You are hereBlogs / John Martin's blog / Did Obama Mangle the Contraception Decision on Purpose?

Did Obama Mangle the Contraception Decision on Purpose?


By John Martin - Posted on 13 February 2012

Most people think Obama made a serious error with this whole Catholic/contraception fiasco, and his supporters are glad the issue is now mostly behind him.

 
But maybe the administration knew exactly what it was doing before it announced that Catholic hospitals and universities would be required to cover contraception in their health plans. According to Mark Shields and David Brooks, the geniuses in the White House were purposefully interfering with the dynamics of the Republican primary race. It's sure giving them a ton of credit, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
 
From Friday night's News Hour broadcast:
 
MARK SHIELDS: Three weeks ago, the political dialogue in the country was income inequality, the economy. Obama is on the offensive. Republicans are divided about extension of the middle-class tax cut.
 
And what happens in the meanwhile? This issue comes front and fore, a question of life, of religious freedom, of the government overreaching and social and cultural issues replaced. Who has been the tribune of the social and cultural and religious issues? Rick Santorum. It changed the debate.
 
You could say the Obama people were just incredibly clever, because they dealt a serious blow to Mitt Romney by putting the turf or the . . .
 
JEFFREY BROWN: That's a new spin on it.
 
MARK SHIELDS: It is a new spin.
 
DAVID BROOKS: They got Planned Parenthood involved. They got the court on gay marriage.
 
DAVID BROOKS: We will call it a big conspiracy.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
MARK SHIELDS: I just -- I really do think it was quite an achievement.
 
JEFFREY BROWN: But do you buy that as the reason, one of the big reasons behind Santorum's...
 
DAVID BROOKS: Yeah. I don't think it was the sole reason, but it had to contribute. It just elevated his issues. It energized a lot of people.
 
By drawing attention to social issues, Santorum's campaign has gotten a lift, to the point where some polls have him beating Romney nationwide. The Obama team thinks it can beat Romney, but it knows it would demolish Santorum, no matter what happens with the economy. In the least, they know it helps the Obama cause to have the GOP nomination drag on as much as possible.
 

I have also had a gut feeling this "debate" on contraception, while initially looking like a loser for the president, was well-timed and may have been well-planned. I had not thought of the angle you posted above but that does make sense. I mean, who will win with the GOP "base" on an issue like contraception: Romney or Santorum? A great way to bring it into the conversation and lift Santorum, making Romney's fight even tougher, prolonging the primary and eating away at Romney's funding.

I was thinking more along the lines of this decision tempting the GOP to take the "religious freedom" fight even further into the "contraception should not be covered" realm. Since President Obama already addressed the "religous freedom" issue and even the Catholic Health Organization praised the decision, the GOP should have been wise enough to just let it go (as people like Scarborough begged them to do.) But President Obama knows that the GOP no longer hides their true agenda when it comes to women's issues and was itching to advertise that and he knows they will publically fight any policy that he issues-just because he is Barack Hussein Obama and they hate him. So they have walked into to brilliantly set trap. Santorum came right out and said that contraception should not be covered no matter what (yay-Team Obama if Santorum gets the nomination) while Romney-knowing he needs women voters-is trying to hold back on that message but feels pressured to go the anti-women route and knows Santorum has the winning message with the base. Meanwhile, GOPers in the House are proposing laws that allow insurance companies to deny ANY coverage on moral grounds and still speaking out that women should not be allowed access to that evil birth control.

In addition, President Obama can point out something many people don't know: providing birth control lowers costs (I thought the Republicans were the fiscal conservatives?) and that insurance companies are happy to cover contraceptives because they are WAY cheaper than covering abortions or births. He also has an opportunity to show he is more pro-life than Republicans since birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

As a woman, if I see one more male politician or bishop speaking out on birth control and how they want to be in control of MY decisions and responsible family planning, I will scream. Women will flock to President Obama in droves over this issue-trust me.

An interesting article from Juan Williams on how dumb the Republicans are not only for seeking wedge issues, but for seeking the ones that will cost them votes!


 

 

Too clever by half.  First, Obama has had the best financial news and data since his presidency. Why divert away from economics a) on your best day [he isn't going to be able to do this all the time] and b) so far away from the end of the GOP primary run (this isn't the only time Santorum is likely to need a push... and it's awuflly early in terms of delegate count).

