• Candidates in Utah primary elections have recently discussed an unlikely topic: access to contraception.
• This arises from a stalled U.S. Senate bill with an announced intention to protect access to contraception.
• The bill, however, would also override existing state laws on parental rights and religious freedom, threatening these rights and principles of federalism.

Recent primary election debates included discussions of a surprising topic – contraception. The debate for Senate candidates included a question on access to contraception and IVF, and one of the candidates for attorney general discussed it as well.

In the Senate debate, Trent Staggs said he would protect IVF and birth control, while Jason Walton and Brad Wilson said that in our federal system, states – not the national government – would make that decision. John Curtis expressed support for IVF and contraception in general but suggested he would need to consider language in an actual bill, since a bill the Senate recently considered on this topic contained “poison pills,” and concerns about access were a “scare tactic.” In the attorney general debate, Rachel Terry similarly accused Democrats of trying to create fear that access to contraception was at risk.

Why this discussion of contraception and IVF? Is there an attempt to limit access that voters need to be aware of?

Probably not. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1965 that states cannot prevent married couples from accessing contraception and in 1971 extended this ruling to unmarried couples.

The likely reason for the questions is that the U.S. Senate recently considered, and declined to act on, a bill called the Right to Contraception Act. The bill’s purposes were described as providing “a clear and comprehensive right to contraception” and permitting “individuals to seek and obtain contraceptives and engage in contraception” and “health care providers to facilitate that care.”

As Curtis noted in the debate, there is little or no objection to such access. Thus, the bill’s failure to move forward might seem surprising. One legal scholar, Robin Fretwell Wilson, however, carefully read the bill and noted some significant implications of the proposal that were not flagged in its purpose statement.

First, Wilson notes the bill “establishes a minor’s right to contraception.” Such a right is at odds with the laws of nearly half the states that involve parents in these decisions. Second, it would “be the first federal law to preclude Americans from the protections of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it would shove aside state level protections for religious freedom as well.”

Since the bill includes access to drugs that many believe cause an abortion, these provisions would disrupt state laws recognizing parents’ role in helping children considering abortion, and they would presumably require religious employers or professionals who object to paying for or providing abortions to do so. In the latter instance, state and federal efforts to protect the religious freedom of citizens would be ignored. Such laws are in place in 28 states.

The members of Utah’s delegation to the U.S. Senate have both argued that there is no threat to access to contraceptives.

If this is true, the bill would not solve any existing problem but would instead create serious threats to parent-child relationships, give the federal government unprecedented authority to direct the application of state laws, and pose direct challenges to the ability of religious organizations and people of faith to live their beliefs about the sanctity of life.

That is too high a price to pay to make a statement.