"We were falling women."

-Margaret Atwood-

It has long been controversial to use access to birth control as a political tool, but the issue has become especially visible as a part of the debate over healthcare reform. In addition, many states have recently passed measures restricting the operations of abortion doctors and clinics. For example, North Carolina passed a law in July of this year that eliminated insurance coverage for abortions for public employees, imposed restrictions on clinics that led to the closure of the last operational clinic (FemCare) in August,

Moral Monday Protests in North Carolina
Source: The Daily Kos

and prevented insurance policies operating under the new federal healthcare exchanges from providing abortion coverage. While the NASW outlines values regarding the right to self-determination, there are also numerous historical and social factors to consider when analyzing the impact of family planning services on individuals and society.

War on Poverty, War on Women
Let's first consider the history of charities and family planning services. Margaret Sanger, the heroine of the reproductive rights movement, founded the American Birth Control League in 1921. The League merged with Planned Parenthood in the 1940s to become the largest provider of sexual and women's health services in the US. However, Sanger's personal beliefs about the need for birth control were openly racist and classist. Sanger was an outspoken eugenicist, and she once stated: "more children for the fit, less for the un-fit -that is the chief aim of birth control". Therefore, family planning services can also be associated with methods to maintain the status quo; in Sanger's case, to oppress groups seen as too inferior to have children.

However, during Johnson's War on Poverty the argument shifted away from eugenics and became a discussion about improving living conditions for the poor and later, women's rights. Beginning in 1965, federal funding was explicitly made available for family planning services in order to reduce the poverty rate. Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970 provided the bulk of federal funding for family planning services until 1985. Since then, Congress has refused to renew Title X, but other federal programs like Medicaid have stepped in to ensure continued federal funding for family planning services. Plenty of evidence has been provided demonstrating that access to family planning services improves conditions in poor communities and has far-reaching impacts on many other social concerns.

Source: dianedew.com

healthcare services in the US.

For example, the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis alleges that the overall decline in the crime rate that occurred in the 1990s can partly be explained by the passage of Roe v. Wade in the 1970s. Studies demonstrate that legalized abortion also led to a reduction in teenage drug use, teenage pregnancy, and infanticide. Less controversily, access to women's healthcare services, IUDs, and other forms of birth control besides abortion have led to greater gender equality and improved overall health and wellness for many disadvantaged groups, particularly poor women.

The Privilege of Being Able to Plan
Regardless of the racist history of the family planning movement, we should consider the (perhaps unintended) consequences of wider access to family planning services on gender equality and the alleviation of poverty. As many critics note, restricting access to birth control services often does not lead to the elimination of family planning efforts, since wealthy women are still able to access services. Instead, it further widens the gap between privileges afforded to the wealthy versus the poor -in this case, the privilege of being able to safely and responsibly decide when to have children.