Birth Control McCarthyism

14 Mar

Climbing aboard the anti-birth control bandwagon, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 on Monday to endorse legislation that would: a) give employers the right to deny health insurance coverage to their employees for religious reasons; b) give employers the right to ask their employees whether their birth control prescriptions are for contraception or other purposes (hormone control, for example, or acne treatment).

There are three things to say about this legislation.

The Private Life of Power

First, as I argue in The Reactionary Mind, conservatism is dedicated to defending hierarchies of power against democratic movements from below, particularly in the so-called private spheres of the family and the workplace. Conservatism is a defense of what I call “the private life of power.” Less a protection of privacy or property in the abstract, as many conservatives and libertarians like to claim, conservatism is a defense of the rights of bosses and husbands/fathers.

So it’s no surprise, as I noted in the conclusion of The Reactionary Mind, that the chief agenda items of the GOP since its string of Tea Party victories in 2010 have been to roll back the rights of workers—not just in the public sector, as this piece by Gordon Lafer makes clear, but also in the private sector—and to roll back the reproductive rights of women, as this chart, which Mike Konczal discusses, makes clear. Often, it’s the same Tea Party-controlled states that are pushing both agendas at the same time.

What I hadn’t predicted was that the GOP would be able to come up with a program—in the form of this anti-birth control employer legislation we’re now seeing everywhere—that would combine both agenda items at the same time.

Fear, American Style

Second, in a way, I should have foreseen this fusion because, as I argued in my first book Fear: The History of a Political Idea, in the United States, it has historically fallen to employers rather than the state to police the political opinions and practices of citizens. Focused as we are on the state, we often miss the fact that some of the most intense programs of political indoctrination have not been conducted by the government but have instead been outsourced to the private sector. While less than 200 men and women went to jail for their political beliefs during the McCarthy years, as many as 2 out of every 5 American workers were monitored for their political beliefs.

I’ve spoken about this issue on this blog before—my apologies to the old timers here; unfortunately, this point can’t be repeated enough—but recall this fascinating exchange between an American physician and Tocqueville during the  latter’s travels to the United States in the early 1830s. Passing through Baltimore, Tocqueville asked the doctor why so many Americans pretended they were religious when they obviously had “numerous doubts on the subject of dogma.” The doctor replied that the clergy had a lot of power in America, as in Europe. But where the European clergy often acted through or with the help of the state, their American counterparts worked through the making and breaking of private careers.

If a minister, known for his piety, should declare that in his opinion a certain man was an unbeliever, the man’s career would almost certainly be broken. Another example: A doctor is skilful, but has no faith in the Christian religion. However, thanks to his abilities, he obtains a fine practice. No sooner is he introduced into the house than a zealous Christian, a minister or someone else, comes to see the father of the house and says: look out for this man. He will perhaps cure your children, but he will seduce your daughters, or your wife, he is an unbeliever. There, on the other hand, is Mr. So-and-So. As good a doctor as this man, he is at the same time religious. Believe me, trust the health of your family to him. Such counsel is almost always followed.

While all of us rightly value the Bill of Rights, it’s important to note that these amendments are limitations on government action. As a result, the tasks of political repression and coercion can often be—and are—simply outsourced to the private sector. As I wrote in Fear:

There is little mystery as to why civil society can serve as a substitute or supplement to state repression. Civil society is not, on the whole, subject to restrictions like the Bill of Rights. So what the state is forbidden to do, private actors in civil society may execute instead. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,” Justice Jackson famously declared, “it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” But what star in our constitutional constellation forbids newspapers like the New York Times, which refused during the McCarthy years to hire members of the Communist Party, from prescribing such orthodoxy as a condition of employment? What in the Constitution would stop a publisher from telling poet Langston Hughes that it would not issue his Famous Negro Music Makers unless he removed any discussion of Communist singer Paul Robeson? Or stop Little, Brown from refusing to publish best-selling Communist author Howard Fast?

The Sixth Amendment guarantees “in all criminal prosecutions” that the accused shall “have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” But what in the Constitution would prevent attorney Abe Fortas, who would later serve on the Supreme Court, from refusing to represent a party member during the McCarthy years because, in his words, “We have decided that we don’t think we can ever afford to represent anybody that has ever been a Communist?”

