Republican efforts to restrict contraception access, as part of the larger "war on women" campaign, have taken a considerable toll on the GOP, while giving Democrats a boost with more than half the electorate. It's not surprising, then, that Republicans would start doing some damage control.
This means making Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) a key Romney campaign surrogate; it means putting Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the only woman in the Republican leadership in either chamber, in front of reporters; and it means dispatching South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) to appear on "The View."
The line that stands out in this clip, of course, is Haley's attempt to deflect her party's responsibility: "Women don't care about contraception; they care about jobs and the economy and raising their families and all those things.... The media wants to talk about contraception."
Right, it's the media's fault. Remember when major news organizations got together to encourage Republican policymakers to introduce legislation -- at the state and federal level -- to restrict access to birth control? No?
This wasn't the media's fault; it wasn't an elaborate Democratic trap; Sandra Fluke is not to blame; there is no conspiracy. Republicans picked this fight because they thought it'd be an election-year winner, but they soon discovered that women do care about contraception.
The South Carolina governor added, "All we're saying is we don't want government to mandate when we have to have it or when we don't."
What? Who, exactly, is trying to mandate when women take contraception? I can appreciate the GOP's need to undo some of the recent damage it's done to the party's standing with women, but the efforts are more likely to succeed if the arguments are coherent.
Leave a Comment:
I can't STAND these women that throw other women under the bus for the GOOD OF THE PARTY. 'Women are SO SMART that they care about JOBS AND THE ECONOMY'...but clearly NOT smart enough to worry about their own health care. Contraception is at the root of what allows women to WORK, to have a VOICE, to do MORE with their lives then stay home and have babies. The problem with the GOP is that they think they are SMARTER and more clever than women and if they beat them down with contraception, then they will marginalize them in politics. AND THE WOMEN GET THIS. Lest you think I am picking on Haley or Ayotte, let me assure you that I live in the same state with McMorris Rodgers and we have been fighting her rhetoric for YEARS. While THEY SERVE with the cranky old party, they want the rest of the women to serve THEM.
Hear, Hear! I'm not quite sure how the GOP can separate the economy from "household economy" of family planning. Especially since pregnancy has yet to be included as a disability deserving of accommodations in the work environment in most places in the USA.
Most illuminating thing for me: I had a friend who was on a hiring committee at his job, and he and some of the others on the committe had second thoughts about one of the more promising candidates. Why? Because she was pregnant and was likely to be due around the desired start date, and possibly go on maternity leave if she was hired. I believe they hired her anyway, but that her pregnancy was actually discussed (not to her, of course, but behind closed doors) is a bit shocking for this modern woman.
Now take employment discrimination, the lack of comprehensive maternity/paternity leave policy in the US, and the sky-high cost of getting pregnant, delivering, and subsequently raising children (time, money, effort, etc.) -- no one in her right mind could divorce contraception access from the economy without sounding like a yahoo from the southernmost Kakalacka...
It's illegal to inquire into a candidate's family situation or plans for family. Which should have been a hint to the committee that just because she couldn't hide her plans for having offspring did not suddenly make it a fair-game subject for consideration in hiring.
Yes, it would have been very different for the committee to get "caught" at it. Is this, then, the new benchmark for legal and ethical behavior in the workplace: "can I get away with it without being caught?"
If a candidate confided to you that that was the way they dealt with ethical issues as an employee, would you hire that person?
<spit>
What planet is she from? Women these days HAVE to work and pregnancy is quite an upheaval in your employment. Some men steer away from hiring women of child bearing age already! DO Not mandate birth control or abortions. Actually birth control can take care of the need for abortion in most cases. Just another talking head that is clueless in South Carolina!
My Conclusion, reached by the rigor of Real Science: Republicans Have and Use the Best Dope from Morning 'till Night.
or they have been replaced by pods, or have all had lobotomies. i cant really see how the GOP wont suffer a historic defeat in november of apocalyptic proportion if they keep this bible bangy stuff up very much longer.
