As Mitt Romney has closed the gap against President Obama in the polls -- and in some cases, inched ahead -- the enormous gender gap that benefited the incumbent has dwindled, too. It appears, then, that the president and his allies are eager to keep women's health and reproductive rights in the spotlight, hoping to remind women voters what's at stake from a progressive perspective.
The Obama campaign unveiled this new spot over the weekend, which will air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia. If my count is correct, it's the sixth television spot Obama has unveiled on this issue in recent months.
For those who can't watch clips online, the voiceover tells viewers, "As you're making your decision, maybe you're wondering what to believe about Mitt Romney. Well, when it comes to protecting your access to birth control, and the basic women's health care services Planned Parenthood provides, one thing we must remember, is this: 'I'll cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.'
"He'll cut it off. Cut us off 'Planned Parenthood. We're going to get rid of that.' Women need to know the real Mitt Romney."
Also today, actors Scarlett Johansson, Eva Longoria, and Kerry Washington appear in a new spot from MoveOn.org Political Action, stressing the same concerns, including Romney's intentions to see Roe v. Wade overturned and the recent Republican effort to redefine rape. The spot is reportedly set to air in Virginia and Colorado.
Leave a Comment:
As important as the women's heath issues are I can't help but keep thinking of this in terms not of health but morals. This is genuinely in the end all about whether or not, you are allowed to have sex, when and with who.
People need to take this seriously because the broader implications are pretty scary stuff
Much of Republican arguments about abortion have everything to do with punishing women who dare to have sex outside of marriage and the intention to reproduce. Progressives care about health. It's the Republicans that insist that there's a moral issue that ought to be involved.
.
I remember Ronald saying (effectively) how he wanted to turn the clock back to the 50's when people didn't question the Government and the world of Father Knows Best.
And I'm reminded of a point made by Allan Sherman in his book 'Rape of the A*P*E'.
Sherman's point being:
At marriage boys were suppose to be sexually experienced while girls were suppose to be virgins.
Who were the boys having sex with? If boys are suppose to be sexually proficient and girls virgins ... What?
Society created the premise that there was one girl per neighborhood or class or town that did it with all the boys. Hundreds of boys and one girl. She must have been busy, take a number, this one won't take long, Paul and Mitt have hair triggers, ... The single girl servicing ALL the guys, don't need to tell what she was called.
Doesn't matter that the math doesn't add up, not even close. (We all know how much use the Republican has for math.)
The functional aspect of the "Lone Servicer" fiction was it freed up the other girls to carry on as they wished.
So yes, it is scary. Back then it's scary that society would create such a transparent fiction and fully believe in the fiction, even though women knew there were two girls having sex, the lone servicer and that woman herself.
Whats scary today is we are no less prone to creating no less transparent fictions, and there will be use of those fictions to tell us who and how we can have sex.
I hope I stated all this correctly.
.
You also have to consider that thee were within that mythology no gay people, no transgendered people, and mothers lil' helper was a bottle of Valium
The world has changed these people have not
All this hubbub about abortion has never been about "unborn children." If it was, this would be the #1 issue for the GOP. If these people sincerely believe that abortion is killing humans with rights equal to their own, any less than complete dedication to stopping it shows moral weakness.
Hence why they almost certainly don't believe it. They want to restrict woman's rights. If they have to lie to do it, they'll be happy to do so.
This is all great, but Obama need to directly confront ROmney in the debate.
You told huckabee you absolutely supported a personhood amendment - still the case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHWulL3Ydw&feature=player_embedded
Personhood amendment is in the republican platform, so yes, Romney supports it. If he didn't, it should have been removed during the convention and there goes Romney's support amongst the religious right... Onward theocratic soldiers...
..."marching as to war"....under a Romney/Ryan administration.
AdamantiumBeta , I agree fully , but you do not present anything in question form to romney and the gop lying machine , you just bash them over the head with it relentlessly , and make his face turn bright red again and again ....and the angry white guy candidate will step forward
It just does not make sense that Romney has evened the women's vote. It is easier to believe he could lead with seniors. Obama has to pound both hard from now until the polls close. It is a crying shame that lying is in. People don't seem to realize what is more than likely to happen in a Romney win, a reversal of the new deal that created the middleclass we used to have.
