About half-way through last night's debate, moderator John King presented a question for the four candidates sent in from a viewer: "Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?"
The question was not well received by the audience, which booed for quite a while. Opinions vary as to why, exactly, attendees responded so negatively, though I suspect it was because the audience saw this as an unnecessary area of discussion.
King, noticing the prevailing winds, immediately told the Republican presidential field, "Look, we're not going to spend a ton of time on this." The candidates had other ideas.
Associated Press
The ensuing discussion was one of the longest of the entire two-hour debate. Rick Santorum wanted to talk about "the increasing number of children being born out of wedlock in America" and "children being raised by children." Ron Paul spent some time explaining his belief that "immorality creates the problem" of Americans wanting access to birth control. The discussion just wouldn't end, moving from Title X to Arlen Specter to morning-after pills.
You could almost hear the smiles coming from Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. In the 21st century, four far-right white wealthy guys, all of whom think they should be president, spent 15 minutes in a nationally-televised debate talking about access to birth control.
The GOP candidates might as well have put a banner over their heads reading, "Independents, please don't consider voting for us."
But it was Mitt Romney's response to the question that amazed me. "I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama," the former governor said.
Think about that one for a moment. The Obama administration is including contraception coverage as part of preventive health care for Americans -- a decision a clear majority of the country heartily supports. The administration is exempting churches and other houses of worship, and has crafted a compromise so that religiously-affiliated employers will not have to pay for contraception coverage directly.
This is the biggest "attack" on religious freedom in the history of the United States? How is it, exactly, that a sane person could believe this?
Or more to the point, how is it that a Mormon, whose church faced actual attacks and discrimination, could see contraception access as a more serious assault on "religious tolerance"?
Romney added that Obama is "requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill. Unbelievable."
It is, in fact, literally "unbelievable," since that's not at all what the administration is doing.
It was painful enough to have so much of the debate focus on opposition to birth control, but Romney's dishonesty managed to make a mind-numbing discussion even worse.
Leave a Comment:
Seems racist to me. What's relevant about their race? Would four Black guys or four Asian guys been more appropriate to the discussion? Just asking...
I guess the other question would be if four poor men would have been more qualified to address the topic either?
Went right over your head, didn't it.
Pitiful.
Brenna1, please enlighten me. Tell me why a White man is less qualified or appropriate than a Black man or an Asian. Tell me why a wealthy man is not as good as a middle income or poor man for this topic. Or, was it just because they where white that the race was noted? Please, I'm listening...
How about four any-color women being allowed into the discussion about birth control, RobDon?
Which of the candidates were first to say "my wife feels..."?
RobDon, the fact is that 4 MEN were having to answer the question. And yes poor men might have a better understanding that birth control keeps their family getting bigger in these hard economic times. Rich guys... not so much.My concern is this, Does the Church have any problem requiring their insurance companies to provide Viagra to their men employees?
I have to agree that the addition of race in the title is stupid and distracts from the main issue. It's the fact that it's a panel of men discussing an issue which has little to no impact on them personally that is the problem. Whether they are white, red, brown, black or purple has nothing to do with it, at all. The wealthy part on the other hand fits nicely.
The mention of race here speaks to privilege. White men are the ruling class in America (and Europe, etc.). It's not a race thing, it's a class, privilege and power thing.
[Technical glitch caused double-post. Sorry.]
Well now just because they are white and rich don't mean they are out of touch.
The reason their race is important is because white, wealthy, Christian men have been the power majority group in this country from it's inception. When this country was first founded only white, property owning men could vote. That's obviously changed over the years. However white men still hold the majority of seats in our government. While women make up half of the population and blacks and latinos in particular make up a large percentage, white men still hold a larger share of legal representation within our government.
We have white men, as a power majority, in this country making a great deal of noise about contraception, but framing it as "religious liberty" so that they can completely remove women from the equation. There's absolutely no discussion of the religious liberty of women. Moreover, framing this within the context of "morality" suggests that women are inherently immoral and need men to make the big decisions for them.
It's when they open their mouths that it proves that they are out of touch.