I have said before and will say again, the Republicans will not see historic defeats this year because American voters have the political awareness of a stunned sea-cumber, the attention span of a Higgs-boson, and and the memory of a life-long pot head with Alzheimer's. Slightly more than 50% of this country actually wants to live in Conservatopia, where guns and Jesus are mandatory, and education and equality are sins.
I think WOMEN will be one of the primary reasons republicans lose in November. This isn't small stuff for us, this is a major concern, regardless of the attempted spin of the teapubs. I just don't think a majority of Americans want to live in a darwinistic Stepford.
lib50, I hope you're right, because I believe that artfulskeptic has nailed it.
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but my gut says there is no excitement for Romney and many in their base will not be as likely to vote for him. Then there is the Ryan budget and it is full of things that even my republican parents don't like. Then we have MORE tax cuts to the wealthy, more cuts to programs that benefit the poor and middle class and the beginning of the end to Medicare as we know it. Top it off with an economy that is starting to get a little lift. There just can't be that many Americans so bent on political ideology that they screw themselves, can there?
The women who are most upset about the republican war on reproduction are those who are most affected, in other words, those who haven't reached menopause. I'm very afraid that the older female contingent that votes at higher rates than younger women and tends right wing isn't too upset about how the right wing wants to put women in a purdah and keep them out of sight, out of mind.
Younger women have two obligations. One is to get their whole system of buddies to the polls and the other is to get their mothers, aunts and grandmothers on board in defense of women in general.
artful, you may want to read up on authoritarian personalities. It's not as bad as you think. The forces driving conservative thinking are pretty scary, but those who tilt strongly to the right are not a majority of any population. Those people cannot be won over, so we should really be more concerned about the moderately authoritarian, those who can be persuaded either way. Or, rather, it is the GOP who should be worried this year, as recent polling indicates that they are losing the persuadable segment of women.
And even these "self hating women" can't seem to get the story straight. Maybe the GOP strategy is "do as I say, not as I do" - but it's not working for the rest of US!
Haley is entitled to her opinion but not her alternate reality. If women were not interested in the contraception issue, then she would not have to make such a silly statement. Denying reality changes no one's opinion.
With over 2000 bills to restrict choice by women, introduced by state legislatures since 2010, the media would have to be blind to not notice. The GOP want to blame the media for reporting repression. It may not top the list of concerns for women but it effects them and their children. Any restriction of women's rights has major economic impact on families, job opportunities and freedom in general so supporting the GOP is done at their own and their family's peril.
I think the republicans are so used to spinning and winning the message they can't believe they will lose this one - but they will. They are betting women are as stupid and easily manipulated as some of their constituents, but this is so much bigger and women know it. I really do think this is the beginning of the end for them (for a long time).
I agree, but we all know the repub message machine is never turned off & they are good at it, best liars in town! So we have to match it & never give up. This is one issue, even right thinking women are not necessarily willing to lock step on.
That is why WE have to keep 'talking'. When we come here, we bring up topics that eventually the wider media can't ignore. Women's issues are coming up more and more because we are still talking about it (and republicans are still trying to push their misogynistic policies). I won't give up.
.
I don't know why one of those intelligent liberal women on the show couldn't have questioned the truthfulness of her assertion that the government is trying to force women to use birth control. This is the great problem of our democracy: in a system that absolutley requires an independent and informed press to hold public officials accountable, no such press seems to be available.
If people like Joy Behar cared a little less about being polite and a little more about holding politicians accountable for the lies they tell, we'd be in a much better place.
It probably has something to do with the backers of the show or who actually owns the show or the station. I notice a lot of restraint lately on the networks. More and more though we're going to start seeing Hollywood get involved. They're still camera shy about the whole Communism accusations that took place in the 40's.
