Condoms are not political players on Capitol Hill. In fact, they
have such little political capital that UCLA Student Health
Advocates and the Ashe Center hand out truckloads of them for free.
But last week, the condom made a splash on the political scene.
At issue is the warning label on condom packages. Under pressure
from social conservatives, the Food and Drug Administration on
Thursday agreed to alter the labels to say condoms “greatly
reduce, but do not eliminate” the risk of sexually
transmitted diseases.
Currently, the labels say that condoms, if used properly, will
help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV and other STDs.
The FDA said the change makes the label more scientifically
accurate. But some social conservatives, who have long been pushing
for a rewrite of the labels, say it doesn’t go far enough to
warn of the alleged dangers of condom use. Sen. Tom Coburn,
R-Okla., criticized the FDA for not moving fast enough to change
the labels, and accused the federal organization of “playing
political games with the health and lives of Americans.”
One conservative advocate, who founded an organization that
seeks to help teenagers avoid “alcohol, drugs, sex, tobacco
and violence,” was even quoted in the Los Angeles Times as
saying, “When we see messaging to our kids that says,
“˜Be safe, use a condom,’ we don’t think
that’s an honest message.”
But that distorts the simple fact that using a condom during sex
is safer than not using one ““ just like wearing a seat belt
while driving is safer than not wearing one. Would this particular
conservative organization also take issue with the advice,
“Be safe, buckle up”?
It is true that condoms do not prevent pregnancy and the
transmission of STDs every time. And it is also true that they
prevent the spread of certain STDs better than others. But they do
work: A report released by the FDA last week found that over a
six-month period, couples who used condoms had a pregnancy
prevention rate of nearly 95 percent.
To make the warning label on condoms an alarmist one that
focuses on the limitations of condoms ““ rather than their
benefits ““ is dangerous. Condoms should be a crucial part of
the effort to stop unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs.
They are not the silver bullet ““ but then again, they
don’t purport to be.
Implicitly, the social conservatives behind the condom label
changes are probably banking on scaring teenagers and unmarried
couples into abstinence. Coburn, for example, is an outspoken
advocate of abstinence before marriage.
But scaring people into abstinence is a tactic of dubious logic.
After all, couples who are dissuaded from using a condom might be
as likely to have unprotected sex as to not have sex. If that
strategy is truly the ultimate design of Coburn and his fellow
condom revisionists, then it is they, not the FDA, who are
“playing political games with the health and lives of
Americans.”
If nothing else, this shows just how politically divided our
country has become. It’s a bad sign when not even the condom
is safe from the partisan crossfire.