

Blast Magazine offered some perspective on news that trace amounts of birth control have shown up in suburban water supplies around the country. According to the post, last year studies were conducted of water supplies in nine states and discovered that 85 man-made chemicals, including medications, were slipping through treatment systems and ending up in our tap water. Some claim the amounts present, “a thimble full of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool,” are not enough to do harm. Yet, Blast Magazine continues,

“But others aren’t so sure. Researchers have found evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of drug residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species, and have been shown to labs to impair human cell function. One of the common culprits is estrogen, much of which is inadvertently released into sewers through the urine of women taking birth control. Studies have shown that estrogen can wreak reproductive havoc on some fish, which spawn infertile offspring sporting a mixture of male and female parts. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh found that human breast cancer cells grew twice as fast when exposed to estrogen taken from catfish caught near untreated sewage overflows. “There is the potential for an increased risk for those people who are prone to estrogenic cancer,” said Conrad Volz, lead researcher on the study.”

The blogger Visinvox offers an interesting account of her weekend tabling for Prevention First legislation and both the pro-life and pro-choice public’s confused response. She writes,

“There were occasions when I would approach somebody who turned out to be a Planned Parenthood supporter and I would explain to them that we were trying to get legislators to focus on measures that would reduce the instances of abortion, they would look at me and say, "Sorry, I'm pro-choice." And I'd have to re-explain that we were with Planned Parenthood and we were also pro-choice, but our goals were to reduce unintended pregnancies etc. My phrasing might have been a little confusing I'll admit, but in my defense this was my first time crowd-canvasing.

There were other times I would approach a group of people who turned out to be very strongly pro-life. They would say things like, "We don't support abortion, sorry." Having taken ques from the pro-choicers who thought we were anti-choice, I went into persuasion mode and explained to them that the goal of the petition was to reduce abortions and that even if we didn't see eye to eye on the matter of choice, it was still important for both sides to focus on preventative measures. Often after reading through the petition, they were often happy to sign on. It's just frustrating how quickly people are to shut down at the mention of Planned Parenthood without taking into account the positive impact we have made that is very much in-line with much of what anti-choicers are trying to achieve.”

In the end, she reports, “the response was overwhelmingly positive.”

Being a part of a marketing campaign for Yaz contraceptive was overwhelming positive for the pop group the Veronicas reports Billboard magazine,

“The partnership between Bayer birth control pill brand Yaz and the Veronicas is considered one of the key factors that broke the Australian electro-pop band in the U.S. market. The advertising and sponsorship deal, now three-plus years strong, was the subject of the final keynote at Billboard and Adweek’s inaugural Music and Advertising Conference in New York.

Before the partnership with Bayer, “Untouched,” the Veronicas’ first single from current album “Hook Me Up,” was in three small radio markets; the single has now sold more than 1.3 million units and has reached No. 17 on the Hot 100. The Veronicas were also invited to tour with the Jonas Brothers last summer, and have just begun a two-month U.S. headlining tour.”

Lisa Origliasso and her twin sister are The Veronicas. Lisa explained, “We thought it was cool. All these Disney acts are sponsored by, I don’t know, My Little Pony or something, and here we are with a birth control pill.” Here's the Yaz ad that made the Veronicas,

This Sunday marks the 44th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that granted married couples the right to use contraception. It has also become an occasion anti-contraceptive operatives have seized in an effort to scare women from using birth control. This weekend marks the second year of The Pill Kills campaign which has grown to become, the organizers boast, an "International Demonstration Against Birth Control."

The campaign materials explain that,

"Pro-lifers in 21 states and four countries will participate in Protest the Pill Day ‘09: The Pill Kills Women. They will gather at Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s largest abortion and birth control providers, at pharmacies and at birth control sellers the nation over. They will expose the tragic effects these chemicals have on women including blood clots, heart attacks and strokes."

In its second year, there are notable changes with the campaign. For example, last year's "The Pill Kills" mission was to convince Americans that the most commonly used forms of birth control, like the standard birth control pill, were really abortion methods. This year the campaign is trying to scare women from using birth control by claiming it will kill them. The campaign targets the regular birth control pill in particular.

So, let's, as an exercise, accept their arguments. Hormonal contraception causes abortions and kills women, gotcha. So, then, we're okay using non-hormonal forms of birth control like the diaphragm, condom, cervical cap, and spermicides? Actually, the organizers aren’t on record anywhere in favor of methods that keep sperm and egg apart. In fact, it appears impossible to find a single instance in which any pro-life group has anything good to say about any birth control method except natural family planning—a technique most notable for its high failure rate. Even the lowly condom disturbs them.