This is an absurd statement. No one is restricting access, the issue is WHO pays for it? It is not anyone's responsibility but the couple, if a baby is a result of their relationship. If contraceptives are needed for cramps, acne, or other medical condition, sure it should be handled as any other prescription, but not just because you want to have sex without getting pregnant.
Access is restricted if the cost is out of reach. The rest of your nonsensical remarks are best ignored.
Oh Eric!!! Listen up sweetie. It's an 'all or nothing' proposition. They want birth control OUT OF THERE no matter WHAT you use it for and the reason IS because they think WOMEN ARE LYING if they need it for ACNE. They don't TRUST women and they don't WANT women to suceed. They blame WOMEN for the problems of white men...in employment, head of the family, gay marriage...you name it. They don't WANT reasonable people in politics.
Eric whatever way you look at it, it seems unfair that only womens' healthcare is being targeted. The reason being is that Insurance Companies on the most part believe that being a woman is a pre-existing condition. It is true that perhaps it cost a little more to be a woman when it comes to health. But, that's how God made us. It's not so much that the men in our lives are discriminating against us. It is the GOP who seem to be siding with the Big Insurance Companies on this one. Some may argue this point but birth control is just the beginning of what they will try to get away with next. Mother Nature is not too happy. Women know how to nip things in the bud.
Eric, Eric, Eric, I think some in the GOP seem to be obsessed with who is and who is not having sex! Dear me, please step out of the dark ages. Contraception is a blessing for everyone.
Uh hmmmm...exactly my thought about Viagra being covered in the insurance coverage....If it is needed for headache or swollen testicles because the man's sperm is stuck and can't get anywhere, "sure it should be handled as any other prescription", but not just because you want to have sex period.
A pure bullsh!t argument from Eric! The 'Right-To-Lifers' target for more than 5 decades has been the Griswold vs Connecticutt supreme court ruling. That ruling created the penumbra of privacy that was the foundation for Roe v Wade and ruled unconstitutional a Connecticutt law that made contraceptives illegal.
No matter what words the repukes or their rationalizers like Eric use, the theocratic reich-wing of the repuke party believes that only old white men are qualified to make health care decisions for women.
Oh mah gawd, the wimmenz wants to has SEX??? Where's mah faintin' couch? My momma never hads sex, why should any other wimmenz?
Get over it, pal.
The real issue is if established Religious organizations should be forced to cover it? Of course not, if you don't like it work elsewhere. I don't care if companies pass out whiskey and condoms at lunch time, if that's what they want to do. Once Obamacare is hopefully tossed, reform can be done correctly.
Yes they should cover it. There is nothing wrong with contraception and if religious organizations think so they need to start dealing with reality and the issues of today.
Get over your self-righteousness!
Sex and Pregnancy are both health issues and the prevention of the consequences from sex should be covered by healthcare insurance. If men could get pregnant there would be no question on the matter.
Eric points out the main problem, which I believe will never be fixed. About half the country, owing to their religion or some other "moral beliefs", equate women's birth control with "passing out whiskey and condoms".
How on earth do you possibly sway someone who is so ignorant about the basics of health care for women?
And Eric, the argument about why others should be "forced" to pay for things that only others want is tired and ridiculous. We can have that debate once churches pay taxes like the rest of us.
I find it telling that businesses own by religious organizations were covering it before, but now that it's part of AHC it has suddenly become a problem. Why didn't the CC whine when BC coverage was required by state law?
*sigh* Eric honey you do realize that if women don't have access to the contraception they want they're not going to have sex with you right? Granted, this point is moot if you happen to be gay. Last i checked men aren't the ones who carry and give birth to babies; women do. And, if women don't want to get pregnant but would still like to have sex with you, contraception is an important part of that whole "we-get-to-have-sex-but-not-get-pregnant" idea. However, if men did have the babies then this probably never would have been an issue.....