Correct Skyd and Hsun-Tsu - the reason "white" is important is that the power elite of this country is composed of older, white men. Black men, asian men, poor men, or - god forbid - woment would have a totally different take than the power elite. BTW, I'm a middle-aged, relatively successful white man, but I still know this to be true. If you were raised in the US and keep your eyes open, this should be pretty obvious.
I'm not entirely convinced that race should not be considered. Read a great book by Rickie Solinger called _Wake Up Little Susie— (about single pregnancy before Roe v. Wade). Solinger documents quite well that blacks historically were treated differently than whites in the same position. Being wealthy AND white is different from being poor and white, or poor and a racial minority. That these particular wealthy men can preach to the rest of America (who, quite clearly, has VERY different views about personal privacy and contraception) indicates that they have classified themselves as qualified to discuss the subject-- and without asking women, working class and poor people, and/or racial minorities what they think about the subject.
Rob has an initial point that I think is worth considering-- that one should not throw out the issue of race as an automatic disqualifier of a person (whatever their race). But having considered the current cultural context and the historical record on the subject, in this case I think it's fair to suggest that whether it's class or race, these four men are ineffective in representing the will of the majority (which, after all, is the principle upon which this nation was founded).
What @Hsun-Tsu said. All day long.
It's not racist,
The conservative movement is about fear of loss,
The argument is "Things were good, now they are getting worse."
It is the central issue of American politics, The Status Quo.
For years now the Republicans have taken advantage of the fear of loss of White, Wealthy, Christian Men.
Not every racial issue in politics is about people thinking that other races are inferior. Thankfully, we are in a time where that mindset is becoming less prevalent, though in cases it remains extremely strong.
It is more about the realization that WASP's have that their current position in life is unfair, and their fear that they will lose when it is balanced out. The same applies for feminism, and Religion, as well.
They don't all want to oppress women and atheists, but they are terrified that the culture is a zero sum game and that giving justice to women and atheists would mean losing something.
It is why we had the Klan and other organizations, look at their rhetoric, they aren't talking about fear of the rise of other cultures nearly as much as they talk about fear of "losing purity."
The fear of loss is an extremely powerful demon to fight against, and we all act in prejudice against it. It's not just a Republican thing. After all, we all know there are hungry people in Africa, but we'd all flinch if they said "We're going to make things equal."
It's a major driving force in conservatism, and it's not racist to bring it up. Not all white people are automatically this negative form of conservatism, but being white is definitely part of it.
RobDon, you missed the point totally. Why is this issue even being discussed? Fanatics!
I forgot to say, that I feel bad when people talk about this as being an issue of Men imposing their will on Women. Because I'm a man that does not. But, I am aware enough to know that the issue of Gender absolutely belongs in this discussion, especially because those who are fighting against women's rights are being driven from their gender. So I don't go complaining that "Men are being misrepresented," because what is more important here is how women are being portrayed.
Which is, by the way, as nothing so much as the old dirty joke, in this debate a woman is not a person, she is a life support system for a vagina.
Right now, it's more important to establish that personal sovereignty is sacrosanct than to worry about white people being discriminated against, or men being discriminated against.
The Headline, "Four White Wealthy Men talk about Contraception." is meant to highlight the absence of women in a discussion that they should absolutely be involved in. And the ridiculousness of the idea that our country's values should be based on whatever White Wealthy Conservative Men think is reasonable.
Vox, well said.
It's said there's no such thing as a stupid question. Why?
If this were the case, as many here are claiming, then the headline should read, "Four Men talk about Contraception," the inclusion of the race and class were solely meant to be divisive, IMHO.
Somehow I don't think divisiveness is your real concern.
IMHO
I think I can understand Rob's point. I think the reason why it's emphasized is because straight, white, Christian men are the dominant force of power in our society at this point in time. It says something weird about a political party that all of their top tier candidates would be of these categories and not of other categories when running against President Barack Obama (the first black president). W/ the said you are correct that as it pertains to abortion and contraception the racial tone does seem strange. I think Benen was just trying to emphasize it's the classic 'old white guy' who is trying to dominate a discussion that doesn't have anything to do w/ him. But it's also a little out there.
