What is Mitch McConnell's problem with contraception?
As far as the White House is concerned, Friday's compromise on contraception coverage effectively ends the matter. Religiously affiliated institutions won't be required to pay for birth control, but women who work for these employers will still have access to the same preventive care as everyone else. As Tricia noted earlier, the West Wing doesn't see anything else to talk about.
Congressional Republicans strongly disagree. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) raised quite a few eyebrows yesterday when he endorsed a controversial proposal to allow all American employers to deny women contraception coverage altogether.
"You know if we end up having to try to overcome the President's opposition by legislation, of course, I'd be happy to support it and intend to support it. It would be difficult as long as the President is rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else's religion is. I assume he would veto it. But yeah, we will be voting on that in the Senate. And you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible."
Even McConnell couldn't believe the president wants to "decide what somebody else's religion is." It's such a strikingly dumb comment, chances are, the senator just got carried away in the moment.
But the larger concern has nothing to do with rhetoric, and everything to do with the GOP's increasingly-aggressive war on contraception. McConnell told CBS's Bob Schieffer, "The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion."
At this point in the debate, that's just absurd.
As of Friday, Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were pushing measures to allow all private-sector employers, including those completely unaffiliated with any religious institution, to start denying health services that businesses might find morally objectionable.
The proposals are aimed at blocking access to contraception, but as Igor Volsky noted, they're so expansive, "an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an 'unhealthy' or 'immoral' lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer."
The Obama administration's underlying goal is entirely straightforward: the law already makes preventive care free for all Americans, and officials believe access to contraception must be included as part of this coverage. If faith-based employers don't want to pay for this directly, the White House has already changed the policy to ensure they won't have to.
The Republicans' underlying goal, at least of yesterday, is equally clear: no American employer should have to cover contraception, ever.
As Jonathan Cohn explained, this is simply untenable.
The Bishops' position, which the Republicans have now adopted as their own, is that religious leaders have the right to override that decision, even though it will affect employees who have no moral or religious qualms about birth control. Writing in Newsweek, Andrew Sullivan captured the Bishops' thinking perfectly: "Catholic doctrine should, according to the bishops' spokesman, also apply to non-Catholics." [...]
[T]he principle seems pretty clear to me. The Bishops want a veto over public policy. And the Republicans want to give it to them.
The "it's about religious liberty" talking point effectively died on Friday. The longer the GOP keeps up this fight, the more obvious the party's war on contraception will be. Given the support contraception access enjoys with the American mainstream, it's a fight Republicans are very likely to lose.
Leave a Comment:
I think there should be legislation which provides that every Viagra-induced erection should produce a pregnancy, otherwise he doesn't get his prescription. (After all, they are deliberate - not accidental - so what other purpose is there to taking the drug but to guarantee the opportunity to impregnate a female? Any devout Christians prepared to answer this question?) Perhaps just one moment of fear will enlighten men to the lifetime of childbearing dread every woman faces whenever she is confronted with a raging, GOP approved boner...
"Raging GOP approved boner" would be an interesting name for a rock band.
Good one Molly LMAO!
Mitch is correct this isn't about contraception. It's about the GOP's complete disregard for women's rights and health.
The message I'm getting is to shut up and let the white man decide what's best for me.
They want to continue framing this as a religious issue so they don't suffer the same fate as Koman.
you're missing a few adjectives...it should be let the OLD RICH WHITE man decide what's best for you!
just a cover for them not wanting to work on the payroll tax and such you know something that helps the economy.
Exactly! Why doesn't Harry Reid have the power to select which bills are selected for a vote when they are initiated in the senate?
Only the House can introduce budget resolutions. The Senate is limited to voting up or down on those resolutions unless there is a compromise agreed resolution. But the House still has to pass the resolution before the Senate.
Is this the point where American women go on a sex strike, to prod their men to speak out against this? Are we at this point yet?
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/17/womens-sex-strike-ends-civil-war-sex-vs-violence.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/218087/sex-strikes-a-recent-history
Are we at that point yet?
PS. I don't mean to imply that we can't speak out against it on our own, just, adding more angry voices to the mix against this stupidity one way or another...
Could be; esp., if their mate proclaims his approval to deprive women of their rights.
Not again.
Not again? What again? I don't understand your reply.
According to statistics, the majority of men cheat on their spouses at least once during their marriage. If religion succeeds, couples will use the family planning method while husbands become philanders.
Count this man in, I'm with ya girls. I know who holds the key to the cookie jar and I like cookies.
The goddamned "power of the pussy" argument. Again.
Damned straight power of the pussy! Some men can only think with the little head.