OK for the last time 100% of women benefit from taking contraception. The motivation for why someone takes contraception does NOT negate the medical benefit. This is like arguing that a person who loses weight in order to fit into their wedding dress somehow suddenly doesn't also benefit from a lower risk of heart disease and diabetes.
Secondly economic means restrict accessibility to contraception. Part of how we combat that is to have insurance providers cover contraception. This achieves 2 goals: 1. we provide women w/ the reduced medical risks associated w/ taking contraception and then 2. we provide women w/ access to contraception they otherwise would not be able to afford
Thirdly you will end up paying for it one way or another. If a woman has a baby that she cannot afford to take care of you burden the responsibility in forms of food, clothing, housing, and living assistance. You also burden the cost of her having that baby and the cost of the medical problems 100% of women endure from having pregnancies (which increase the more pregnancies a woman has). You also pay for the health risks that contraception could've treated or prevented from happening by women not having access to contraception. And even if we lived in a society in which we offered no public assistance you would still burden the costs of that unwanted pregnancy only this time it would be in the format of increased crime and increased disease. There is no scenario in which you will not burden the cost in this particular case. The only difference is do you spend the 20$/mo upfront for the contraception OR do you spend the $200/mo+ for the consequence of the lack of contraception? Remember the conservative argument here is to do the former not the latter, ironically enough.
Lastly it is NOT OK for religious institutions to force their beliefs onto their employees or their students. Remember no employer is forced to provide health insurance and no school is forced to provide health insurance to it's students. This is a choice the religious institution is making. There is absolutely no reason to justify punishing someone else for a choice the church made. Other people should not be forced to conform to the church's decision to provide health insurance. If the church decides to then it is doing so knowing full well the consequences of it's actions. If the church doesn't want the consequence of those actions then it should avoid engaging in them (and yes I am purposefully orchestrating this argument to mirror the conservative arguments about pregnancies).
Wrong.
Because no one is responsible for their actions? This is a whole different argument about public assistance reform.
What about Unions? Should people be forced to pay dues if they don't believe in a stance the Union is taking? I don't work for a Union and will not, the Church has a right to offer what benefits they want, they are "benefits", if you don't like or want them go elsewhere, you are free to do so.
How does that even translate into, so they should get contraceptives at no cost? It would be my responsibility as well.
Eating right and exercising are health issues, do we now pay for everyone's grocery bills and gym memberships?
The church is not forced to offer benefits. If they do not like the conditions inherent in offering benefits then they are free to not offer. Why do you insist that the church be obfuscated of their responsibility?
As to your union argument you contradicted yourself: if a person can work anywhere they want then if they don't like the condition of having to work for a union for a particular job then they are free to work at a different job. How is it that you can excuse institutional responsibility when it comes to churches (your first argument) but then state that institutional responsibility should be paramount (when it comes to unions)? This is hypocritical.
OK Eric please explain to me what I got wrong. All women who take contraception benefit from reduced health risks. Contraception reduces the likelihood of developing blood clots, anemia, ulcers, UTIs, bladder infections, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, cysts, and colorectal cancer. All women who take contraception gain this benefit regardless if their motivation of taking contraception was that of the health benefit.
Did you even read what I wrote? I specifically addressed this in my post. Even if no public assistance programs existed YOU WOULD STILL burden the cost. Insurance companies and hospitals charge YOU more when someone else goes to the hospital and cannot pay. YOU don't escape this even if you want to. That cost then raises your premiums and the cost of procedures that you need. If people have children that they cannot afford those children will become homeless and usually this is associated w/ increases in crime. Which then mean YOU have to spend more money on police or you have to spend more money on personal security measures. This also lowers the property value of your home and lowers the business appeal of your neighborhood. Additionally if these women get sick- as I already said- from diseases that could have been prevented had they been on contraception then you have to pay for their treatment. You pay for it via the increases premiums and the increased medical care.