The bigger risks are:

a) he looks like a weak or befuddled leader, even though he recovered quickly enough (at least he is smarter than the head of the Susan G Komen foundation)

b) if his design was to do this all along, he manipulated and embarrassed key allies who were almost certainly not in on the scam and may well (and should be) pizzed off big time for being used so casually and for such dubious ends.

Thia sounds like middle-level staff spin: try to spin our gaffe, which made the other guys look bad, too, so it lookslike like a brilliant inside power move.

I HOPE this was a screw up and not a ill timed high wire play fake.

 

You are probably right, Tom, but it sure does seem to be creating a some discomfort amongst the GOP. Sen. Snowe and Sen. Collins (2 women who probably feel as I do about all these men pushing their agenda on us!) spoke out in support of President Obama's compromise and I truly think they speak for most women-Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike. I think the Republicans should lick their wounds (clearly upset that the President compromised AND made both the Catholic Health Association & progressive women's groups happy) and move on to real issues. The problem they understand is that the real issue of the economy is one they no longer want to touch because it has become a winning issue for the President who took us from 10% unemployment to within reach of the 8% mark. As the president will express, more work to be done but impressive nonetheless. And President Obama suddenly has a new message: we are on the right track-don't let the Republicans mess it up like they have in the past.

"Sen. Snowe and Sen. Collins (2 women who probably feel as I do about all these men pushing their agenda on us!) spoke out in support of President Obama's compromise and I truly think they speak for most women-Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike."
 

This was the keyto the success of the  political compromise.  He had to get conservatives and moderate/liberal christians debating each other rather than liberals and the WH debating the entire conservative-moderate christian electorate.

He was smart to correct this early and, judging from the support from moderates, including moderate Republicans, they gauged it propery.

 

And another point of the "gaffe" of President Obama's original requirement that the Catholic institutions provide birth control coverage proves the incompetence of the media and the ability for the GOP to manipulate the message. The media should have reported this as the Republicans being out of touch and on the wrong side of this issue. These facts were missed in the story:

1. A majority of people-including Catholics-approved of that original policy

2. 98% of Catholic women use birth control (sorry, Bishops! Wish you had been so vocal when it came to child abuse in the church!)

3. 26 states already have this policy in place and there were no protests and big angry press conferences when those were put in place. The anger was for one reason: President Obama proposed it and anything he is for, they are against.

Kelly Bravo!!!!--- I agree the Bishops aren't fighting or speaking out against molestation of young kids in the church but they VOICED their detest of having to provide insurance coverage for ADULT responsible women for contraception. Contraception have been out for years!! Why all of a sudden it is a moral issue now??  ughhh!!--- Unbelievable what the GOP and self righteous religious leaders will come up with!!---- I don't know if President  Obama's actions were deliberate or not but it is working in his favor. My guess is that the President probably was advised that the proposal to have Catholic hospitals provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees were going to be controversial so it would be wise for President Obama to have an optional plan in place in the event. 

I believe President Obama knew going in that it was going to be a hot button issue and decided that he needed a back up plan just in case. I don't know if it was some elaborate scheme to get Santorum  a bump in the race lol---- However, the President can rest assure that all he has to do is be for something and the  crazy nick wick GOPers will be against it!!----- I wonder can he decide to go against raising taxes on the rich to see if the looney GOPers will be for raising taxes ??? lol hahahaha ----- Well the President is laying his groundwork so the GOPs can hang themselves; he is laying out the budget  for the 2013 Fiscal year, and he is asking Congress to pass the payroll taxes and unemployment benefits  bills!! The GOP has not done it yet!!--- They are trying to find things to attach to the Bill. What a shame!!    These congressmen are not even shameful to hide their viciousness and deliberate act against the President and its impact on the American people by being defiant.

 

During the CPAC meeting the GOP candidates and attendees were calling on their troops to fight against the infidels ( anybody who disagrees with their ideology) because they know this election is the most important election in the  history or at least in the last 30 or 40 years!! They were calling on their troops to fight against the OWS protestors and to fight against citizens who are Recalling some of these crazy Governors who oppose the  Workers Unions. The GOP and the Right Wing are saying that a Union is a privilege not a right!!  They are calling every humane act a privilege instead of a RIGHT!--- To expect the Government to have a safety net for the poor is a Privilege and not a human right according to the GOP. 

