Getty Images
For much of the last two years, Republican policymakers have targeted contraception access in ways unseen in decades, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), eager to position himself as a national party leader, wants the GOP to change course. At least a little, anyway.
In an op-ed published today in the Wall Street Journal, the Republican governor even goes so far as to say oral contraceptives should be sold "over the counter without a prescription."
As a conservative Republican, I believe that we have been stupid to let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend, during debates about health-care insurance, that Republicans are somehow against birth control. It's a disingenuous political argument they make.
As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it. But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others.
It'd be helpful if Jindal explained his policy position in a little more detail, but based on the op-ed, it looks like he's taking one step forward and two steps back.
The good news is, the governor says, as a general policy, he doesn't want to restrict access to contraception -- this automatically puts him to the left of Rick Santorum and his allies -- and sees value in making birth control available over the counter. The op-ed is silent, however, on specific controversies over access to emergency contraception and morning-after pills.
It also does not address the issue of cost. Sure, it's unusual for a Republican with national ambitions to talk about making contraception available without a prescription, but the larger policy argument has been about making preventive health care available to Americans without copays. There's also been a spirited debate over public support for institutions like Planned Parenthood, where so many Americans are able to receive affordable preventive care, and Jindal's op-ed is silent on this, too.
But it's the part about "religious objections" that underscores an even larger problem.
Remember the Blunt Amendment? That was the Republican proposal, named after its lead sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, that would have allowed employers who provide health insurance to their employees to decide whether those workers can have access to birth control (or vaccines, or HIV tests, or anything else the boss might find morally objectionable).
Jindal's op-ed says the "government shouldn't be in the business of banning [contraception] or requiring a woman's employer to keep tabs on her use of it." That's nice, but no one is suggesting employers keep tabs on employees' use of contraception. The question is whether those employers can, on a whim, deny employees' contraception access as part of their health insurance plan.
And based on this op-ed, it sounds Jindal still supports the point of the Blunt Amendment.
If Jindal's WSJ piece is supposed to be evidence of progress on women's health care and conservative politics, Republicans still have a ways to go.
Leave a Comment:
Nice end-around Bobby.
Making the Pill available over-the-counter means your prescription drug benefits don't apply. It sounds like you are increasing access, but you are also reducing the benefit and increasing the cost to the user.
The party of free stuff strikes again!
It's true Shooter: The Republicans want things to be free for corporations.
Not necessarily so. If it is still legal to get a prescription for birth control pills, and given that certain cohorts of the population do need to be monitored (older women, smokers), then a person who wants her insurance to cover the purchase can go to her doctor for an exam. The insurance would still be required to cover both the exam and the purchase. Possibly since the cost of the annual medical exam is as much or more than the cost of the pills, the insurance companies might agree to pay the OTC cost in order to avoid the medical exam cost, too.
Michman, I think you hit a fresh truth (at least for me). Cutting corporate expenses leaves more profits for the stockholders...whoever they might be.
Stockholders, Wallstreet, Big Banks, Caymans...all one big filth laden circle.
This is not about religious rights unless it is the right to force people who are not of their religion to abide by it. It seems more about the employees lack of rights to go against an employers religion. You don't have to use insurance to buy contraceptives if you don't believe in it. I don't think you should be able to decide what others can have access to because of your religious beliefs.
OT but instructive.
profits = filth. But without profits, there are no new jobs and no new tax revenue. Is that really what you want?
To understand Republicans, just go look at the "Peanuts" cartoon where Lucy is holding the football...
The Republicans are always Lucy.
There is not a one-size fits all BCP. Many will get pregnant if the dose is too low. The risks of blood clots and bleeding can not be adequately dealt with over the counter. As Mike in #1 said, it will be much more expensive than deductibles. Look at how much more Prilosec cost otc compared to deductibles and how much more money the insurance company makes with the otc's. It is not a good idea at this time.
The teapubs always use religion as an excuse for everything. I wish they would practice what they preach.
They want to take away abortion and birth control so women will pump out those babies they can send to war. We all know THEY won't go.
interesting comment considering that it was Obama who kept Iraq going for 3 years of his term, and it's Obama who has kept the war in Afghanistan going still, even increasing the amount of troops there... but hey, don't let any facts get in your way.
And it was Bush who started the Iraq war. But hey, don't let any facts get in YOUR way.
And: you just can't end a war overnight. It takes planning and time to do so. And you have no idea what it takes to end a war that shouldn't have happened in the first place. But hey, don't let any facts get in YOUR way.