Also BTW Eric eating right and exercising usually relates to a lower premium on your insurance plan and almost all insurance plans will cover you in some way regarding these 2 things. But beyond this exercising and eating right are not forms of medication. This is a false equivalency argument.
your fist statement:
100% of woman can't take contraceptives, I know a handful that due to side effects, cannot take it. I believe you were trying to say 100% of woman who take contraceptives benefit from it. I guess I could say 100% of people who take aspirin (no not between the knees), benefit as well.
What is medicaid/medicare for then? Hospitals will absolutely use means to collect what is due. They will set you up a payment plan, I know some who have done just that.
Yes you are correct I misspoke. I did mean to say that 100% of women who take contraception benefit from it. This is why it's included as part of preventative health care because it has so many preventative effects. When you take contraception it helps lower your health risks for a plethora of diseases.
Seriously?! We are having this conversation again? We discussed this 2 years ago w/ the health care debate.
A. Hospitals do not always charge people for their treatments because they know that even if they take the person through civil court they will not gain any payments. Hospitals usually pick and choose whom to charge on the basis of ability to pay when it comes to those who are uninsured. This is part of what they work out w/ you in the payment office. Most people will end up paying for their treatments yes. However even if someone goes on a payment plan you still end up getting charged more. This is because the hospital has to compensate for the costs until they are fully paid. If someone doesn't get charged for their treatment then the hospital will have to compensate for the entire cost which will never get paid. Additionally people who are uninsured or unable to receive medical care will put off going to a doctor until their condition becomes a crises and that inflates medical costs.
B. Medicaid/medicare do not cover the entire population or even the entire population of the poor. You must also have medicaid/medicare prior to becoming sick in order for this to be covered. Most people who are uninsured are lower income to middle income and do not qualify for early reception of medicaid/medicare because they are not disabled, not unemployed, and not below the poverty line. This is where the bulk of problems exist when it comes to healthcare. Beyond this if medicaid/medicare covered everyone who was uninsured we wouldn't be having a conversation about ACA or health reform in the first place.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/ending-hospital-price-discrimination-against-the-uninsured/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/28/us-usa-healthcare-costs-sb-idUSTRE54R21S20090528
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/05/20110510a.html
https://www.blueshieldca.com/bsca/about-blue-shield/newsroom/covering-uninsured.sp
Forget about arguing with Eric. When you don't begin to understand the basics of insurance (spread the costs among a bunch of people so no one has to spend too much), then you aren't bright enough to make a rational argument.
His argument boils down to since I'm in a group that doesn't have a risk for heart attacks, why should pay for insurance to cover your heart problems? Since I live in the Florida and you're in Wisconsin, why should I have to pay to cover your frost bite? Since I'm an African American, why should I have to pay to cover your melanoma, especially since treatment is expensive and not too effective?
I think Mickey should argue with anyone she wants to. It may be futile, but she has the patience to do it and someone should. I prefer pure verbal sadism myself, but this is a moderated forum and I have personal limits (not always enforced).
Eric's main problems are that a) he's all man, and b) he isn't smart enough to simply shut up and listen to women. Gov. Haley is an obvious outlier, a sad GOP hack, and can and should be ignored. But he should listen to Mickey and every other woman commenting on this blog.
No man, or any biological male, can possibly have any gnosis of what it means to live life biologically female. Some things you just have to be to understand. Therefore, everyone not biologically female who speaks on this subject without first absorbing all the life-wisdom from women that he can is simply a freaking worthless idiot who deserves ridicule and censure. By making the arguments that he is making, Eric is showing complete disrespect for all women. Why, then, should anyone take him seriously and show him any respect?
As this is a moderated forum, I am going to stop right there. I think I've made my feelings plain enough. Mickey probably deserves a medal for trying to reason with this guy. Or a sainthood (although an atheistic saint would be quite a novelty).