A lot of women voting for Romney don't think their reproductive rights are at stake since they think they're never going to get an abortion anyway and that that they'll be glad to pay for their own contraception. They also don't believe that there's an economic relevance to it, which is incredibly short-sighted, but that's what I've gotten from women voting Republican that I know. A lot of women voting for Romney think that the economy can only be influenced by money: Cutting back on spending, giving money to corporations, making the rich richer... but they fail to see that economic growth relies just as much on things like equal pay for women, education, marriage equality, affordable health care.
Has Romney really closed the gap with women or are a lot of younger women being under counted in the "likely voter" screens that started right after the first debate?
I don't know many women who swapped votes after the first debate. Do you?
.
I keep hammering home how Republicans are trying to turn the clock back to the time when Women were kept barefoot, pregnant and chained to the stove.
The Republican wants to keep dragging us back instead of allowing is to move forward,
The Republican can't figure out the world they want to drag us back to not only doesn't exist, and never did exist, nor can the Ozzie and Harriet world be recreated in the world of today, and todays world isn't going to wait around for America.
The world of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Hazel" ever existed, folks. Except for on TV.
.
"that world they want to drag us back to not only doesn't exist but can no longer exist nor can it be recreated in the world of today"
Sure it can all you need to do is follow "The manufactures handbook", disregard science, basic human rights and in general divorce yourself from all forms of reality. (bans on music, dancing and various "Dangerous" books are optional)
Why is this term even being used? It's really the opposite if that.
If you are talking about health, why is it healthy to abort a healthy fetus? Why can't women/men pay for their own contraceptives? Is this what the voters really care about? It's what the left wants to bring to the forefront to get voters to take the eye off the economy. DO you want to pay a whole $10 for your own contraceptives? How dare they take away my personal responsibility to take care of my personal choices!!! Is that more important than a job to most Americans?
You do realize, Eric, that the pill and the IUD would be banned under the personhood amendment. Using them would be murder. This issue is fundamental. Do you want big government, the Catholic bishops and fundamentalist preachers punishing you for having sex if you aren't trying make a baby? If so Mitt Romney is the man for you.
Eric, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the liberal viewpoint on the issue of abortion. Pro-choice people do not want every fetus to be aborted, and in fact most of us Pro-choice people are for contraceptives to prevent pregnancies that aren't wanted, thereby lowering the number of abortion procedures done. You see, if the girl doesn't get pregnant, then she doesn't have to make that choice to abort.
The majority of the girls who are having unwanted pregnancies are young. Young women are more likely to be unable to afford contraception. The effects of both carrying to term or having an abortion have repercussions that will last the rest of that woman's life, and i think it should be much more important to prevent those consequences then crying about $10 the government is giving them to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
@Ron - good points, my wife uses an IUD and under the republican platform she would be put in jail for life for our using it to prevent having more than our 2 sons. i wonder if vascetomies would be next on the jailable offenses list, and if they will make male masturbation a crime next because i'm denying those sperm the chance at becoming a fetus... This is why Personhood Amendments are absolute folly, slippery slope and all.
...men and women do pay for their own contraceptives
A fetus can't be determined as healthy until it has been growing inside of the mother for a certain time period- usually speaking the time when we can examine the fetus and know anything about it is after the time period a woman would be having an abortion. This is a false premise.
Just so everyone knows giving people access to contraception- such as by including it as part of their insurance coverage or by doing so for free- reduces the likelihood of abortion by as much as 70%.
False dichotomy. Reproductive health issues effect the economy. Are they economic policies? No. They are social polices. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a criss-cross of impact. Additionally why are Republicans pushing the legislation that Democrats are reporting on? Are those Republicans also trying to distract from the economy? Also how does this distract from the economy? Last time I checked no one has forgotten the economy, especially in this conversation- how very presumptuous of you.
