I'd love to learn readers' thoughts on a new Wisconsin law that bans the morning after pill from all state university campuses. The law is the first of its sort in the country; here's the AP description of how the ban works and what the rationale for it is:

The legislation would prohibit University of Wisconsin System health centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception: drugs that can block a pregnancy in the days after sex. The state university system has 161,000 students on 26 campuses.

Republican Rep. Daniel LeMahieu introduced the bill after a health clinic serving UW-Madison students published ads in campus newspapers inviting students to call for prescriptions for the drug to use on spring break.

"Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW student? No," LeMahieu said. "But we can tell the university that you are not going to condone it, you are not going to participate in it, and you are not going to use our tax dollars to do it."

Democrats said the bill would deny rape victims a chance to stop pregnancies and predicted it would lead to more unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.

Democratic Rep. Marlin Schneider called the measure "a direct frontal assault on the right to privacy, on the right of free speech, on the right of a free press."

"Apparently some in this body want to take us back to the time when the dispensing of contraception was a criminal act," Schneider said.

The morning-after pill, a heavy dosage of hormonal birth control, can work to prevent a pregnancy up to five days after unprotected sex by preventing ovulation or fertilization. Wisconsin students can get the drug at discount rates from campus pharmacies.

The drug, which requires a prescription, was approved as a contraceptive in 1998 by the Food and Drug Administration.

LeMahieu said the bill would not affect traditional birth-control pills. Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager said the bill was worded too vaguely to know for sure.

In any case, Wisconsin state legislators seem to have missed a crucial point: regular birth control pills, taken in higher doses, can do the same work as a morning after pill.

Comments are open.

The ad campaign was stupid--they should have at least suggested condoms.

The ban is a bit scarier. Yet another attempt to push a very narrow "christian" morality on the general public, to turn our country into a theocracy.

I'm not anti-religious; indeed, most religious people I've known are wonderful people. It's those loud few who turn religion into a form of fascism that really irk me. Their religious hubris is especially grating.

The ad was just stupid and irresponsible - no wonder the legislators pushed for the ban.

I do think the ban is a bad idea. But it's also a bad idea to say "oh, I can be as irresponsible as I please and just clean up my 'messes' afterwards."

I think the morning-after pill plays a role - I'd hate to see a young woman who was raped be condemned to either bearing a child of that rape which she does not want, or having to get a medical abortion later on. But they shouldn't hand the things out like candy. (Or, for that matter, like condoms). The pills have some serious side-effects and what you are doing with them - ending a pregnancy - is not to be taken lightly.

I'd much rather see intelligent uses of contraception (including that time honored method of Keeping It In Your Pants) rather than some kind of "clean up on Aisle 5" method.

I guess stupid begets stupid, though. Suggest people should act stupid and irresponsible and someone will want to ban that which permits the stupid and irresponsible acts, even if it has other purposes.

As I read it, this is not a "ban". Students can still buy the pills at a commercial pharmacy with their own money.

There seems to be an increasing feeling that not subsidizing something is the same as forbidding it.

It suprises me that Rep. LeMahieu would prefer that young, talented women either undergo a traditional abortion or have an unwanted child instead of advocating that these students choose the medically safer alternative. THIS is what he would prefer that the university condone? If I were an administrator at UW, I would see effectivly forcing the choice between an abortion or an unwanted child in the life of a student (and her mate's) as being at odds with providing a comfortable and supportive educational environment, which is ostensibly at the core of the university's mission.

As for the legal aspects of the ban, I am preoccupied with LeMahieu's effective position that more legislation is better than less in this case. No one is being coerced into taking drugs she does not need. There is no evidence that university doctors are out of control in their dispensation of ANY drugs. Where is the public "bad?"

If LeMahieu is playing another round of Culture Wars (and I believe this is the case), then the issue certainly moves into free speech territory insofar as the proposed legislation is merely trying to supress certain forms of public speech and is not solving any discernible public problem. LeMahieu implies that "the public" is condoning a certain type of behavior just because tax dollars are being spent. Listen: the tax payer is NOT taking an "I love emergency contraception" oath or the like just because tax dollars are being spent. In the case at hand, it is not immaterial that the university is advocating that the students visit the campus clinics for these pills instead of saying "pick some up at the airport pharmacy before your last drunken in-flight romp," which might be construed as being in bad taste--but, even in such a case, should it be illegal?!? How far should the hand of government reach?

Imagine a proposed piece of legislation seeking to curb advertising announcing anti-war rallies or events at unversity faith centers on the grounds that anti-war demonstrations are subversive and events at faith centers promote a culture of exclusion. Immediatly the right of the free press and free speech would be invoked. In both of these cases a round of Culture Wars may be played, and yet no discernible public problem would be solved. Should the public pay tax dollars to LeMahieu in such a case? If so, would it amount to an affirmative oath?

Looking at it another way, should the state ban antacids because it promotes and supports a culture of gluttony?

As a college prof, I'm appalled at the rampant sexual promiscuity on college campuses these days, but I don't think this ban is going to do anything to help the situation. If anything, if I read college students right, a ban on x on a college campus is far more likely to increase the interest in amd use of x than it is to actually get rid of it. Let x = morning-after pill, illegal music downloads, binge drinking, etc. and it's all the same psychological framework. (After all, there is nothing in the legislation preventing a student from just going to the local walk-in clinic off-campus and getting the same pill, although at possibly a higher price.)

But it also doesn't help when college campuses do not assume some responsibility in setting acceptable social norms for its students. All colleges do this, implicitly or explicitly, and when the university advertises the morning-after pill, the message it sends is that students are expected to be sexually promiscuous, that restraining one's libido is unrealistic, and that alternatives -- especially abstinence -- are unworkable options. Let the university clinics stock up on the pill if they want, but when you start to give it publicity, the social norm for sex on your campus begins to get set, and students notice.