Eric-no one is asking you to take contraception. No one is asking you to pay for it. If men want to live without sex, fine with me. But if you don't, then perhaps you and all other men should take more responsibility for handling the birth control. Statistics from the 1960's forward all show that women wind up having to take the larger share of the cost and responsibility for birth control. You may argue that as we are the ones who get pregnant, it's on us to make sure we don't. Again, I say, if this keeps up, more males of your persuasion should plan on less sex. Hey, it may improve the gene pool.
No not really, but nice try.
So only woman Doctors can understand woman health issues and treat them? Only Doctors that have had cancer can treat cancer patients? Yeah, that's not stupid at all.
Eric, you seem determined not to understand anything, which only draws a bright line under my comments. You do not understand because you do not wish to learn, you do not listen because you do not wish to hear. You ignorance and deafness would be pitiable, if not for the fact that your infirmities are self-inflicted. You have made yourself small and mean and spiteful because, I think, you are afraid of being otherwise.
I am going to put you on ignore now, because whether or not people are responding to you, you are really only talking to yourself. You only care about yourself. So why bother with you at all?
Yes, just put your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you", very mature, but not that surprising honestly. I agree you should leave the the responses to Mouzer anyway, instead of the name calling and deflecting you get some actual insight, which you lack.
You heard it from Nikki baby! Women don't care about contraception, they care about families.. ... ... And about how proud her parents are! And SC Johnson, a "family" company!
(Pukes.. .. ..)
Like Mr. Duffy said above. Where the Hell are the journalists who investigate again? I certainly don't expect them on The View but WTF?
Do they have an estimation on how many women use birth control? That should tell you how important it is to women. Of course, women are going to be an uproar if they are unable to get birth control pills. Once, the shock is over as to what the GOP is doing, which is now, women will be fighting back and it'll show at the polls. In my opinion God inadvertantly gave us the ability to create birth control in order that his daughters could live healthier lives.
The number usually thrown about is that 98% of all women of childbearing age have used some form of contraception at some point in their lives. I personally suspect that the only reason it's not 100% is that right-wing women probably lie about when polled on this subject, although obviously I can't prove that.
I don't know about 'inadvertently'. If you or anyone believes that we owe our existence to an all-powerful transcendent being who cares about our well-being (don't ask me why), then it logically follows that we have these ginormous brains for some other purpose than simply keeping the tops of our skulls from caving in.
Eric!-2804575 - I am all for women paying for their own contriception as soon as men start paying for their own Viagra.
If men are not smart enough to recognize how much more freedom they have because of contraception, they should crawl back into their cave. Not having 12 kids allows economic freedom, for your family and, innumerable benefits to childhood and later educational opportunities for your children. We allegedly can not afford to educate the children we already have, so doubling or tripling family size is a nonstarter. Those of you willing to forgo sex, more power to you, but stay out of the rest of our bedrooms.
I loved my Gramma I just wish she were healthier after having 11 kids so she could have played more with her many, many grandchilden. I have 36 cousins.
Hear, hear!!! I have yet to date a guy who was unconcerned about having a little accident...
It's rather astonishing, actually, how some men have taken for granted the availability of birth control. A lot of young guys nowadays just assume that women are on the pill, or that the Pill (or Plan B) is just there--somewhere--waiting to be had... I guess this won't sink in for menfolk until they have to go from store to store trying to find a pharmacist who doesn't morally object to Plan B in particular or contraception in general... Or when their paychecks get garnished for child support...
Since when do Repuknican arguments need to be coherent or true?
As statistically, only about 98% of adult women have used contraceptives; it must be accurate that they don't care! It is probably the other 2% who do care because they know that the only reason and purpose for having sex is procreation.
"Since when do repuknican arguments need to be coherent or true?"
For more evidence for your statement, see Eric above.
Nicki sold her soul to become Governor, hope the rewards are worth it.
She may not get much from it, but even so the buyer was cheated.
This could also have to do with a generation gap that is now going on. If you look at it, it's exactly the opposite of the generation gap of the 60's. When did we start digressing? Maybe these young men in the GOP know how to keep it in their pants but, try explaining that to other men who coerce young women into sex so their acne will clear up. They're trying to punish the wrong group of people.