Santorum is famous for saying that you have to take from someone else in order to help the poor--- Duhhhh!!! what about all these big time businesses looking for the Government to help them ??? OH!! BTW it is a SIN to ask the RICH to pay more in taxes!! but it is expected that  the  middle class and poor pay more in taxes  because it is not called wealth Redistribution; it is called investing into the future and paying down the debt according to the twisted GOPs!!    I have to see how the GOP is twisting themselves into a KNOT and then try to untangle themselves!!

You really think that President Obama is so low that he would take an issue like religious liberty that is so important to so many people and use it for some cheap political gain?

I don't think the President is that type of person and I think it is interesting that many of his most ardent supporters like Andrew Sullivan think he would do something so vile.  That kind of calucating move makes Richard Nixon look like a statesman.  

 

I may be missing some level of sarcasm but I agree w/ Brandon  that Obama probably did not use the birth control/health care issue to propel Santorum into the forefornt (I attribute this to the preposterousness  of the idea more than any purity of motivation on Obama's part.  And I agree that manipulating moderate and liberal Catholics (the politicizing of a political issue), if done with full intentionality would be a slimy thing for him to have done. I'm still going with bad first try, good correction.

 

Richard Nixon was a statesman.
 
Nixon did some clever things to undermind his opponents in '68, but didn't break the law until much later. Nobody is accusing Obama of breaking the law here.
 
I can't wait for Santorum's speech at the convention!
 
 
 

True, Richard Nixon did many good things, opening up China, EPA etc.  But he was also a paranoid lunatic who had enemies list and would do anything and destroy anybody for political gain.  

I would like to think that President Obama is cut from a different cloth than that type of politician and is a better man.

My gut tells me that President Obama has been able to turn a negative into a positive for a few practical reasons: -he is, by nature, a compromiser (I know this has driven many progressives nuts) and I think when he saw this becoming a hot issue/news story, he acted as quickly as he could to come to a decision which would appease the Catholic Health Organization (no offense to bishops-but his focus was the Catholic health care providers) AND keep the goal of providing access to free contraception for women. He showed his masterful compromising and uniting skills on this one and it worked, angering his biggest critics. -he was just lucky. The GOP could not resist the religious liberty argument (and it did have some legs, no doubt) and when he solved that, they stupidly went for the "birth control should not be covered under any plan" argument, led by the presidential candidate gaining in some national polls right now, Rick Santorum. And guess what topic will come up at the next debate? How will Romney respond? Sure, this would have been a politically brilliant slam dunk if he really planned it out. I would not put it past Bill Clinton, but is President Obama that politically savy & devious? Doubtful (although he really seems to be cornering the GOP on taxing the rich, slammed them on the debt ceiling debacle, the recent payroll tax blunder, and has somehow gotten them to agree to extending the payroll tax with no goodies attached...so maybe he is better at this game than we give him credit for.) I think Tom would agree that it's refreshing to see this more feisty side of President Obama. He desperately tried the "compromise" stuff with the GOP but they made it clear they won't give an inch. They can't say Pres. Obama refused to budge when all accounts can point to the "almost" grand bargain that Boehner rejected-the one that put alot of Democratic sacred cows on the table and fell through for one reason: Norquist and his idiotic followers who refuse a penny of new taxes on the rich. I hope President Obama keeps fighting for the middle class and issues important to women/independents while the Republicans can keep digging their own graves.
As a Catholic who prays for less abortion in this world, birth control makes sense. This letter from "The Advocate" (Louisiana) expresses the facts and my thoughts on the issue. I also pray Catholic leaders, especially these Bishops, get out of the dark ages and change their positions. Just look at countries who do not have access to birth control and look at the unwanted pregnancies, poverty and abortion. ----President Barack Obama’s proposed health-care mandate requiring medical institutions to provide free contraception is a great preventative health initiative. Each year, women report that over half of all pregnancies are unplanned, many as result of limited access to birth control. No-cost birth control will help reduce rates of unintended pregnancies among teens and families, and prevent the need for abortion services in our community. Birth control is basic preventative health care that protects against pregnancy, as well as ovarian and uterine cancer, and lowers a woman’s risk for developing ovarian cysts. In a state where our report card for rates of teen pregnancy consistently puts us above the national average, we need access to birth control more than ever.