This is grossly overstating the cost of contraception. The generic form of the birth control pill can be purchased for this much with a coupon, but that form of the birth control pill doesn't work for all women. You shouldn't be labeling this "10$ for your contraceptives" since we're talking about one particular birth control pill (there are hundreds of types of contraceptives out there and not all of them are the pill; there are also dozens of forms of "the pill"). Additionally the company that makes this pill, for the record, is heavily subsidized by the US government which is why it is able to offer the pill at such a cheap price.
Additionally no one is taking away from women or men the responsibility of purchasing what contraception they are going to use. The ACA simply mandates that certain types of contraception, like the IUD, be covered by insurance companies as part of preventative care (since they do prevent a plethora of medical conditions, not just pregnancy). Preventative care measures are to be covered in your premium so your insurance company is not allowed to charge you more on top of the premium you pay for this type of healthcare. The individual still has to pay their premium in order to gain this coverage.
Who is doing this and how are they doing it?
False dichotomy. You can focus on more issues at once than just jobs. The idea that you have to be singular focused speaks more to the fact that you are a man than it does to the fact that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. There is nothing antagonistic to the process of creating jobs by covering contraception; in fact just the opposite is true. In virtually every society world wide women dictate the purchasing power of the family; in the US women account for about 80% of purchases made by any one particular family. Women having the ability to control whether or not they get pregnant will impact the purchasing habits of a family and that will alter economic growth. If more than 80% of families also need 2 income earners and if the Great Recession was also the mancession then that means eliminating or inhibiting access to things like contraception actually will exasperate the problems of the recession in the long term. Common sense here people.
Reproductive rights is absolutely the correct term. The republican position - with no legal abortion or contraception is their attempt, for moral reasons, to make the act of sex for procreation purposes only. Want to prevent pregnancy? Can't - oh, wait, there's always abstinence. Pregnant? You are forced to give birth. Your right to reproduce on your terms is gone.
If Republicans really cared about abortion (as in minimizing the number of abortions performed) they would be for cheap/free contraception. Free contraception equates to fewer pregnancies and hence fewer abortions. It remains to be seen if outlawing abortions will reduce the number - rather they might be performed in another country, or by less qualified non-medical personnel, etc. So the combination of no contraception and no legal abortion is most likely to result in more abortions than the combination of free contraception and legal abortion, with the addition of criminalizing a woman's reproductive choice and the potential harm to the health of the woman.
Isn't it also more fiscally conservative to have a society that has fewer unwanted children in the system, either waiting for adoption or on welfare? How many unwanted children actually escape welfare or don't end up as wards of the state or in prison? I am in no way saying there is a guarantee that an unwanted child will end up being a problem adult - just that some will and they will be a burden on society.
This is why people complain that republicans are interested in the "child" only until it is born and then it is on its own.
Please do not confuse "Pro-choice" with "Pro-abortion;" pro-choice want that option to be legal.
Also, let's not forget that birth control pills are used for other purposes besides contraception.
Look at it this way Eric.
It isn't paying for contraception, it's about having access to contraception.
It's like being in the middle of a desert with no water but $1,000,000 in your pocket.
All that money isn't doing you any good if there isn't someone there to provide you water at any price or even out of the kindness of their hearts.
The "Personhood Amendment" has been mentioned, I can't help but see that amendment putting us on a slippery slope to the creation of a Contraception Desert.
And if thats the case, Eric, imagine looking at your beautiful wife and knowing your options are either making another baby or "unnatural sex acts", assuming fellatio to be the other option. Because once you're married .... never mind.
.
Perhaps you just have no idea of just how much social spending is casued by many unintended pregancies; welfare, medicaid, and all too often child protective services like foster care.
Its a numbers thing, not religioin.