Robdon, it's the conservative base, its the audience they're playing to. It's the disenfranchised white male christian vote that they're appealing to, if anything, it's the "wealthy" modifier that's out of place, because though they are wealthy, they're bringing up this fight to tap into the ultraconservative side of the Republican party, they can't convince the poor republicans to vote for them economically, so they're going for the culture vote.
I don't know if it's necessary, in order to highlight the controversy of these people talking about what is good for the majority, but it's definitely not racist.
The current republican party clings to power by making White Christian Men think they are threatened, they use a variety of different tactics to achieve this, It's not racist to point it out. It would be racist if you said that all white men must be out of touch. That somehow you couldn't "get" issues because you were white. Just as it would be wrong to think that I can't understand this issue because I'm a man.
But that is not what the title is doing, it is highlighting the discrepancy.
Believe me, I'm not just blindly defending Msnbc, they do some things that I consider improper.
For example, do we really need Rev, Jesse Jackson on to talk about Race? Or when they brought up the Jeremy Lin controversy and they had an Asian guest to comment, it's sort of the opposite end of the spectrum from not having people represented to having to consult someone every time. It reminds me of the Daily Show's practice of having a Senior Black Correspondent, and a Senior Muslim Correspondent.
So I'm not giving them a free pass just to be nice to them. I look at the headline, I think, What is it saying? What is it trying to say? and Why?
This doesn't seem inappropriate to me.
So, if Fox News ran with the headline Rich Black Heterosexual President is against Gay marriage, that would be okay?
My point is that the race and class is not relevant. Heck, I think it's okay for men to have and express an opinion on women health issues as women can about men, but I understand the gender argument as somewhat relevant. Not the race and class.
RobDon - Sadly, race and class IS important when talking about issues that affect people who are marginalized. As a black, middle-class woman, I find that a wealthy, white man has no place talking about contraceptive because they:
a) have enough money to not worry about affording contraceptive
b) are not the ones who carry the burden of hormonal contraceptives (aka, they are not required to take it to prevent pregnancy or terrible reproductive-related illnesses)
c) are not at the whims of someone else's moral judgement, because they are the ones, as a ruling class [remember we're talking RICH. WHITE. MEN.], who create those moral judgements to begin with
On top of this, this article highlights that the conversation is being carried by wealthy white men to the exclusion of ALL OTHER PEOPLE. If you haven't read any other articles or been following these debacles, you need to catch up. There have been more men talking about "sanctity of religion" and banning abortion, contraceptives, and a woman's basic right to bodily autonomy and integrity than there have been women.
How can a man tell me what is right and wrong to do with my body? I can't tell a man that he can't be able to get a vasectomy if he wants to. "Every sperm is sacred!" I can't tell him that he shouldn't be able to take viagra if he feels his erection is waning (which is covered at 100% by insurance, btw!). What this all boils down to is that rich men are dominating a discussion that affects women (of all races and classes) disproportionately.
This is a discussion they need to sit down and shut up on.
I suspect the reason the audience booed is that they want the question framed as one about religious freedom rather than birth control. But it's NOT. And it's disgraceful that the death penalty is not treated as a religious freedom issue, especially since those who don't believe in "final judgment by jurors" are excluded from juries that decide death cases.
So, Dan, you believe they should be allowed? Why? So they can impose their religious beliefs on the system? So you are for that in the case where your belief matches their but not for it in the other case where your belief is different?
If by "imposing their religious beliefs", you mean voting not to kill, then yes. You can argue whether the death penalty should be subject to unanimity, but to make it subject to the unanimity of people who think they have the moral authority to kill is just another form of imposing religious beliefs.
They booed because they want stealth to prevail.They want to win and then all of a sudden wham a theocracy is born and freedom is reigned in in the name of Jesus! God help us,save us from these nutcases.
How is it that many of those who are screaming that birth control and abortion are immoral because it takes a human life are often the same people who support the death penalty?