Although she was quite charming with Jon Stewart last night, she is either delusional or lying about this issue. Women have absolutely no reason to vote Republican. Remember, ladies, elections have consequences!
Mmmhmmm....Women care about "ALL OF THE ABOVE" ie: Contraception, Jobs, Economy, health care and even foreign policy! Are we too dumb to multitask our concerns Gov. Haley? In her attempt to deflect serious policy issues brought about by her fellow GOPers...not the media...she just insulted my intelligence. All of the above works in conjunction with the other. We care about all of it...ALOT.
So Nikki -- may I call you Nikki? --- Nikki, if women care about, among other things "raising their families" mightn't controlling the SIZE of that family be a pretty important issue for them?
Uh, Nikki is not part of the group of women I belong to. You know,the one that cares about Jobs, Economy, Health Care, AND Contraception. But I suppose she's either a mother of a thousand children and doesn't think she should stop according to God, or she just practices abstinence. -_-
Nikki belongs to the group of women who have never had to worry about feeding their children no matter how many they have, work or no work. That's what the help is for.
Damn right
Interesting that she reversed herself as soon as she was challenged ...
Clearly the ability to plan and limit the size of one's family is an economic issue. It is also a health issue. Women still die of complications from pregnancy, or have life long medical issues stemming from pregnancy.
"If contraceptives are needed for cramps, acne, or other medical condition, sure it should be handled as any other prescription, but not just because you want to have sex without getting pregnant."
Health insurance is essentially pooled money. People pay into the pool regardless of whether they are using it and their coverage is not based on a dollar for dollar exchange. We all pay for other people's medical care. Preventative medicine is the best use of our money, whether it is mammograms for early detection and treatment of breast cancer; prostate exams and blood tests for early detection and treatment of prostate cancer; routine screenings for TB, diabetes, high cholesterol - the list goes on. If Dick Cheney used his taxpayer provided insurance for his heart transplant, we all paid for it. And yes, we pay for Viagra for the very people trying to limit women's access to contraceptives. Last I checked, pregnancy necessitates medical care, so why should prevention of pregnancy or pregnancy itself be handled differently from any other medical needs?
Of course, women wouldn't need contraceptives if they weren't having sex with men, who seem to be the most vociferous about women abstaining from sex if they don't want to pay the consequences of pregnancy. I find it hard to believe that all of these men are abstaining from sex or having sex without contraception, which makes their position the very definition of hypocrisy, or perhaps, insanity.
Yes contraceptive access is an economic issue. It's also about our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I've seen reports that the right wing mentality has problems dealing with more than one concept at a time. I really have. That is a true statement.
When you bring into the conversation health insurance being pooled money and then talk about preventive medicine and then add onto that economic issues, you cause brain overload. They just aren't able to process all of it at once. Hence the importance of bumper stickers and sound bites and talking points in the right wing world.
Judging by majority of comments, this is how you fight lies & stupidity.
I'm reluctant to put it this way, but seriously ...
When you get to the point where you have to entrust your party's fate to Nikki Haley for damage control, you are in some seriously deep and smelly trouble.
A shame that Gov. Haley is such a pathetic and bad liar. I'm guessing she would consider herself a "good Christian", wonder how she excuses herself to her deity.
A pity that she is willing to sacrifice her integrity on the pyre of Republican ideology.
"Women don't care about contraception; they care about jobs and the economy and raising their families and all those things.... The media wants to talk about contraception." (Governor Nikki Haley)
Bingo.
Contraception is a non-issue - and everybody knows it.
The media, the administration and its allies had their poster-child in Sandra Fluke attempting to keep framing the issue as being all about curtailing a woman's access to contraception. This, of course, is a red herring. Absolutely NOBODY has suggested restricting anybody's access to contraception.