The Fifth Amendment stipulates that the government cannot compel an individual to incriminate herself, but it does not forbid private employers from firing anyone invoking its protections before congressional committees. To the extent that our Constitution works against an intrusive state, how can it even authorize the government to regulate these private decisions of civil society? What the liberal state granteth, then, liberal civil society taketh away.

Let’s come back now to the birth control employer question. Thanks to the gains of the feminist movement and Griswold v. Connecticut, we now understand the Constitution to prohibit the government from imposing restrictions on access to birth control. Even most Republicans, I think, accept that. But there’s nothing in the Constitution to stop employers from refusing to provide health insurance coverage for birth control to their employees.

And here’s where the McCarthy specter becomes particularly troubling. Notice the second provision of the Arizona legislation: employers will now have the right to question their employees about what they plan to do with their birth-control prescriptions. Not only is this a violation of the right to privacy—again, not a right our Constitution currently recognizes in the workplace—but it obviously can give employers the necessary information they need to fire an employee.  If a women admits to using contraception in order to not get pregnant, there’s nothing in the Constitution to stop an anti-birth control employer from firing her.

During the McCarthy years, here were some of the questions employers asked their employees: What is your opinion of the Marshall Plan? What do you think about Nato? The Korean War? Reconciliation with the Soviet Union? These questions were directly related to US foreign policy, the assumption being that Communist Party members or sympathizers would offer pro-Soviet answers to them (i.e., against Nato and the Korean War). But many of the questions were more domestic in nature: What do you think of civil rights? Do you own Paul Robeson records? What do you think about segregating the Red Cross blood supply? The Communist Party had taken strong positions on civil rights, including desegregating the Red Cross blood supply, and as one questioner put it, “The fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn’t prove that he’s a Communist, but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn’t it? You can’t get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the Communist line.” (Though Ellen Schrecker, from whose book Many Are the Crimes I have taken these examples, points out that many of these questions were posed by government loyalty boards, she also notes that the questions posed by private employers were virtually identical.) The upshot, of course, was that support for civil rights came to be viewed as a Communist position, making public support for civil rights a riskier proposition than it already was.

It’s unclear what the future of Birth Control McCarthyism will be, but anyone who thinks the repressive implications of these bills can be simply brushed aside with vague feints to the religious freedoms of employers—more on this in a moment—is overlooking the long and sordid history of Fear, American Style. Private employers punishing their employees for holding disfavored views or engaging in disapproved practices (disapproved by the employer, that is) is the way a lot of repression happens in this country. And it can have toxic effects, as Liza Love, a witness before the Arizona Senate committee, testified:

“I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records,” Love said. “But there are 10 women behind me that would be ashamed to do so.”

In the debate over the legislation, Arizona Republican Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (also the bill’s author) said, “I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the  Soviet Union.” She’s right, though perhaps not in the way she intended: unlike in the Soviet Union, the government here may not be able to punish you simply for holding unorthodox views or engaging in disfavored practices (though the government can certainly find other ways to harass or penalize you, if it wishes). What happens instead is that your employer will do it for the government (or for him or herself). As the president of Barnard College put it during the McCarthy years, “If the colleges take the responsibility to do their own house cleaning, Congress would not feel it has to investigate.”

Whose Freedom?

Third, the standard line from Republicans and some libertarians is that requiring religious or religion-related employers (like the hospitals and universities that are funded by the Catholic Church) to provide health insurance coverage for their employees’ birth control is a violation of their First Amendment rights to religious freedom. The same arguments have come up in Arizona. Just after she made the comparison above between the United States and the Soviet Union, Lesko added:

“So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

“My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko said. “All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.”

Father John Muir, a priest at the All Saints Catholic Newman Center on the Tempe campus, said the controversial issue is not about birth control, but religious freedom and the First Amendment.

“It’s not about birth control,” Muir said. “It’s about the right to live out your beliefs and principles without inference by the state.”

There are many reasons to be wary of this line of argument, which I won’t get into here. Instead, I’d like to recall some more history.

It’s often forgotten that one of the main catalysts for the rise of the Christian Right was not school prayer or abortion but the defense of Southern private schools that were created in response to desegregation. By 1970, 400,000 white children were attending these “segregation academies.” States like Mississippi gave students tuition grants, and until the Nixon administration overturned the practice, the IRS gave the donors to these schools tax exemptions. And it was none other than Richard Viguerie, founder of the New Right and pioneer of its use of direct-mail tactics, who said that the attack on these public subsidies by the Civil Rights Movement and liberal courts “was the spark that ignited the religious right’s involvement in real politics.”

