Why universal contraception in Canada is a bad idea
September 26, 2023 (Campaign Life Coalition) – There has been a recent push to make contraception free for Canadian women. A petition, hosted on the House of Commons’ website and backed by a Liberal MP is calling on the Government of Canada to “commit to a federal policy for the universal coverage of contraception.” The petition, created by a pro-contraception group, has received over 12,000 signatures, which makes it eligible to receive a response from the Trudeau government. The campaign was designed to correspond with World Contraception Day on Sept. 26, 2023.
The contraception campaign is run by a group called Project EmpowHER. The group, comprised of a team of medical doctors seeks to “improve awareness and access to long-acting birth control,” according to the group’s website. On July 27, 2023, the group launched a petition on the House of Commons’ website to “secure free birth control in Canada.” The group argues that universal access to contraception is about securing what it calls on its website “reproductive rights and gender equity.” Of course, it would not truly be free, but paid for by the taxpayer.
“Reproductive rights are currently being systematically dismantled south of Canada’s border in the United States at an alarming rate,” the text of the petition states. “Reproductive rights are human rights and cannot be left to the whim of changing provincial governments,” it adds as a reason for a federal program. The petition was authorized by Alberta pro-abortion Liberal MP George Chahal.
Numerous questions arise: Is contraception good for women’s health?; Does “the pill” offer women any of what it promises – liberation, equality, happiness?; Should a government be funding birth control?
Photo: Screengrab of petition at House of Commons' website
Good for women’s health?
Board-certified OB/GYN Dr. Monique Ruberu told Campaign Life Coalition that while hormonal birth control can be prescribed for many reasons such as suppressing the symptoms of endometriosis, halting abnormal bleeding, dealing with ovarian cysts and PMS, it is "never good for women” as a method of controlling a woman’s fertility.
“The way this works is by trying to suppress ovulation and attempting to replace the natural cycle with the hormones in the pill,” she explained. Ruberu pointed out that risks associated with all forms of hormonal contraception include life-threatening blood clots, mood changes, nausea, weight gain, and potential abnormal bleeding. “The suppression of the hormonal cycle seems to result in higher levels of estrogen down the road which can lead to worsening of underlying issues,” she noted. Ruberu said that rather than women resorting to the use of hormonal-based contraceptives to regulate their fertility, they should learn the natural rhythms inherent in their bodies to “achieve and avoid pregnancy.”
“I am of the belief based on what I have learned as well as what I have witnessed in treating thousands of patients, that hormonal contraception is never good for women. It acts as a band-aid, covering up symptoms that need to be addressed. It has side effects that can be avoided with natural methods and treatments.” Doctor Ruberu said that women should be directed to natural methods of tracking their fertility. “This would allow women to understand their bodies, respond appropriately, and live a healthier lifestyle. Learning to eat to support the body and heal the body naturally may even save the government money in the long run… if you address the root causes, health issues may improve across the board.”
Ruberu also pointed out that hormonal-based birth control can act as an abortifacient. “The underlying backup mechanism of action of every hormonal birth control is to thin the inner lining of the uterus - the purpose of this is if the primary mechanism of action of trying to suppress ovulation fails and an embryo is conceived, the backup aims to prevent implantation - thus leading to miscarriage or early abortion. There are some contraceptives, like the copper IUD that solely rely on the mechanism of making the inner lining inhospitable - they do not attempt to suppress ovulation at all.”
Jakki Jeffs, Executive Director of Alliance for Life Ontario, noted that Estrogen, the hormone in contraception, is classified as a Number 1 carcinogen, potentially leading to cancer in women who use it regularly. “If this program is adopted by our government, we will see more young women facing breast cancer,” she told Campaign Life Coalition. "Breast cancer in young women has been rising since 1969 in Canada, with induced abortion also being linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. The drama is already being written and, sadly, the writing is on the wall. But why are women not being told?”