Nowadays the republicans don't expect their candidates to have an answer. They feel if the moderator asks any question that isn't a complete softball, it's a failure of the media and their "gotcha" journalism.
Next they'll be demanding that the candidates receive the questions ahead of time.
It would nice to know exactly why the audience booed. Were they booing just because the subject was raised? If so, was it because they were for or against contraception?
And, yeah, for a Mormon to be so casual about alleging religious persecution is simply amazing. Mormons not only, in the early years of the religion face very strong blowback from their neighbors, but also from the federal government over the practice of polygamy. Joseph Smith was once nearly castrated over rumors of polygamy. And, in Utah, the leaders of the Mormon church were often jailed or spent years in hiding because of federal efforts to stamp out polygamy.
Now, I'm not defending polygamy in any way, nor is it strictly speaking a religious practice, but you'd think with what went on sometimes in Mormon history, Romney would have a more nuanced perspective. I guess not, though.
Nuance doesn't win elections. Plus the more Romney talks about Obama's religion, or lack there of, the more the focus is off of his.
Just last weekend Rev. F. Graham said Mormonism isn't christianity.
Romney's frame of reference is Romney, though.
These same republican crowds have booed a Gay Marine, a dying man, and now birth control. Any questions now?
They booed because they want to keep their extremism under wraps as much as possible. They know they're nuttiness won't sell with rational Americans.
Monk is correct - in fact, even though many of you probably saw this a few weeks ago, but Romney's own grandfather moved to Mexico because of US opposition to polygamy. He had I think four wives, and that is why George Romney was born in Mexico. So for Mitt so assert the Obama has waged the greatest assault ever on religious freedom (again, with no evidence whatsoever), is just about as disingenuous as he can possibly get.
I had forgotten Romney's personal connection to that time in Mormon history. That was dumb of me. I knew the story and how far back the Romney's go in Mormon history, I should have had it mind. Romney definitely should know better, because of that, but as NeedMoreCoffee said, Romney's focus is Romney. Anything he thinks will help him in the moment, he'll say.
First I'd like to know if the "audience trolls" booing are the same ones that booed at the other debates, and do they just bus them from one debate to the next?!? Second, while I sort of understand why the question was asked, again - men may have an "opinion" - but the ultimate decision on taking contraceptives is between a woman and her doctor! Third, these men are so against "sexual liberty" for women, but women aren't having sex by themselves - so why isn't the same "concern" being shown to "men" when insurance pays for Viagra?!? All the men taking Viagra aren't "married"!!
Not all men taking Viagra are married and not all women taking birth control aren't.
how do Catholic entities handle vasectomies?
Birth control pills have uses other than contraception, vasectomies not so much.
Can "Catholics" have vasectomies? I mean teachings of the Catholic Church are that they're not supposed to "have sex" unless it's for procreation, besides a vasectomy interferes with that sperm reaching the egg - so wouldn't that be an "abortion"?!?
It’s not Obama that is attacking “religion”, it is the offspring of those Old White Guys.
It has been nearly 20 years since Rosanna Arquette said, “I wear a stud in my tongue. It's a sex thing. It helps fellatio.”
What she is saying-and speaking for her generation-is, “Pops, you’re irrelevant.”
Irrelevant. The cruelest cut to those who aspire to “Matter”.
Nothing to see here, move along. Step over the bodies of those who freed us from Church rule, step across the line between religious dogma and common law.This is about the economy, but we have no solutions just our anti-Obama rant.Still we need not delve into the way that we are now a party of zealots sponsored by wealthy scum who love the way zealots will do anything to gain control.Lying in the name of the lord is a holy thing.Cheating for god is fine.
See you in November-if you want to remain free.
Does Santorum realize that contraception would help stop children from being born out of wedlock? I didn't watch the debate, but wouldn't that have been a logical follow up question.
Another follow up could have been-- how many children were born to couples who aren't allowed to be married?
And the audience booed because they are smarter than the candidates. They know that the more this gets talked about the less likely they are to win.
But you fail to see it from the zealots point of view. To them you just say no until you are married and must stay married until dead. Sex is the devils tool used to tempt you into sinning. Hmmm..what about greed,what about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you(would they want Wiccas to force their belief upon them?) . I am so confused and no prayer could possibly clear this crap up.