I read a study once in college that explained nations that restrict abortions either to instances of just rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger have little difference in their abortion rate (meaning the number doesn't decrease, but we don't see huge increases either), but nations that completely outlaw abortion have an increase of the abortion rate. I want to say the study was looking at abortions per 1,000 or 10,000 (recalling from memory so forgive me here for not being on the ball accurate). But if I am recalling correctly the study could not distinguish if this was because of abortion itself or because in almost all nations where abortion is restricted and/or illegal so too is contraception and sex education is either non-existent or incredibly restricted. I seem to recall it saying that there hasn't been a nation that had public sexual health education and free access to contraception, but that did not allow women to have abortions.
Why do people like eric think they have some kind of right to question HC insurance companies about covering birth control ? this has to be one of the most bizarre stances to be taken by people in the 21st century , and the supposed liberal main stream media never even blink at this 1600's puritan BS being shoved down every ones throats
But but the free market!!!!!!!
Mitt and the gang are religious extremists on such subjects , yet they all get a pass , I guarantee the low informed voters would wonder wtf happen if the puritans are voted into office , they will wonder how the msm could miss something so overly obvious , excusing their own stupidity as usual
This is important. This past weekend I was with a group that included several conservative women. They were making supportive comments about Ryan and Romney. When I raised the issue of women's right to choose their healthcare and reproductive practices, they looked thoughtful and said things like: "Yes, I also think that is important." The tone was one of trying to recall that issue. IF women care about these issues, they must constantly bring it up even when they are accused of not caring about the important issues like the economy and jobs. Surely women see reproductive rights as an economic issue? If so, say so!
I think abortion is barberic, to be honest. HOWEVER, what I find MORE disgusting is having someone else, especially a man, making choices for women. I think we all WISH for fewer unwanted pregnancies. No one actually likes abortion. We should be doing everything we can to protect a woman's right to choose. But we should also be doing everything we can to prevent unwanted pregnancies. On both counts, the GOP fails miserably. So, you can be against abortion, but for reproductive rights. In addtion, I look at free contraception as a very cheap investment.
Well stated.
Yes, well stated.
No one is Pro-Abortion.
The Anti-Abortion movement wouldn't be disgusting if they were also Pro-Birth Control.
But the Anti-Abortion crowd is also Anti Contraception which makes me wonder if their sane , and if they are sane Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is their ultimate goal?
.
Like I said last week, if they overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw contraception, there had better be a DAMN long line of pro-lifers waiting to adopt and take all those babies into their homes.
There are so many things going on here; all equally important. First, it's not just a "Romney/Ryan" desire. It is the "Republican Plan," which means that any republican elected to any position is in on the Plan. I say that because this election has taught me one thing over all else, they are liars; therefore, for me, everything anyone of them says is a lie PERIOD.
Also, the term "personhood" amendment does not get it out there to the young women that it also means access to birth control whether or not it is from Planned Parenthood. It is planned parenthood - with small letters - the Repugnicants are after.
They want to elminate Unions as well as the minimum wage. They want to turn all medical insurance into vouchers until such time as they are able to totally eliminate all employer benefits. They will elminate any tax deduction that benefits middle class people like mortgage interest. They want to privatize anything that is presently a government run "business" because they have friends that own companies just waiting to run that business for you. Can you say snake oil salesman?
The short of it is, they want you to have to pay out of your wages for any benefits that are presently employer provided while simultaneously being able to pay you the lowest possible wages.
It's your children that will have no or crappy medical insurance; get a crappy education and eventually a crappy job with crappy wages; your children that will fight their wars while they and their children profit from munitions contracts, etc.
In other words, they want to bring on the aristocracy where they will let "you little people" work for us unless you displease us; then we will just fire you because we like to fire people. There will be no recourse under the law because your protections, such as they are, will have been repealed.
Knowing that this sounds like conspiracy theory, I stand by it. I'm watching; reading; listening to the bullet points they each and every one of them spout like robotic and/or hypnotised stepford politicians and in all cases it leads to the privatisation of the USA.
Their allegience is pledged to the USA, Inc. !!!
This is deadly serious and doesn't end with this election.
You are right on the money. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory when a) this coordinated effort by the GOP can be observed and b) when many of these points are mentioned by a former GOP operative here.