The issue at first was really a religious liberty issue, rather than a contraception issue as some in the GOP (and Catholic bishops) wanted to frame it. The compromise mandate requiring the insurance companies rather than institutions to provide this coverage is a good one. Lets face it... nothing related to contraceptive services is ever going to satisfy the bishops, since they are maintaining their archaic stance that contraception is against church law. While I was not satisfied with the original mandate which placed the burden on institutions, this compromise is a good one.

As for the bishops, they really need to advance from the 16th century that they are apparently stuck in, and realize that birth control is not the equivalent of abortion.

This guy's a total nutjob!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380887-503544/santorum-attacks-obama-on-prenatal-screening/

 

Santorum attacks Obama on prenatal screening

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Campaigning in Ohio on Saturday, Rick Santorum displayed his culture-warrior side in full force, as he harshly attacked President Obama by suggesting the president wanted to see more disabled babies aborted and accusing him of projecting his values - which Santorum claimed were not rooted in the Bible - on the Catholic Church.

 

Santorum recalled his prominent role in the 1990s debates over the controversial procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion. He lambasted the president's health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, "because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."

 

"That, too, is part of Obamacare, another hidden message as to what President Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country," Santorum said.

 

Prenatal tests are a standard part of modern medical care. The Department of Health and Human Services says such tests "help keep you and your baby healthy during pregnancy. It also involves education and counseling about how to handle different aspects of your pregnancy."

 

After devoting much of his speech to the health care law, an occasionally testy Santorum found himself the subject of reporters' regarding his socially conservative stances.

 

Earlier in the day, the former Pennsylvania senator charged that Obama's agenda is "not about you ... It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible." That prompted Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt to call Santorum's comment "the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness and searing pessimism and negativity." LaBolt said it was "a stark contrast with the President who is focused every day on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class."

 

But Santorum doubled down on his attacks, accusing the president of forcing a new moral code on the Catholic church.

 

"The president has reached a new low in this country's history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before," he said. "If he doesn't want to call his imposition of his values a theology, that's fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them."

 

Asked about the fact that the president is a Christian, Santorum answered: "He says he's a Christian, he's a Christian," and would not elaborate on how to balance competing ideas about contraception within the broader faith. But he was firm in painting the president as promulgating a "new moral code" that he contended was "intolerant" of the church.

 

Santorum's high-profile role on such issues ensures that questions about his social positions will follow him across the country and through a general election campaign, should he win the nomination. Despite the firestorm they ignite at times - and the fact that it can produce lower poll numbers among women voters - the former Pennsylvania senator said he doesn't intend to let up.

 

"You ask a lot of questions about the social issues," he accused a reporter who asked if he would speak out on those issues during a general election race. "I'm going to talk about the things that I think are important to this country. I've done so throughout the course of this campaign, and I'll continue to do so."

 

Concerned cannuck Santorum is completely out to lunch!! lol--- He is fully aware and intentional with his attacks against President Obama. He can’t really discredit Obama’s ability to handle the economy or foreign affairs, so he resorts to attacking his value system (which is deeply personal). The fact that Santorum attacks President Obama’s value system is a true indicator that Santorum has nothing concrete or of any substance to debate about. He is rehashing the same old nonsense about President Obama’s faith, motivation, and personal agenda. He is trying to reframe the issue around President Obama’s “secret agenda to destroy America as we know it” lol---- He is speaking to the fears and anger of people who fear change and diversity!!!--- If he can create this imaginary monster (President Obama lol) in the minds of his feeble minded followers, then he has accomplished his goal.