Remember to tithe,oh never mind, they have faith based tax dollars that you give them without consent.
So all of the candidates were 'pure" until marriage, they or their sexual partners never use birth control or had it paid for by health insurance, and not one has experienced an unwanted pregnancy?
The @!$%#ometer needle just pegged.
Oh ye of little faith. You dare to question their chastity? These are holy men all chosen by god to run for president. Guess God does have a sense of humor after all.
I think God just picked them to amuse himself while they self-destruct.
Santorum's wife use to live with the founder of an abortion clinic who was 40 yrs older than her. Not only that he was the doctor who had delivered her.
I guess Santorum sees himself as her saviour.
There isn't anything wrong w/ being born out of wedlock (at least not inherently). Our society sets it up so that it's very, very difficult for a person to be a single parent; there are certainly socioeconomic factors that make out of wedlock births less appealing. A lot of those factors surround gender stereotypes and inequality and the general decline in wages of the middle class. Women aren't paid the same rate as men so for women it's especially hard to be a single parent (that's not to say it is a cake walk for men just saying it's harder economically for women (usually)). If you simply raised wages and removed the gaps between the genders (as much as possible) you'd remove the most prominent socioeconomic elements against single parents. Of course someone like Santorum does not want to remove those socioeconomic barriers. In fact he's on the record as saying that the thinks they're a good thing and that more American families should have to abide by those barriers instead of less.
Co-habitation is also becoming a far more preferred option as opposed to marriage for a lot of straight couples. This is because marriage then tacks on all of these legal rights (and, depending on one's perspective, inhibitions) that, upon divorce, become a battle ground. As an example if a co-habitating couple break up who have 2 or 3 children together the mother can't sue the father for child support in most cases (there are some exceptions to this, yes, but for the most part no). One partner also can't sue for spousal support or for an estate settlement. Because divorce is so prominent this makes co-habitation more lucrative and, quite frankly, practical in today's society. This, again, could easily be remedied if our government tried to change our laws to match modern society instead of the 1950's. Unfortunately no one wants to seem to do this.
Santorum represents the ideology that we should make our morality conform to 'the good ol' days' as opposed to making our morality conform to the reality we live in. I think this was the basis of why Saturday Night Live joked that Santorum always looks confused when he talks publicly because he doesn't understand that it's not the 1800's.
So true but the good ol' days for Santorum mean the Dark Ages and the era when the CC was at its peak. He and the others can not come to terms with a changing, dynamic world. They are afraid of it, don't understand it and therefore see it as evil.
I guess the short answer would be "no". We had someone tr0ll another contraception topic here last week, I think, and that person also tried to make a causal connection between contraception and the rise of single mothers. When called out on the sloppy logic, the tr0ll then tried to claim that he was making no such link, even though he clearly was. Logic just isn't part of the debate for the other side.
RobDon:
Yes, 4 wealthy white guys...
The Party they represent is overwhelmingly white. It is. There is no way of denying this.
The interests the Party represent are overwhelmingly corporate and upper-class. There is no denying that.
The point-of-view on women's health/contraception the Party seems to have signed off on is one that seems to run counter to the perspectives of most women, even regular "church goers." Even most Catholic women. There is no denying that.
The four white men are wealthy (some more than others) while representing the interests of wealthy, upper-income whites - and garnering much of their support/votes from working-class/non-college degreed white males. This is an old story of working class white males not voting their economic interests. In addition, four not-wealthy white men could not garner the financial backing to run for the presidency.
Much of the anti-President Obama discourse of the last 4 weeks or so has been about his alien nature/anti-religion/Satan/anti-America/pro-Islam/pro-Arab/almost-Arab himself... The transcripts of interviews, speeches, debates are clear. So yes, these are 4 wealthy white men who want to be President AND who say in any number of ways that they are white and the President is not.
So...
