The best ad of this election is from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee featuring several men stating, “I’ve got a problem with Frank Guinta.” Why do they have a problem with Frank Guinta? Because Frank Guinta wants to put the government in charge of women’s medical decisions. They then go on to say, “I’m a man. But I have a problem with Frank Guinta. Because it doesn’t matter why Frank Guinta wants to put the government in charge. It’s not okay in New Hampshire.”

Although this ad focuses on Frank Guinta, you could just as easily drop in the names Charlie Bass, Ovide Lamontagne and Mitt Romney. The entire top of the ticket on the Republican side of the ballot would affect the ability of women to make their own medical decisions by allowing employers to remove contraceptive coverage from health insurance plans on religious grounds. New Hampshire has not permitted employers to refuse contraception coverage, though this year right-wing legislators tried to interfere with insurance requirements. In addition, gubernatorial candidate Ovide Lamontagne wants to defund Planned Parenthood. Mitt Romney has said he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood. Defunding Planned Parenthood would make it more difficult for low-income women to access contraception, and also remove a source of preventive care for services such as cancer screenings.

Romney, Lamontagne and Guinta claim to be “pro-life” (Bass’s positions tend to change with each election). However, their willingness to impose their religious beliefs, or the beliefs of others, on the women of New Hampshire and the country at large not only runs afoul of the separation of church and state, but also threatens to increase the number of abortions.

A four-year experiment recently provided free birth control to women in St. Louis. Between 2007 and 2011, 9,256 women, after receiving counseling about contraceptive choices, were offered any FDA-approved contraceptive they wanted. During the course of the experiment, the number of abortions in St. Louis dropped by 20 percent. The rate of pregnancy among teenage girls who participated in the project was only 6.3 per 1,000, a dramatic contrast to the national average of 34 per 1,000. If these top-of-the-ticket Republicans want to decrease abortions, they should promote access to contraception, and not allow employers to opt out of insurance coverage for contraception.

But they don’t. Instead, Guinta, Bass, Lamontagne and Romney will make it more expensive for women to prevent pregnancy by allowing employers to strip contraceptive coverage from their insurance plans. Extremists like Rush Limbaugh, who either don’t understand, or who understand but are willing to lie about it, claim the issue is that women want taxpayers to pay for their birth control. Not true; employer coverage has nothing to do with taxpayer dollars. Women just do not want employers to pick and choose which prescriptions to approve. Imagine if legislators permitted discrimination against insurance coverage for childhood vaccinations or HIV on the basis of religious beliefs? Religious beliefs should not be a condition of employment or of access to health care.

Access to birth control benefits taxpayers and reduces abortions. According to an article by Reuters, unintended pregnancies lead to one million births each year, at a cost to taxpayers of $11 billion. In other words, not only are Guinta, Bass, Lamontagne and Romney promoting policies that allow employers to interfere with the right of the individual to make her own religious and moral decisions, they also are imposing an economic burden on taxpayers.

The best way to reduce abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, not to decrease access to contraception or to punish women who have abortions. Lamontagne is so extreme that in addition to limiting access to contraception by defunding Planned Parenthood, he also would ban abortion for women who have been the victims of the crimes of rape and incest. He also has brought governors of other states to campaign in New Hampshire who have supported laws to force women to undergo costly, medically unnecessary ultrasound procedures.

Guinta, Bass, Lamontagne and Romney will try to tell us that this election is not about “social issues,” as if “social issues” are of little or no importance. Well, if you are a low-income married woman with a couple of kids who can’t afford another pregnancy, the “social issue” of access to birth control is of critical importance, including economic importance. If you are a 13-year-old victim of incest, the denial of a full range of options is not “just a social issue.”

That is why both women and men should have an issue with Guinta, Bass, Lamontagne and Romney. Their policies are extreme, and will put government in charge of decisions that the government should not be making.

Kathy Sullivan is a Manchester attorney and member of the Democratic National Committee. She was chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party from 1999-2007. Her column runs every other Tuesday.