I mean I understand her complaint and yours. You're saying that if women said "no" by the millions men would reverse course. And they probably would- this method was used to prevent genocide in Africa which is a pretty big @!$%#ing deal. But at the same time Mech is correct that acting like all women hate sex isn't fair to women nor is it fair to men. Not all men are sex powered maniacs and not all women are disgusted by the sex act. The very idea that women don't like sex comes from the whole misogyny women-don't-really-have-orgasms idea. What's that old 1950's bumper sticker say? It's something like the female orgasm is nothing but piss and a little vinegar. That's where it comes from so it is somewhat ironic that, that same argument would then be used to enhance female sexuality.
I really need to just keep a stock answer on hand for as often as this @!$%#ing bull@!$%# comes up.
So, by all means go around crowing this "radical" solution. Just be aware of the paradigm you're reinforcing when you do.
Moar...
On revenge
The Lysistrata solution and usually mentioned with a gleeful smugness, like tee-hee that'll show them.
It makes no sense except as a sort of revenge fantasy. Might I suggest that if you're seriously thinking about withholding sex from your male partner as a power play that you DTMFA?
On framing
I remember when Sen. McConnell (R-Ky.) got pwned by Sen. Hugh Segal (PC Kingston-Frontenac-Leeds) over health care in Canada. McConnell is persistent.
I really wish the rep. would vote McConnell out of office.
I understand religious freedom to be the right of women to choose contraception if they want to. The republicans and bishops are attempting to take away religious freedom of women by having government legislate morality. This situation is being talked about by the republicans in exactly the reverse and somehow the press is letting them get away with it. They say they want to get government out of our lives but instead they want to legislate morality and force their religious believes on citizens.
They want a bigger government when it is in their favor.
I get that some religious organizations might have a moral objection to being forced to do something they don't believe in, but if that is the case, please stop reaching into my pocket and taking my tax dollars, which you love to do, to support your hate filled churches. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state in this country, which the founders supported wholeheartedly. If you are going to follow their lead, then stop the war against the rest of us and remember, this is our country, not your church.
The thing that makes me so angry about this whole argument is that if we are to have true freedom, contraception should be made available to all. And if you have a religious objection, that is between you and your church, your conscience and your God. Leave the rest of us out of it and don't force us to have our rights limited because you believe (however erroneously) that we are stepping on your religious freedom. We are simply making sure everyone has equal access. Your actions are up to you and frankly none of my business.
And finally, may I just remind all of the Republicans out there who are arguing to have Planned Parenthood (which supports birth control and women's health) dismantled that it was supported and funded and brought into being by one of your own: Richard Nixon.
They fail to speak of actions taken by Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan is their hero but I do not understand why; he was more of a moderate.
When did the Catholic Church's reproductive policy become the standard for America? Did we lose a war to the Pope? Have we declared that Catholism is our state religion? So now it's ok that they hide pedophiles? A bunch of old men, both the cardinals and most rebublicans, deciding women's fate and faith? What's next, veils?
The Religious Right has GOT to make the corrolation that having birth control available is not the same as FORCING a woman to use it. Allowing this extreme stance to come into practice will ultimately open a can of worms by offering precedent.
All I have been hearing are the male talking heads in the room touting of how it is an "affront to their religious beliefs." Where are the women in this debate? We seriously need to show the counter-points for men. Vasectomies should not be available. ED meds should not be available. Treatment for STDs should not be available. Hell, are we going to lay women on tables in front of the church elders to make sure they're virgins when the get married?
WHY must we jump through these absurd hoops to prove this point? We all know the "God" argument is a groaner. These Right-wing wackos will be the first ones to admittedly say in a racist undertone that, "The lower class needs to stop breeding altogether" and "the poor are a drag on our economy and should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" in the same breath that they refuse to give them the tools with which to achieve this end.
How did this total dweeb get so much power ... he reminds me more of a prudish, but cantankerous & bitter old woman. I had to use birth control pills at one point in my life for health reasons other than birth control. If he had his way, I would probably not have ever had children!
It's not War on Religion or War on Women, or War on anything... it's simply the concept of "making babies." As many as possible, as fast as possible... and the concept is flawed by the mere fact that there is "no freedom of choice," and you can't say yes or hell no. The Religious/Political mandate is that making babies is very lucrative a profitable and your liability becomes their asset. Naturally, Viagra was covered from the very beginning.
I have barely heard mention of the use of condoms. By not denying men the use of viagra, this becomes a gender issue. I'm sure men would not wish to use the planning method where they'd be forced to abstain for days at a time. Women just may refuse to submit to their husbands (as the Bible states) and I wouldn't blame them. Nowadays, to receive enough wages for an average lifestyle, women must also work. How can a woman help provide, when she is enslaved with a dozen children? There may be more men against this than we think.
Public support for contraception is very high among both men and women polled.
Rachel, why are you not pointing out that a foreign government is trying to influence public policy in the United States? The Vatican is a state and one in the same with the Catholic Church. The Pope is the absolute ruler. What would Mitch McConnell and his party be saying if Muslim leaders were demanding compliance with their laws?