Yes, four wealthy white men who think they ought to be President. The Party has alot of work to do over the next 4 years (revamping their immigration policies/calling-out their John Birchers/pushing back against racist talk radio/not being pulled in by old Bishops into useless conversations about birth control etc., etc)...
for "4 wealthy white men who want to be president" to be empirically incorrect.
Yes four rich whities trying to act like rednecks because that is how they see their base--as redneck losers who use religion as a crutch and the bible as a shield from reality.
Mr. Benen,
I don't know if you actually read the comments, but someone sent Andrew Sullivan this link about Willard and what HE did vis-a-vis Catholic hospitals and the morning after pill while Governor of Massachusetts.
OF COURSE, this story proves once again how much Willard is a Liar in his attacks on the President. Just thought you might want to consider this as part of your Weekly Willard's Lies.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-12-09/news/0512090161_1_mitt-romney-abandoned-plans-private-hospitals-public-health-commissioner
But that was before he wanted to be President. Can we really hold him accountable for something he did before he knew that helping women was politically bad?
I hate it when they phrase these questions as "believing in." It gives the right permission to "not believe in" things like birth control, which demonstrably exist.
Not if I close my eyes hard enough and top my shoes together!
*tap not top
Unghh
If we want to talk about religious freedom and evangelicals and all that, please go read this excellent article written in 2006 about the role evangelicals had in supporting separation of church and state and why. We need to confront these historically ignorant candidates and their blind supporters with this. Arguing from the "far left" doesn't work. But talking in their own language does. And it gives those of us who are evangelicals (of the old tradition) and who STRONGLY believe in the wall between church and state words to use to stand up to them.
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/FramersAndTheFaithful.pdf
to the author of this blog, please stick with commentary, not opinion. To suggest no sane person would disagree with Obama is, in itself, insane.
There are many of us who believe what Obama did was infringe on religious rights. As they said before WW2, 30 million Frenchmen can't be wrong. They build an imanginary line of defense. Progressives are today building another trying to mask this whole argument in terms of contraception. It is not about that. Practice what you want and believe, but don't criticise those of us who believe otherwise.
Tom - apparently you don't know the definition of 'blog.' If you want factual reporting without opinions, this is not the place to look.
Second, I asked yesterday for someone on the right to provide solid, indisputable evidence that Obama is infringing on anyone's religious beliefs. None of the right-wing regulars out here (RobDon, contessa61, etc) responded with any. I contend that they didn't because there is no such evidence, because Obama is not taking away anyone's religious freedom; making up these accusations is just one way Republicans think they can stir up their base and generate fear among the electorate. If Dems have built an imaginary line of defense, it's because Repubs have launched an imaginary line of attack.
He balanced it fairly. I'll bet women who work at Georgetown or Notre Dame are quite happy with this compromise. I also don't understand why you think "religious rights" supercede law. You're essentially saying that religious organizations can freely decide which laws to follow and which they don't wish to. Furthermore, they should not have a tax exemption. They spend millions affecting policies they don't like, whether it be contraception or gay marriage. I find those activities to be an infringement on civil rights, but I'll bet you're fine and dandy with that.
There are people whose religion requires them to force their ways on others. Invoking the might and majesty of the United States to forbid auto da fe is an infringement of their religious freedom.
Troll alert. Take a look at his other posts.
Dear Tom, You state it so perfectly. You can believe how you want and I will believe how I want, but don't go trying to cram your belief system down my throat. I don't care who you sleep with, I don't care who you marry, I don't care if your wife takes birth control, I don't care if your wife has an abortion( although birth control would eliminate most of these), But you want to tell us what we can do. I am for SMALLER government, get out of my bedroom, my doctors office, and my gun cabinet, and my beliefs. and yes I am a Democrat. Take your religious beliefs somewhere else, First Amendment protects not only you right f religion, but also my right FROM your religion!
sorry duplicate post.
Oh no, not another French analogy! This reminds me of Santorum's French Revolution/ guillotine argument. Can't we just leave France out of it?!
The French: America's scapegoat since the Revolutionary War.