So, when they aren’t reorienting the science to claim that birth control is abortion, they're second favorite technique is to promote--with great hysteria--that birth control is unsafe. As Dr. David Grimes, one of the world’s leading experts on contraception, puts it “Some anti-abortion groups describe a subtle blend of fake claims and real, but exaggerated, risks to frighten women. Only those very knowledgeable can tease out which are which. Ironically, the net effect of this campaign to discredit contraception is more unplanned pregnancies and, of course, more abortions.”

A classic example is the website for Physicians for Life which lists not one positive item about birth control in its numerous sections devoted to the subject. Instead, its headlines read: “The Pill Puts Women at Much Higher Risk of HIV and Other STDs”, “Gel to Stop STDs Holds Empty Promise”, “Negative Effects of Vasectomy”, “New Research Shows Dangers of Condoms in HIV Prevention”, “Oral Contraceptives May Reduce Sense of Smell”. The homepage for Pro-Life America.com proclaims: “Condom Warnings—They Don’t Work!”

The American Life League, the lead organizer of "The Pill Kills" day, distributes scare pamphlets on every form of birth control. They are designed to look and read just like the ones you’d find in your doctor’s office. Each explains why you shouldn’t use a birth control method. One entitled “Answers to your Questions about Condoms and Spermicides” only lists the potential and rare negative side effects of both methods and offers no description of the benefits of either. The pamphlet ends with this message “Condoms and spermicides fail to prevent the conception of babies, and they are potentially harmful! Be good to yourself. Don’t use condoms and spermicides.” The only three sources they cite in the endnotes section of the pamphlet are 1.) A pro-life book opposing every birth control method 2.) An outspoken pro-life physician 3.) A condom fact sheet produced by themselves.

ALL is unapologetically against every single form of birth control, claims the most commonly used forms cause abortions, and defines its legislative goal to include “a legal ban on abortifacient birth control.” They led a campaign which defeated federal contraceptive coverage legislation. In their efforts to prevent federal employees from receiving contraceptive coverage, Judie Brown, A.L.L. President, explained “we have been working for over a year to prove that prescription contraceptives have nothing to do with a woman’s health and well-being but are recreational drugs that prevent fertilization and abort children”. She elaborates, “Depo-provera, Norplant, the IUD and the pill can kill tiny boys and girls and it is imperative that the government get out of the deadly birth control business and take action to protect all innocent human beings equally—without discrimination.” In 1996, A.L.L. picketed Searle Pharmaceutical Company just because it manufactures the standard birth control pill. One can safely say the American Life League’s desire to ban birth control is equally intense as its campaign against legal abortion. Not only does ALL promote, along with most other right wing pro-life groups, that birth control is abortion, they also put forth that any attempt to prevent pregnancy during sex is tantamount to having an abortion. They explain in Chapter 97,

“The connection between artificial contraception and abortion is crystal clear. Once we break the connection between sex and procreation, we have denied God's will. Once we have denied His will once, it becomes easier and easier to ignore His plan for our lives. When we use artificial contraception, any pregnancy that results will be viewed as a "contraceptive failure," a stigma that is passed on to the child. He or she is no longer a precious gift from God, but a failure, and, in our society, failure cannot be tolerated…Contraception cannot be separated from abortion. In fact, anyone who debates on the topic of abortion will inevitably be drawn to the topic of artificial contraception over and over again, especially in the post-Roe era of pro-life activism. Therefore, every pro-life activist should understand the many relationships between abortion and artificial contraception. How does contraception lead to abortion? Quite simply, they are virtually indistinguishable in a psychological, physical, and legal sense…Those individuals who use artificial contraception take the critical step of separating sex from procreation. Contraception not abortion was the first step down the slippery slope.”

According to ALL, trying to prevent a pregnancy is indistinguishable from trying to end one. They believe that avoiding an abortion is somehow the first step in having an abortion.

Each of these sermons and all of their national campaigns serve an objective which is, at its heart what the right wing pro-life movement believes sex should be all about. And the never shy Mrs. Brown, is eager to lay that out by explaining,

"Healthy women do not need to be immunized from their own children. Rather, men and women who participate in sexual intercourse need to know that children are an intended purpose of intercourse, and parents should therefore act to responsibly care for and protect their pre-born children."

This is the ideological prism through which to best understand the anti-contraception campaigns. In actuality, these efforts punish people for having the type of sex they define as contrary to God's wishes. Pregnancy is, according to them, what sex is for.