Congress has gone home to campaign, the Supreme Court is in session and issues of sexual and reproductive health and responsibility are at the forefront. But there is a sense that sexual and reproductive health issues are not on the minds of Americans and that perhaps candidates should avoid them.

What with the increased threats we face as a result of an administration taking its eye off the war on terror to wage war in Iraq, mounting deficits and a scandal-plagued President and Congress, people could choose to focus on "more important" issues. Americans may not list reproductive health issues as "what they are most likely to consider when choosing a candidate" but the issues serve another important role in the political dynamic this election year.

More than any other, sexual and reproductive health issues pull the rug out from under social conservative ideology and highlights their hypocrisy, their ability to manufacture issues and their use of those two tools to quench their thirst for power and control. They do not simply want to inform, educate and persuade people to follow their lead; they want to dictate what people can do. That's allegedly what we're fighting against in Iraq, and is not what is enshrined in our nation's founding principles.

Additionally, ignoring these issues allows social conservatives to frame them and use them against candidates as is already happening. Instead, candidates should use reproductive health issues to affirm their belief in privacy, liberty, free will, and democracy — values on which we could all agree.

Supreme Court: Manufacturing Issues

The Supreme Court on Nov. 8 will take up two important cases from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood. These cases will be heard the day after the election, providing red meat for social ideologues to campaign on until then. Coincidence? Last year, one of the court's most controversial issues concerned Oregon's Death with Dignity Law and it was heard on the second day of the session. But last year wasn't an election year.

The two cases deal with an issue that Nancy Northrup of the Center for Reproductive Rights said last week, "is completely manufactured for political purposes," referring to the emotionally-laden and misnamed "partial birth abortion" issue. Only in America is that terminology used, because it was invented by propaganda experts of the far right. Social conservatives are good at manufacturing issues, but with a taste of power are frustrated their ideas have not been implemented. If the far right maintains their disproprtionate influence in government, those policies will be implemented. Lawyers will tell you that the court pays no attention to popular sentiment, but I bet the lawyers arguing these cases wouldn't mind a mandate from voters that the era of intrusion into our personal lives must end as they argue the day after the election.

Prohibition of Contraception

As Tyler has been writing in our special series looking into the emerging war on contraception, social conservatives are no longer satisfied playing on people's emotions by denying women's health and rights, they want to prohibit the use of contraception for every American. By contrast, progressive policies seek to reduce abortion without stigmatizing women by promoting responsibility and accessibility to better health care for all women. William Saltean of Slate takes a look at two new House bills dealing with contracpetion funding that were introduced before Congress adjourned.

Personal Responsibility

Paul Krugman of the New York Times asks this simple question about sexual responsibility, "Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage [Dr. James Dobson] as much as a Democratic president’s consensual affair?" Krugman is referring to Rep. Mark Foley's sudden resignation for his predatory emails to a 16-year old Congressional Page.

Social conservatives can try, as Ian pointed out yesterday, to blame Rep. Foley's behavior on homosexuals, just as the Vatican did their pedophile priest scandal. However, at some point the truth must be told. Rep. Mark Foley's actions are not about homosexuality or even substance abuse; this is about irresponsible, wreckless, wanton misuse of power and privilege (as was the priest scandal) which serves to underscore the hypocrisy of social conservatives, their agenda and their lust for control. Substance abuse is a serious issue, but most will tell you the root cause for substance issues is far more serious, in this case, an abuse of power.

Krugman, talking about Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas, contrasts the current split in GOP hegemony by looking to Kansas' political scene today:

Kathleen Sebelius, the state’s Democratic governor, has achieved a sky-high favorability rating by focusing on good governance rather than culture wars, and her party believes it will win big this year. And nine former Kansas Republicans, including Mark Parkinson, the former state G.O.P. chairman, are now running for state office as Democrats. Why did Mr. Parkinson change parties? Because he "got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right."

Private Health Decisions

It is understandable that many want to avoid talking about the culture wars and most Americans think its time for government to get back to the business of governing, like Gov. Sebelius is doing in Kansas. The simple fact is that in this election there is an opportunity to send a clear message to social conservatives … GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR PERSONAL AND PRIVATE LIVES! To do this voters must see the hypocrisy of the conservative's moral superiority and the ways in which they stigmatize people and behavior because it doesn't fit into their narrow world view.

It would be easy to revel in the fracturing of the conservative base if the prospect of social conservatives holding onto their disproportionate share of influence over government were not so real. The stakes for personal freedoms and sexual and reproductive health have never been higher and while people may not be voting those particular issues, they do underscore the very real threat to all our freedoms that voters increasingly associate with radical conservative ideology.