 

He knows that the evangelicals are looking for a bona fide LIBERATOR!!! ---Santorum thinks that he is their liberator by virtue of his rigid, narrow minded philosophy. He crawls over in areas about abortion relative to President Obama because he knows that his flocks are not going to do any research to find out the real facts!! ---You can see that Santorum is getting bolder and louder with his rhetoric since he won the three states!! He is comparing this race with his race as Senator against the incumbent several years ago; therefore, he thinks this momentum is a sign that he is a possible front runner and has the favor of the masses. (He does have the favor the extreme right wing). Thus he is demonstrating his Rambo style behavior so he can appeal to the fragile minded angry cohorts (tea party and extreme Right wing).

 

He will feed his worshipers with a daily dose of sanctimoniousness and self-importance to keep them rile up!!-- Along with his demonization of the President at every opportunity he gets; as a result, he is going to make himself look so extreme that he has no point of return should he advance to the general election!!-- It is going to be virtually impossible for him to move to the middle to influence the moderates in the general election because he will have destroyed any concept of his ability to compromise!! But that is the hallmark of a fruitcake; they do not comprehend limitations and boundaries! He will continue to say a bunch of outlandish things because he knows that the media picks it up and draws attention to him!! He needs the media attention because it will save him some money on his campaigning lol

 

I am not surprised or shocked at his stance!! ---His rigid ideology has always been in place; he just needed a venue to voice his absurdity (what better place than the public??). As long as the media continues to give him attention, he will continue his asinine nonsense.

I can't believe the Republican party has signed this suicide pact and are heading off the cliff together by attacking precious women's issues like birth control and pre-natal care while saying the President lacks Christian morals & values. Even conservative women I talk to are offended or warning their party to shut up about this nonsense and focus on jobs. Keep preaching, Santorum. You are helping to re-elect President Obama and I'm grateful!

Okay I am a Christian and I think birth control is a good thing. I know several people who are several different religons that also think birth control is a good thing. When will the haters in the GOP and in the Catholic church realize that this a religously and culturaly deverse country and that there is not just the Catholic religion to worry about offending. Yet every time something like this comes up you hear those haters whine "BUT THE LEADERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS IT'S BAD!!" Yet they don't care about the rights of the women, children and families this law helps. They only care about pleasing the leaders of The Catholic Church because it is a wealthy institution. I also have never read it ANYWHERE in The Bible that The Catholic Church has more authority from God or Christ than any other Christian church. So I don't really know who the heck they think they are when pushing for a decission that affects EVERYONE in the country. Even though this law is not rooted in The Bible it's not for any religous institution to decide including Catholicism. It is for the women of this country to decide and for their doctors to guide their decision and for the insurance company to do it's part and pay the bills and for the politicians to make sure that those women's RIGHTS are upheld by ALL MEDICAL PROVIDERS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES. Church and state were supposed to be seperated!!! No Religious leaders (NONE!!!) should even have a say in health care matters AT ALL (UNLESS IT'S THEIR OWN PERSONAL HEALTH)!!  Meaning that if the Catholic leaders want to have hospitals in this country they have to abide by the LAW and CANNOT DISCRIMINATE against a woman because her prefferences of taking birth control offends their religion!!! Their hospitals should accept insurances that provides birth control and should cover their hospital employees with insurance that covers birth control because I am sure that not everyone that works in a Catholic hospital is Catholic!! And if they are Catholic and truely want to abide by their religion then they don't ever have to use those birth control services the insurance offers. It would be a win win. A hospital is not a church and if it is founded by a church IT and IT'S DOCTORS AND STAFF should still abide by the law of the country it stands in, The doctor's oath and the needs and prefrences of the PATIENTS!!! NOT the prefferences of the religion it is founded by.

Thumbs up to that darling.

Darlene....and the ironic thing....the thing that the Republican party  proclaims to value (the bottom line)....is strenghtened with affordable/available birth control. 

http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/
 

My good friend is a Catholic priest and let's just say he and some fellow priests campaigned for Pres. Obama last election (in plain clothes ofcourse) and still think his policies are more pro-life because they think his policies, including health care and assistance for those in poverty, actually reduce abortion more than any of the policies of Republican candidates. They are very into human rights issues and I think they are ashamed that the Bishops want to fight-of all things-birth control. They realize the optics. Where were the bishops during the Iraq War debacle? Where we're they when innocent men were put to death on death row? Where were they when young boys were abused by priests? Obviously, they were silent. But they now decide to go before congress for an issue so important as birth control? Where are their priorities? WWJD? They have no credibility in my eyes and I am Catholic. But it gives me hope to know that young priests are not in full agreement with the higher-ups. They may not be speaking out in words yet, but at least I know some speaking out in actions.