According to historian Joseph Crespino, whose essay “Civil Rights and the Religious Right” in Rightward Bound:Making American Conservative in the 1970s is must reading, the rise of segregation academies “was often timed exactly with the desegregation of formerly all-white public schools.” Even so, their advocates claimed to be defending religious minorities—and religious beliefs—rather than white supremacy. (Initially nonsectarian, most of these schools became evangelical over time.) Their cause, in other words, was freedom, not inequality—not the freedom of whites to associate with other whites (and thereby lord their status and power over blacks), as the previous generation of massive resisters had foolishly and openly admitted, but the freedom of believers to practice their own embattled religion. It was a shrewd transposition. In one fell swoop, the heirs of slaveholders became the descendants of persecuted Baptists, and Jim Crow a heresy the First Amendment was meant to protect.

So it is today. Rather than openly pursue their agenda of restricting the rights of women, the GOP claims to be defending the rights of religious dissenters. Instead of powerful employers—for that is what many of these Catholic hospitals and universities are—we have persecuted sects.

Knowing the history of the rise of the Christian Right doesn’t resolve this debate, but it certainly does make you look twice, doesn’t it?

Update (March 15, 4:30 pm)

This post got cross-posted at Salon; check out the comments there. In a very smart piece, also at Salon, Irin Carmon looks at the evolution (and continuities) of the GOP position on this issue. Also check out this excellent piece by Sarah Posner, again at Salon, which looks at the contributions of the Democrats to this morass we’re in.

Also, on the question of whether the Arizona law allows employers to fire employees on the basis of whether they use birth control for contraception purposes or not, check out this.

23 Responses to “Birth Control McCarthyism”

  1. Ben March 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    Fascinating post, Corey.

    I’d be very interested to hear you elaborate more on this line: “There are many reasons to be wary of this line of argument, which I won’t get into here.”

  2. Francis March 19, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    The power of the institutions and history does make me think twice. But I assume the history of baptist and evangelical schools in the South us not the history of Catholic institutions.

    If I remember correctly, Lutheran and catholic hospitals were created in response to the needs of community health care (something that could have been avoided with more state health organizations and universal health care).

    School wise, i think of places like Xavier University of New Orleans (old, predominately black population) and two high schools (on my friends account, I don’t know the names) also Catholic but not white. All of these places are also largely a non-Catholic population.

    So, the and American Catholic Church and bishops have not been foreign to the fight for the freedom of individuals in some cases (while they have in others). My problem here is that these examples of Cath institutions are ones supporting large non-Catholic populations but cannot provide care in this respect. (or they do it somewhat secretly or by referral to some outside organization)

    My preference now is that the demand be lifted from Catholic institutions and that these institutions start to transition out of the private sphere. They’re so concerned about contraception but the typical, Catholic university and hospital participates in a great deal of social sins already.?! They ought to give in or get out if this mandate is to remain.

    Thanks.

  3. James W Pharo March 20, 2012 at 7:01 am #

    “Liberty of Contract,” bitches!

    This is nothing more than the abusive parent blaming the errant child for the parent’s abuse.

    ANY defense of the rights of the non-powerful will be interpreted by the powerful as an attack on them. Having a guilty conscience due to an unwarranted accumulation of wealth and power, the powerful will always be overly defensive, thin-skinned — and focused laser-like on on defending that excess of wealth and power.

    Was it ever otherwise?

  4. Wilfred Capozzoli November 12, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    What the liberal state granteth, then, liberal civil society taketh away. Let’s come back now to the delivery control company question. Thanks to the increases of the feminist movement and Griswold v.

  5. bensday823 May 15, 2013 at 2:00 pm #

    Corey,

    Your definition of freedom seems to be, people are free insofar as they act well. Tolerating activities and practices one approves of isn’t tolerance at all, since nobody seeks to restrict what they agree with.

