>>5
If progressivism = communism, then why hasn't the private ownership of capital been completely abolished by this point in time? You'd think that after one hundred years, progressives would have achieved that goal by now (since you're saying that progressives are actually communists trying to take over everything).
Of all the American Presidents influenced by progressivism, notably Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, their administrations were in reality, corporatist regimes that exhibited what is now called "third way" or "mixed economy" policies. Also, they were big in creating social safety nets like Social Security and the "Great Society" initiatives by FDR and Lyndon Johnson respectfully. In short, progressives are just a bunch of corporatist lackeys who do social and welfare reforms from time to time. Libertarians and communists alike strongly dislike adherents of third way policy of governing.
As for welfare and such, that is nothing new, "welfare" as it's known today was practiced as far back as the days of the Roman Republic, and not too long after the first British colonies of the U.S. had initiated some form of economic welfare when needed (of course, no where near as expansive as it is today).
Back to thread topic, the question whether contraceptives are "progressive," I'm not exactly sure. It could be considered social reform, to protect against disease and unplanned pregnancies (though no form of contraceptives are 100% effective), however government's purpose is not to legislate morality or sexual behavior. Education is key and works best in this case.