Again the problem here isn't that we don't respect the Catholic Church's beliefs. It's that we don't want the Catholic Church imposing it's beliefs onto us as employees or as individuals when we aren't welcoming the church's position into our lives. This seems to be the element that the right keeps ignoring. The church has a right to believe that contraception is wrong. But the church does not have the right to force me to believe contraception is wrong. That, too, is my religious freedom. The church's religious freedom doesn't get to trump my religious freedom. This is an instance where the church was at odds w/ the individual. The administration favored w/ the individual which is what we have historically done in such instances.
Good point Mouzer. What we have is a conflict of rights. We also have a dispute as to what is a religious matter and a secular matter. The Catholic Church and many other religious institutions have been meddling in secular matters ever since there have been religious institutions and secular governments. The Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendmant tried to put a stop to the Church, any church, from meddling in secular affairs. The Church with the aid of the Republicans is trying to make and end run around the Constitution by claiming that a secular matter is actually a matter of religion. The fact that their religion conflicts with yours and mine does not matter to them because they do not recognize the legitimacy of any religion except their own.
I don't think it really is that. The other side does maintain that the contraception mandate violates their First Amendment rights (speech and religion, specifically) but I don't really see that they have a case unless their right to say that their religion forbids contraception is only free if and only if women are in fact forbidden contraception. Or, in other words, speech is free only when having your say means having your way. That's not really what the First Amendment is about, so I see this as the legitimate rights of women clashing with the fake "rights" of right-wingers to suppress the rights of women. That, I think, is the correct way to frame this.
"White wealthy men"....what's new? They've been the prominent group of people assigned to determine America's future, and Maddow is implying such in this title. "Talk about contraception..."...yeah.
*reading the rest of the story*
No MAN should have a say in birth control. It is a WOMEN's issue and it is quite pitiful that the government addressed an all-male panel to discuss it in Congress. It is pitiful that the Republicans focused their agenda on it as not one of them is a WOMAN. It is also pitiful that the writer of this article decides that race and income are also factors. However, I am inclined to believe if Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews had something to say the author would not title it "Three White Wealthy Men Talk About Contraception".
I refuse to abdicate my responsibility to speak up and support the rights of human beings just because I don't belong to the group being persecuted.
Intersectionality
D.C. read my post #29.
Yep, my day was just made with this article. This party is like that evil robot from the movie Incredibles-you force something they don't agree with in them and they self-destruct. This guy's talking about sexual libertine, this guy's talking about religious assault, it's all just mind-bogglingly funny to me. Mitt seems to have forgotten that Rick tried that same "war on religion" crap before. I swear, between telling lies and changing stances, how does Mitt have the time to fire people?.....Wait, don't answer that.
These white wealthy men are INSANE. If either of them--ANY of them--become president, I'm offering everyone here a ride with me to Canada.
Amen.
"Ron Paul spent some time explaining his belief that "immorality creates the problem" of Americans wanting access to birth control."
Immorality is defined as the morality of those who are having a better time--Ambrose Bierce.
Ron Paul is usually the guy in the room unafraid to be the contrarian.
I am surprised he had nothing to say about legislating morality- How legislation like the unltrasound rape law is the kind of thing that will drive libertarian leaning independents to the democrats.
Was he completely silent on this?
I did not watch the debate because it is a waste of time listening to people posture about morality. It is no secret that women voters are the largest block of voters. Republicans have failed to appreciate how Bill Clinton got elected; he received a lot women's votes even in Republican areas. This debate over contraception is going to be a turning point because it feeds Dems the an issue that will come back on Republicans. Part of the road map to winning an election is to avoid offending large groups of voters. Republicans lost the map or they are just outright stupid.
Rachel,
Men who need viagra should also have to have the probe. See how they like it and wonder if it isn't too invasive!!!!
Why was the audience booing? I suspect the reason is that this feeds into the mindset of some on the right that the liberal, mainstream media is determined to attack them. I find this particularly odd when it plays out in this context.
The phenomenon is that Republican says X. Everyone in America is revolted that Republican believes X. Conservatives blame media for telling people that Republican believes X.
Examples abound such as Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow when he confirmed that he thinks the Civil Rights Act was overreaching.