And it is Obama who is ending the Afghanistan war in a responsible way, when Bush just ignored Afghanistan for 8 long years. But hey, don't let any facts get in YOUR way.
They only want to save babies so they can cut whatever benefits they may need if they are poor.
slamradio offers a feeble strawman argument.
God says money is the root of all evil. Better pay them true believers with chickens.
It's the "love of money." Money itself is harmless.
Actually, it's not "money", but the "LOVE of money" that's the root of all evil. Money used in socially responsible ways is a blessing. But that only happens when the rich individuals realize that having a lot of money is both a blessing AND a social responsibility.
Joan: Right, it is not money but the misapprehension about what money is and what it is supposed to be used for. Money is a medium of exchange. It is a convenient way to exchange goods and services. The problem these days is that money is too often getting exchanged for itself. Money should be a credit for work done, goods produced. Money is not wealth; it just represents wealth.
We need as many "little miracles" as possible, who will be poor if we don't make more?!
Careful your snark is showing...
This isn't about moral objections this is about who can tell you what you can do in the privacy of your own home and with who.Couching it in Victorian notions of morality only reduces discussions of reproductive health to a farce.
Control sex and you control a person. Period.
He may not have addressed every Republican plank in the op-ed, but, if he is a Republican, then he is adamantly opposed to Planned Parenthood. But, I don't know why he bothers to position himself as the "reasonable" Republican when all his competitors simply, blatantly lie. In the Koch Industries field of politics, finesse seems to be a waste of time and money.
Contraception should be readily available, but not without a perscription because its use should be monitored by a physician.
Give Jindal credit where credit is due. Women should be able to get certain types of contraceptives OTC, as long as such drugs are safe to use.
Fact is, however, the WSJ article was little more than another attempt (1) bash the health care law and (2) push private health savings accounts.
In other words, nice try Bobby.
"The question is whether those employers can, on a whim, deny employees' contraception access as part of their health insurance plan."
This is precisely why medical insurance should have nothing to do with employment. Your employer doesn't pay for it, so your employer doesn't get to have an opinion about any of it.
"that Republicans are somehow against birth control. "
If you stop and think about it, the only people who oppose birth control ARE republicans. Even the rank and file catholic woman uses birth control even though the right wing hierarchy is adamantly opposed.
"But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others."
And since it is the insurance company that is paying for the contraception, that is a moot point. As for whether self-insured religious organizations should be forced to pay, don't forget that for a human being, human welfare trumps religious dogma. That's why parents who refuse to take their children to a doctor, but instead try to pray away the diabetes or cancer or whatnot, face criminal charges when the kid dies for lack of care.
It is the same thing if an employer is obligated to pay for medical expenses and yet refuses to pay for preventive medicine. At the very least they are then morally obligated to pay for any unwanted pregnancy.
Being a religious fanatic excludes you from being categorized as a human being. Technically you may appear to be one phenotypically, but deep down where it counts, you flunked.
So he's inferring that employers do not have to pay for health insurance policies if they include a rider for birth control, even if the patient buys coverage?
Too much snake oil here Bobby, and BTW embracing creationism as a state policy will prevent any presidential ascendency.
OMG-- hell has frozen over. Must be side-effect of global warming.
Maybe he realizes that
unwantedchildren cost the government a lot of entitlement $$$$ and it is bad press to seem to cut food from kid's mouths.to borrow a line from john sununu, "he's not that bright."
Over-population is a huuuuge taboo for right-wingers & left-wingers.
Which is why right-wingers can't be honest about birth control.
And left-wingers can't be honest about stopping massively unsustainable immigration.
Why would he talk to ladies in their 50's and 60's about birth control? They cannot have children and their kids are grown past their childbearing age!
Yeah, nobody listens to old farts anyway!
Amazing the age of his group! Doesn't any young folks in the child bearing age group come to hear him? Interesting.
disingenous where was Jindal during the election,now that he is considering running
he stepping out trying to make himslef fit in with mainstream america
Snakes can shed their skin but they are still snakes! There is no Republican who has the "good" of the general public in mind for anything. A vote is a vote is a vote and that is all slithering into a slightly tweaked dogma means.
The Republican idea of allowing employers and secular businesses owned by a religious groups to deny coverage to employees is unconstitutional. It is another attempt by Republicans to impose religious beliefs on citizens by force of law.
If the Constitution were to be adhered to, churches would be taxed and there would be no exceptions for religions for providing only those services that their religion allows.
It should be noted that Republicans only support the imposition of Christianity on others in much the same way as the Iatola or the Muslim Brotherhood supports the imposition of Islam on all citizens.