Further, I think that if more responsibility isn't taken, universities should expect to see more of these well-intentioned but poorly-conceived (pardon the pun) bans coming from their legislators in the future. The ban is a bad idea, but colleges and universities who don't advocate a full range of choices regarding sexuality -- again, especially abstinence -- in some ways bring it upon themselves by not realizing that the public (in this case) who funds them has an often radically different viewpoint on sex than they do.

Lastly, what on earth does this have to do with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to privacy? Earth to Marlin Schneider!

I, too, have a hard time reading this as a "ban." Unless there's other language in the bill that's not in this post, there doesn't seem to be a prohibition on having morning-after pills on campus, or on taking them--and that is, after all, how bans on guns or alcohol work. They're just saying they want to remove subsidies for morning-after pills.

I'm certainly no economist, but my own life experience tends to confirm the old economic maxim that you will get more of whatever you pay for.

And for what it's worth, while I understand the urge to ascribe sexual conservatism to "Christian" morality (that certainly is where a lot of these bills come from), as a decidedly non-Christian observer myself, I think both individuals and society suffer when there's excessive promiscuity. I'm very skeptical that sexual "liberation" has been so terrific for women, although it's been a great boon for horny young men and lecherous old professors.

Strikes me as silly. Also, I wonder whether this will apply to all of the U of W hospitals. Doesn't U of W have teaching hospitals run in association with the med schools? Do they intend to prohibit med students or pre-meds from learning about these pills/methods? Seems like a small step to that level. Finally, does the taxpayer really pay for the pill or does the student?

It's true that birth control pills taken in higher doses will have the same effect. It's also true that birth control pills, prescribed by a gynecologist or family doctor who takes a patient history and prescribes them appropriately, and that are taken routinely, prevent pregnancy too. Another truth is that there are worse possible consequences for stupid sex than pregnancy - HIV infection, for instance, or HPV leading to cervical cancer, or infertility caused by chlamydia - that the morning-after pill does absolutely nothing to prevent. I think the false sense of security that is associated with these things does a real disservice to young adults.

Also, I'd hate to see rape covered up with an abortion. Rapists need to go to prison.

I think a campaign at college campuses that focused on the demeaning nature of hyper-promiscuity would be wise. The danger of diseases and emotional trauma resulting from casual sex are better topics than abstinence only. Especially when we consider that our culture constantly presents these students with images of sex: sex sells, sex is fun, sex gets one attention and admiration. But the puritanical strain in our culture is strong and we would rather hide it and pretend it doesn't exist.

As far as subsidizing, there are plenty of things the federal government subsidizes that infuriate me. If my state were subsidizing those pills, I think I could live with it.

"Never forget that blessed word 'puritanical'. By it we have rescued annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life."

-C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (quoted from memory)

Basil seems to be falling into the "if you don't GIVE it to me at university (state, taxpayer) expense you're FORCING me to have a baby."

Basil - does the university provide free antacids at all the cafeterias?

I also find the implication that talented women don't have to have extra babies (how talented ARE they if they can't avoid pregnancy?) kind of condescending towards the women not enrolled in the UW schools.

Oh, well.

What is the fascination with the destruction of inocent life?

As I read this it strikes me that what the law is saying is that the state should not be in the business of providing morning after anti-contraception pills. Since there are side affects to the pills as there are to all medications, then the pills should only be taken under the supervision of the family doctor anyway so I see nothing wrong with that.

As to the idea that it is being pushed only because it is a Christian idea, that is to me ludicrous. Strikes me that being anti-promiscuous is not exclusively a Christian attribute as well as being anti-abortion is not exclusively a Christian belief. It seems to me that with all the side-affects possible and the other moral questions involved on an individual basis the state is right to keep out of the picture here. After all the moral question might be a part of Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Shinto or just plain common sense and that it is not solely Christian.

It's a student health center that the ban affects. This place dispenses medicine and is meant as an affordable source of medication when students are away from home. Keep in mind these students are adults. While that type of contraception is indeed ugly, it can help students who make poor choices--as most young adults do.

It's a christian thing because the religious right is pushing the "no contraception of any kind available in any public place" philosophy. They can present it as anti-promiscuous, but it's part of their agenda to narrowly define what sex is and what it should be--and, this is the bad part, to legislate that narrow idea. In America, we don't see the other religions trying to legislate narrow versions of morality.

The principle that the government should not promote the extermination of the people is sound. After all, we are a nation where the government derives its sovereignty from the sovereignty of the individual.

The sovereignty of the individual is biologically sourced to the moment of conception at which point the organism becomes a distinct individual. Now, there is a question of personhood that I have not addressed here. However, if anyone is interested in an exploratory discussion of the issue of life, abortion, and sovereignty, there is a couple recent posts at my site where the discussion has begun.

You are invited. I promise to challenge your thinking and hope that you will challenge mine.

The consequences are even more far-ranging than it seems.

1) By de-coupling the morning-after pill from medical advice, women would be inclined to take it, whether or not pregnancy was a realistic possibility (at every point in the cycle). Therefore, many of the women would experience their "abortion", whether or not they were pregnant.

2) It's the first step in the de-sensitivation process. Once used, they would be more likely to choose abortion again. It would no longer be unthinkable, just something they've done before.

3) Having participated in the process, they would be more inclined to justify their decision by encouraging others to do the same.

4) They would follow up that first episode with contraceptive use. Followed by more sexual activity, rather than examining their behavior and re-assessing its place in their lives.

It would be more responsible for the health clinic to offer assistance to those found to be actually pregnant after the spring break. However, it's easier to persuade women to agree to end a pregnancy early than later, so that option is not a likely choice for the clinic.