National Right to Life does not oppose contraception and takes no position on contraception.
H.R. 8373, the so-called “Right to Contraception Act,” goes far beyond the scope of contraception. It includes provisions that would:
1) prevent state governments and Congress from reducing or eliminating funding of abortion providers if the abortion provider also dispensed contraceptives and
2) Defines contraceptives so broadly so as to likely include abortion pills such as RU486 which can be taken weeks and months into pregnancy to cause abortions and then prevents any state or federal action that would in any way limit the provision of these abortion pills.
For these reasons, NRLC is opposed to the “Right to Contraception Act (H.R. 8373) and will include votes related to H.R. 8373 in our scorecard of key right-to-life votes of the 117th Congress.
As of my last update in January 2022, I don’t have access to specific statements or positions made by the National Right to Life regarding H.R. 8373, the “Right to Contraception Act.” However, I can offer a perspective in line with the general stance often taken by anti-abortion organizations like the National Right to Life on issues related to contraception.
Historically, organizations like the National Right to Life have focused primarily on opposing abortion and advocating for policies and legislation that protect the rights of the unborn. While their primary focus is on abortion, their stance on contraception can sometimes be influenced by their broader ideological position on reproductive rights.
While the National Right to Life may not necessarily oppose contraception outright, they may have concerns about certain forms of contraception that they believe have the potential to act as abortifacients, meaning they could prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. This concern stems from the belief that life begins at conception, and any method that interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg could be seen as taking a human life.
In the case of H.R. 8373, which I’m inferring from its title aims to affirm and protect the right to contraception, the National Right to Life or similar organizations might scrutinize the specific language and provisions of the bill to ensure that it doesn’t inadvertently promote or fund methods of contraception that they consider to be morally objectionable.
It’s important to note that positions and statements from organizations like the National Right to Life can vary, and they may issue specific statements or take particular positions on legislation based on their assessment of its potential impact on their broader goals and principles. For the most accurate and up-to-date information on their stance regarding H.R. 8373 or any other issue, consulting their official statements or communications would be necessary.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