The issue was all about religious freedom: whether religious institutions should be forced to violate the tenets of their faith by offering insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.
That's it. End of story.
The leftist media continues their steep decline in rational thinking....
No it's not a red-herring. You are confusing a red-herring w/ a straw man. A red herring is when you divert the conversation away to address a position you find more defensible. A straw man is when you purposefully mischaracterize another person's argument to a position that's more simple that you perceive will be easier to address. I told you this last time. This is where it gets frustrating: you've been corrected once before and yet continue to regurgitate the same talking point.
Secondly Democrats did NOT bring this issue up. It was not the Democrats who chose to have a hearing in Congress (thereby bringing up Sandra Fluke) nor was it Democrats who decided to bar Miss Fluke from testifying before Congress. It was not the Democrats who howled more than a year after ACA was passed that now suddenly and magically the ACA limits freedom of religion. This all started because Newt Gingrich stated that this limited religious freedom and then the right decided to grab ahold of the issue and demagog it. Unfortunately the right did not realize that the public likes contraception and wouldn't have sympathy w/ their position and now the right is desperately trying to switch the blame on Democrats for an issue they started. Because, ya know, personal responsibility and such.
Lastly, as was stated before, there is no reason that a church should be able to discriminate against it's employees or students on the basis of moral objection. The church chooses whether or not it will provide health insurance. If it provides health insurance then it is making a choice to provide coverage for contraception.
That's it. End of story
If a church wants to place limitations on insurance policies for employees based on actual religious beliefs - that should be shared by all employees - fine with me. Employees would have signed off on that when they accepted employment. Georgetown Un. is not a church - but a university affiliated with the Catholic Church. The university's policies violate the tenets of the Church (giving a resigned OK to consensual sex among unmarried faculty, staff, and students; and facilitating a LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,Questioning) community on campus. They also encourage a diverse faculty, staff, and student body - required if they accept any Federal money. They have no claim to the "religious freedom" that the Church could claim. Contrast Georgetown to Bob Jones University. No male female touching between students on campus - no male female touching between students off campus. If Bob Jones offered insurance to students, they would have no problem in declining to cover birth control for unmarried students.
@Adam- that was kind've my point. But i did not clarify and I should have. If you are someone who is hired by a religious institution to represent that religious institution on that institution's faith then I do believe the church can ask you to do this or that. This would be because you'd be representing the faith under an assumed title associated to and presumably exclusive to that faith. So, in other words, if I am hired as a nun then yes I would agree that my health insurance (if any) can have limitations. But this was not what I was talking about and I should've clarified that.
What we are talking about here are not people who are hired under religious titles to represent the faith. They aren't being hired as nuns who then go on to perform medical procedures at a Catholic hospital. They are hired as doctors and are never put under the presumption of having to be anything other than doctors. They can be atheists or any other plethora of religious representation. They do not presume to represent the Catholic faith. And, because of this, they are being hired as a standard, general employee. In their case it would be discriminatory to say that they must adhere to the tenants of a faith that they don't ascribe to for purposes that they may not agree w/ and that they did not explicitly elect to agree w/. The point I was getting at is you can't say "we want to have a diverse faculty or a diverse student body" and then turn around and say "but we want all of them to conform to our religious beliefs." That is discriminatory (and not to mention wickedly hypocritical and unconstitutional).
"The leftist media continues their steep decline in rational thinking...."
You almost got it right. What you meant to say was "decline into rational thinking..." We've actually been there the whole time. You might try it sometime.
So you don't recall any of Santorum's statements that he would put an end to contraception, and that he thinks that prenatal exams promote more abortions......really.
I think SC folks may suffer from some kind of political embarassement PTSD. Haley certainly does not speak for all SC women. I know Republicans and moderate women in SC who have been outraged over GOP War on Women. We're going to have a march in Columbia on April 28th. The Republicans have really hurt themselves by bringing up the abortion and contraception.