"10.9 million children under 5 die in developing countries each year. Malnutrition and hunger related diseases cause 60% of the deaths." The State of the World's Children UNICEF 2007 The anti-choice movement prevents family planning and contraception funding in many aid packages. Here at home, with the push to privatize prisons, underfed and undereducated children grow into potential forced labor in the prison system of the future.
Protecting reproductive rights will be the icing on the cake if we keep the economy and what all of Pres. Obama's policies do for women(and everyone), in the forefront. By keeping Obama care(s) women no longer have to pay higher health insurance premiums than men… we will prevent more unwanted pregnancies because insurance will cover the cost of contraception for those who can’t afford it, saving each of us and the system lots of money… children won't be burdened with the high cost of individual health insurance because they can stay on their parents insurance until they are 26… we no longer have to pay for preventive care, including a whole host of expensive screenings for women's healthcare… and last but not least, pre-existing conditions no longer apply to children born with an illness so parents, like my friends who gave birth to a precious baby boy with a heart defect, can get insurance instead of paying out of pocket for a lifetime of medical costs. Pres. Obama's first act in office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act ensuring women get equal pay for equal work and Mitt Romney still isn't clear on how he feels about this, which makes it clear this protection isn't safe if he's elected. These are just a few specific issues that more directly affect women but this doesn't even begin to cover the long list of economic benefits for all of us, from Democrats history proven economic policies.
Its my opinion that any woman who votes against Obama is voting against her own self interests. This is because of what? racism, ignorance? stupidity? god knows, but its not smart....if Obama loses, the supreme court goes conservative for another generation and they are already the most conservative court in a generation...come on women (and men who are feminists) ...VOTE...
It's like there is a collective, unconscious social urge to turn it into an actual race--or at least make it look like it's close. And it scares me.
Mr. Romney,
A woman’s access to contraception reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies.
This is a win-win for both sides
The reduction in unwanted pregnancies also reduces the number of abortions that may result.
Also, a win-win.
Religion aside, why would you not support a mandate on employer provided health insurance plans, which the woman PAYS for, allowing a woman (either free or at a reduce cost) access to contraception? Do you understand the cost of (unwanted) pregnancies carried to term versus the cost of contraception?
Which do you think the insurance provider and employer would choose?
I know many employers would rather have someone at work, not out for 6-8 weeks for PAID maternity leave, what say you?
In my recent canvass routes, a pretty large majority of the women I talk to directly support Obama. But there have been at least three cases where the man of the house answers the door, and when I tell him I'm a volunteer for the Obama campaign and ask for the woman of the house, the man has refused to let me speak with her because he supports Romney.
Hopefully these women know that "he" might control her in their house, but not in the voting booth.
Eric, consider this: A man can walk into a pharmacy or walmart or whatever and buy a pack of condoms. Birth control: Done.
A women must make an appointment with a doctor, have a very personal examination, and get a prescription for pills. Then they go to a pharmacy and get their prescription filled. The cost of the exam and pills is FAR more than a pack of condoms.
Many men don't want to use condoms. Or if the moment is right, they don't have any. Then they become frustrated, even angry, because their desire goes unfulfilled.
Women are almost always the ones who have to be responsible for reliable birth control. Condoms have a high failure rate.
I needed a tubal ligation because of a condition that made it dangerous for me to become pregnant. Since all methods of birth control do have a failure rate, that procedure was medically necessary. My health insurance did not want to pay for it, so my doctor had to go through miles of unnecessary paperwork to finally get it authorized. So you see, the government did not come between me and my doctor. The insurance company already does that.
Depending upon which anti-abortion person you speak to, they'll either tell you they oppose all abortion, or they oppose all but make an exception for rape and incest. But they all agree abortion is murder. So it's OK to murder a fetus in case of rape?
You may think I'm arguing their side here. What I'm actually arguing is that their position has very little real "moral" underpinning at all, but is mainly politically expedient to fire up the base—but not offend those who think a woman shouldn't be forced to raise her attacker's child.
Ryan, bless his heart, has taken BOTH positions, exceptions and no exceptions.