    -Ben

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Free Birth Control Improves Women’s Economic Mobility - March 15, 2012

    […] course that’s exactly why conservative dudes hate it. Women who can provide for themselves undermine the authority of husbands over their wives – […]

  2. Birth Control McCarthyism - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money - March 15, 2012

    […] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}Corey Robin has a very important post placing the rise of anti-birth control legislation within the … Essentially, Robin’s argument here is that while Americans may be “free” in the […]

  3. Democratic Diva » The bully party - March 16, 2012

    […] to codify bullying and sexual harassment into law with this thing. And they’re basically outsourcing their desire to bully and control you to the private sector. Filed under: Center for Arizona Policy, Conservative Misogyny, Education, GOP Hypocrisy, […]

  4. Birth Control McCarthyism by Corey Robin « Courses and Ideas by Matthew Adkins - March 16, 2012

    […] http://coreyrobin.com/2012/03/14/birth-control-mccarthyism/ […]

  5. Workplace Coercion, the Military, and Resisting Superiors « Samir Chopra - March 16, 2012

    […] Corey Robin’s post on Arizona’s new anti-birth control legislation centers on a recurring concern of his: coercion in the private sector work-place, which remains largely impervious to constitutional circumscriptions of state power. I want to use this opportunity to talk about coercion in a very particular workplace: the military. […]

  6. Politics, elections, immigration in Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Governor Jan Brewer - March 16, 2012

    […] Similarly, the anti-contraception bill going forward in the AZ Legislature allows bosses to harass, yes harass, their female employees. Look, if your boss is at all interested in why you’re on birth control, your boss is a creep and a bully. This is someone with an unhealthy interest in your sex life, who thinks he should be able to demand to know why you’re taking contraception if you’re on his health insurance plan and to fire you if you’re getting it on your own. Arizona Republican legislators are trying to codify bullying and sexual harassment into law with this thing. And they’re basically outsourcing their desire to bully and control you to the private sector. […]

  7. Sunday Reading « zunguzungu - March 18, 2012

    […] Birth Control McCarthyism […]

  8. Birth control vs. “religious freedom” | The rose in the cross - March 18, 2012

    […] found this Corey Robin blog entry very useful in re-framing the […]

  9. Weekend Reading « Backslash Scott Thoughts - March 18, 2012

    […] the GOP’s birth control McCarthyism. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

  10. slacktivist » Red Hill Mining Town - March 19, 2012

    […] this all happened a couple of decades ago in the Communist wonderland of Romania.”“The fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn’t prove that he’s a Communist, but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn’t it?”“Empathy is key in recognizing […]

  11. Like links through the hourglass, so are the posts of our lives « Fraser Sherman's Blog - March 22, 2012

    […] hearing more of it soon). •A blogger discusses how far freedom of conscience extends. Corey Robin suggests opposition to contraception is tied into conservative support for authoritarian families and […]

  12. Ending Dependency As We Know It: How Bill Clinton Decreased Freedom « Corey Robin - April 9, 2012

    […] talked a lot on this blog and in my book about “the private life of power,” how conservatives seek to reinstate hierarchies of power in which men and […]

  13. Libertarians get medieval on women « Women Born Transsexual - April 14, 2012

    […] that didn’t stifle the controversy. It has continued to play a major role in the Republican primaries, and states like Arizona are now […]

  14. Privatization Kills Freedom « Civil Tongue - July 2, 2012

    […] Amendment, the instruments of coercion can be outsourced to—or shared with—the private sector. During the McCarthy period, for example, fewer than 200 men and women went to jail for their political beliefs, but as many as […]

  15. An Army of Rape Philosophers « Corey Robin - November 7, 2012

    […] that the country rejected the GOP’s army of what James Wolcott calls “rape philosophers” and birth-control McCarthyites. But let’s also remember what that means: in the 21st century, one of our two political parties […]

  16. A Reader’s Guide to Hobby Lobby | Corey Robin - June 30, 2014

    […] 3. Last, a post that brings it all together—the private life of power; fear, American Style; and freedom, oh freedom—in one place: Birth Control McCarthyism. […]

  17. Labor Day Readings | Corey Robin - September 1, 2014

    […] been outsourced to it by the state; (which may be the best way to think about the whole question of birth control and Hobby Lobby); how this relates to some of the classical themes and questions of liberalism; and […]

  18. What’s the point of having a political theory of American insanity when American insanity so seamlessly theorizes itself? | Corey Robin - October 23, 2014

    […] insanity from a political theory perspective, you could start with this post I did on “Birth Control McCarthyism” or this piece I wrote on “Reclaiming the Politics of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,287 other followers