I just find it bizarre that the mindset seems to be that Republicans should be permitted to hold abhorrent beliefs and the media should try to protect Republicans from ever having to reveal these beliefs.
Is it any wonder that these people think President Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim socialist? The fact that he never does anything to confirm that hardly matters since they'd like to keep their own true views secret, they assume everyone else would as well.
But the pro's in each camp do have polls. It just doesn't make sense. Do they think that their opposition is going to let independents forget what they are saying now in the primaries?
As a Liberal, it's not out of the ordinary for me to disagree with a conservative point of view. But... Hello? This is getting out of hand.. Why would I (or anyone) consider a candidate that cannot keep his religious views out of matters that directly effect me? They can have their freedom of religion; however, my freedom of religion includes not having their beliefs thrust upon me. To tell me that your making decisions that are based on your 'faith' - that tells me that the only freedom of (or from) religion that matters is YOURS.
Well said, Candace - that point is most decidedly lost on these candidates and their
supporterscongregations.Whose base is this energizing? Conservatives have relied on the technique of moving the Overton window and simultaneously energizing the base by advancing radical positions.
They certainly are energizing a base of voters- but its the Wrong Base for them. Just look at the comment counts for the last two weeks on any subject vaguely re-litigating birth control.
Angry white guy radio, Angry white guy candidates? Meet the other half of the population. Here's a hint why this is important about what the "little ladies" think:
They vote.
And hey angry white guy clergy, guess what? "Women outnumber men in attendance in every major Christian denomination, and they are 20% to 25% more likely to attend worship at least weekly." (source)
Thinking before speaking is not a Republican strong point.
They speak from a place deep down inside.
And they use an alternate orifice for their vocalizations.
Ah John, welcome to the sarcasm club! I love it! I knew you had it in you hiding beneath your usual elequent discourse. It feels good doesn't it?
that would be eloquent. I just pulled a Sarah Pallin!
This is a perfect example of how worthless these so-called "debates" are. That line went unchallenged. In anything like a real debate, someone would have asked Mr. Romney "have you ever heard anything about Haun's Mill or any other events in 1838 Missouri?"
Hsun-Tsu is correct when stating that "rich white guys" is called upon to draw attention to the power and privilege such individuals have. "Rich white guys" is also the group furthest removed from the individuals to whom birth control issues matter most, i.e. women of the working and middle classes who desire to limit family size for economical and personal reasons. The ignorance of the "rich white guys" is remarkable; historically women have always fought to take control of their reproduction, and despite the rhetoric spewed by pro-lifers, will continue to do so. I don't know how any woman of child bearing age could vote for a "rich white guy" who claims to know what's best for women but has absolutely no insight into women's lives.
The picture of Santorum and Romney with this story looks much more like Colbert and Stewart doing a comedy bit than any potential leaders of the free world.
Of course the War Party otherwise known as the Republican Party are against birth control.
Where will they get the young men and women to keep replenishing the troops that they keep sending into needless wars?
Now they want to attack Iran and go to war without trying peaceful negotiations first.
The troops haven't even been brought home from Afganistan yet and they are ready to start another war.
Didn't your needless invasion of Iraq prove to you that your major allies won't blindly follow you into a war?
Especially, since they have been closely following this primary contest and shaking their heads in disblief in what they are hearing and seeing from these irrational so called candidates, and how out of touch they are with reality.
And of course they are against killing. Where is the morality of their wars of choice? Where is the morality of taking food stamps away from a poor woman who needs them to feed the children they had because they could not afford birth control?
Where is the morality of bringing a genetically deprived child into a world where it will suffer untold agony for a few years before it dies a horrible death? And what about the suffering and expense to those who have to care for this child who cannot take care of itself?
Rachel, you've buried the lead here. It wasn't just women under attack.
Which MSNBC host will toast Romney over his "certain ethnicities" line about people who need to be lectured about not having sex in the schools?
I've had sex while in school and I'm catholic. My mom put me on birth control as soon as she found out that I was serious about a boy. They need to take a poll on how many Catholic mothers put their daughters on birth control? I could name a few.