Yep, and remember when everyone was up in arms over JFK entering the white house as a Catholic? Terrified that he was going to be "in bed" with the Pope and his policies so to speak? Yep, I think we're there again, but we're not in control to fix it.
Exactly the point I've been trying to make! The Pope is NOT a US CITIZEN and should have ZERO influence over the US government and it's laws. That and the rights of women (50% of the citizens) should always come before the desires of churches, organizations, and businesses.
Remember all the hoopla over Shirah law and the Mosque in NYC? According to the Republicans, religious freedom and religious policy's becoming US law is only for Christians.
If he's trying to say that it's about healthcare costs for employers and/or insurance companies, HE COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG. Pregnancies and childbirth are much, MUCH more expensive than contraception.
Then add to it the business costs of hiring temps to cover for maternity and paternity leaves... It would be cheaper to just hand contraceptives out with the paychecks.
I just called Senator Blunt's DC office (unfortunately he is one of my Senators) and asked the question from above, would a Muslim be able to block treatment for trichinosis or alcoholism, or a Jehovahs Witness block treatment for anything requiring transfusions, and the young lady answering the phone rather cheerfully told me that yes, those would be considered things an employer could block under the legislation. If you want to push back against the Catholic Bishops and Senators McConnell, Blunt and Rubio, I have started a petition on sighnon.org.
http://signon.org/sign/catholic-bishops-stop.fb1?source=c.fb&r_by=418192
"The Obama administration's underlying goal is entirely straightforward: the law already makes preventive care free for all Americans, and officials believe access to contraception must be included as part of this coverage."
If you can't afford health insurance and have no employment that provides it, no care at all is what's free. If you actually want preventive care, you have to pay full price. If you want any kind of care; full price. No job, no health insurance, no health care.
The Republican War on Women.
Congratulations Republicans, you've finally found a war you can not and will not win - guaranteed!
ARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!
Mitch McConnell seems likes he's is just a closeted homosexual with no real dog in this fight anyway, other than his possible eagerness to PLEASE catholic priests. Yeah, Mitch, they need it bad so you give it to them hard. Give them all that pandering and hypocritical self-righteous hyperbole!
This isn't about religious freedom to the GOP...this is about being able to continue to sound bite and sell an absurd notion that President Obama is anti-religious and anti-American. The irony is that the deeper they go to prop up their anti-religious talking point the further they will alienate themselves from millions more Americans. Jeezus...haven't they done the math!? And to ESTAMM's point above....yes, please remove Mitch's picture. I'm reminded of a blinking turtle every time I see him.
If Roe vs. Wade was made into law, then I see no future for a law disallowing contraception. This is a civil rights issue not a religious issue. I do see, however, that they will fight this all the way to the supreme court. I have to believe that in an election, the women's vote outweighs a minority religious vote. Women go to the polls, on the average, more than men. The Catholic church is trying to exert their leverage in congressional matters. Many conservative protestants do not believe in contraception but have not attempted to impose their beliefs on others. Many protestant sects are also anti-Catholic which leaves one to believe this is just another fight against the democrats, and religion interfering with governmental policies, and furthermore, is an effort to increase the number of religious voters, who are moderates or independents, to choose the Republican nominee in November. They will solidify further these intentions by again announcing that they are the party of family values and morality. This is total hypocrisy, just look at their candidates trying to win the republican nomination for pres. This is also a man vs. woman issue. Men want to control women's bodies, yet how many men try to elude child support payments. The second cause of death of pregnant women is murder. Are we going to allow men the power to control us in this matter?
Well if they push this through, they can kiss the majority of the women's vote good-bye.
The abject hatred for the President is so severe that the GOP will sell out it's very soul to do and say what they think will do harm. They only hurt themselves and bare their wrinkly,old asses to the country.
The only thing left to do is to stop having sex with Republican men. ;)
Perhaps if they don't reproduce we will finally stop the passing down of this sort of attitude.
Parental affiliation has less to do with a person's political beliefs than several other factors.
The Republican party lives inside a bubble, and don't realize that the world and America is changing rapidly. Soon older whitemen will be in the minority, so they are trying to set in motion their last gasp of control. They hide behind freedom but if you listen closely they are talking about government control, like who and how many you can marry, or what you can smoke, or punishing women for wanting to have sex just for the fun of it. They want govt to be really intimate with you. The only people they want to have real freedom is the NRA, big corporations, Banks, agri business, and big oil/gas. No government intervention for them
So the president thinks he "gets to decide what somebody else's religion is"?? McConnell doesn't usually go off the rails with his comments, but this is crazy talk.
I said last week that the Bishops Conference would not be satisfied with the compromise. They have tasted the concessions and they want more. It will never be enough until contraception and abortion are banned. Republicans think that adopting the Bishop's position is a way to the Catholic vote. Let them test that theory out in the elections. In reality, the Bishops speak for the Church hierarchy and not the lay members because they are not going to vote the way the Church wants them to vote.