Jeffs said that with so many concerns today about pollution of the environment, people should also be concerned about the pollution of the human body by synthetic hormones. “It is amazing to me that we live in a culture that is so highly sensitive to any individual, group, business or government action that may detrimentally affect the Earth’s environment, pollute our water system, or harm Nature in any way, yet when it comes to synthetic contraceptive hormones – it all goes out the window. We are encouraged to pollute the female bodily environment and bloodstream, beginning at earlier and earlier ages, with hormones that nullify and subdue the natural fertility of all women taking them. Our carbon footprint in this area is off the chart. We chemically/hormonally neuter perfectly healthy bodies, we arrest the natural environment and now long-term release hormones and IUDs are being prescribed, especially for teens.”
Does “the pill” offer women any of what it promises?
The sexual revolt of the 1960s was ushered in by the previous invention and widespread acceptance of contraception, which has as its goal the severing of sex from procreation. There were some, however, who warned about what would happen when sex was separated from procreation. Pope Paul VI predicted in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae that the widespread use of contraception would result in negative social consequences, such as “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” He also warned that contraception would negatively affect women in regard to their relationships with men. “[A] man, growing used to the employment of anticonceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, (…) may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”
In her 2012 book Adam and Eve after the Pill, author Mary Eberstadt outlined the “fallout” of the sexual revolt, arguing that its “fruits have been rottenest for women and children.” Her book presents a litany of the social ills fueled by the wide acceptance of the pill, including infidelity, promiscuity, broken homes, divorce, abortion, fatherless children, and pornography. The sexual revolution ushered in by the invention of contraception, she writes, has “been a disaster for many women.” The pill and the revolution it ushered in have not made women happy, Eberstadt argues, but have contributed to their “unhappiness,” leaving many women “dissatisfied.”
Won’t contraception lower the abortion rate?
Some contraception advocates make the case that widespread contraceptive use will lower the abortion rate. On its face, this seems sensible: fewer “unwanted” pregnancies should result in fewer abortions. However, this is not actually the case, because no contraceptive methods are 100% effective. Even groups like Planned Parenthood admit that the pill is only 91% effective while the condom is only 85% effective. As more and more people engage in what they think is responsibility-free sexual relations by means of contraceptives, when they fail to use their method of contraception properly, or their method of contraception fails, the number of “unwanted pregnancies” increases. For many people in this situation, abortion is the only solution.
Royce Dunn, Protestant founder of Please Let Me Live and Life Chain, has come out strongly against contraception, arguing that it results in “child aversion” for the couples who use it, which leads to an acceptance of abortion. Abortion advocates also admit the link between contraception use and abortion. “Most abortions result from failed contraception,” stated Joyce Arthur, founder and executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Arthur’s statement parallels a prediction made in 1973 by Dr. Malcolm Potts, former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, who stated: “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” Even in 1955, controversial sexologist Alfred Kinsey stated that “we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.”
Studies, some from pro-abortion sources, provide evidence for the link between contraception and increased abortion. A study by the UK abortion provider British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), analyzing data from 2011-2014, found that 66% of their abortion patients reported using contraceptives when they conceived. A study conducted in Spain from 1997-2007 found a 30% increase in contraceptive use alongside a substantial jump in the abortion rate as well. According to studies conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of American women seeking abortions report using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant. Ann Furedi, former Chief Executive of BPAS, said: “Abortion is birth control that women need when their regular method lets them down.”
Should a government be funding birth control?
In 1994 Mother Teresa told participants at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C. that contraception destroys love. “I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, of loving, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self, and so it destroys the gifts of love in him and her,” she said. “In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other, as happen[s] in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily. That's why I never give a child to a family that has used contraception -- because if the mother has destroyed the power of loving, how will she love my child?”
In the end, contraception is not good for women’s health, polluting their bodies and making many of them sick. It has harmed society. It is antithetical to authentic human love. It should not be promoted or funded by governments, which exist to promote the good of the individual and the community. Furthermore, providing free contraceptives would encourage a culture of promiscuity, which is detrimental to a stable and healthy society. Moreover, more women using contraception would naturally correspond to an increase in promiscuous sexual activity, leading to more women being exposed to sexually transmitted diseases. According to Health Canada, the last decade has already seen the rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea and infectious syphilis rising 26%, 171%, and 389% respectively. Access to free contraception could drive these numbers even higher. Instead of providing women with free contraception, governments should promote programs that teach young people about authentic love and true responsibility.