That's great to know, Kelly! At least some priests have some sense on this issue. They had better lay low, however, before they are ex-communicated, remembering our current Pope is the same man who supervised the movement of priests accused of child molestation from one diocese to another in the U.S. instead of actually taking care of the problem.

You know Kelly, not to get off track here, but I am going to-- the number of vocations to the priesthood in the developed countries has been shrinking for years. Many of the new vocations are from third world nations in Asia and Africa (I know one of our parish priests was from India). Yet the church still refuses to allow married priests, and refuses to ordain women priests. Even the Anglican church (the second closest church to catholic teaching behind the orthodox churches) is allowing women to be ordained. Allowing priests to marry, and women to be ordained, would likely solve both the child molestation problem, and the problem of decrepit old men formulating church policy on issues about which they know zilch. When these married priests (and women priests) finally become bishops, and get to promulgate church policy, at least they will then have first-hand experience in the subject.

The sermon at our church at Mass this past Sunday was about this issue, and about a sermon a bishop, in New Jersey I believe, gave to his congregation on this subject (not contraception, religious liberty). It was about government forcing kosher delis to serve ham sandwiches (in place of Catholic church-supported organizations being compelled to provide birth control services [NOT abortion, mind you, birth control]). The council of bishops is still locked in the time the papacy was in Avignon, France. Their world view needs serious updating; they still equate birth control with abortion (I can't logically figure out why).

I should clarify that I'm sure these priests are loyal to their oath and may even have the same beliefs on contraception as those bishops-but they just reject the importance of the issue compared to so many other pressing issues. So I admire their wisdom in knowing priorities and being open minded to a Democratic president being much better for human rights issues near & dear to their hearts.

I think some one ought to point out that celebsy (A.K.A. absenance) is a form of birth control that the bishops CLAIM to practice. If all birth control suposedly equals abortions it should it be pointed out that the leaders of The Catholic Church actually condone both abortions and birth control and therefore are hypocrites just by (supposedly) refusing to procreate once they reach adulthood or enter the  Semenary ... Just sayin. They need to pull their sexist heads out of their rears and realize that there are mature, responsible MARRIED individuals out there, that already have children and they might be doin alright economicaly speaking but, to have an unplanned pregnancy with all the financial crises rearing it's ugly head all over the place, knowing that economic stability may possibly turn into financial ruin with the a roll of Fate's dice, would be potentialy detremental to those families and the economy. Let's see the many reasons why are : If things were to turn out for the worst i.e.: loss of income, the families could stay afloat on their savings for a while (remember they're mature and responsible so they'll spend on essentials only), then, when the savings run out, if they haven't found a way to supplement their lost income they have to seek assistance to keep a roof over their heads and their families fed. Now add an unplanned pregnancy into the mix (let's say it happened before their worlds fell apart), you end up with one potential income earner (that's if either party can even find a job) only able to work up till going on maternity leave plus an added need for medical assistance and in about six to thirty weeks another mouth to feed, a need for diapers and baby items, not to mention they may need a bigger vehicle to fit their wholle family in (if their lucky and able to even keep a vehicle to get them places they need to go) even with people giving them some of those things those families are going to have to support a whole nother person which is expensive . But, remember how I said they already had children here's the catch to survive without assistance both parents need to work because neither can find a job that pays for rent, bills, needed household supplies, children's items, etc... on it's own but with no jobs or one job that's not making ends meet the family can't afford childcare so now they need childcare assistance as well. So expecting another child or not these families are in a tough spot so if by chance change it all around and allow the families to choose birth controll keeping that unexpected pregnancy from happening, yes, the families would still have hardship but it would take less time to recover if there was less obstacles. So why shouldn't a mature, responsible MARRIED couple that already has children not be able to choose birth control? I know one thing they are most likely not going to practice absenance!!! Catholic Church leaders are so full of it!! Birth control prevents an unplanned pregnancy not end one just like celebacy (absenance).. 

 

The New Republican Sharia Law. Men legislating control over women's bodies.

No difference:

Men have rights.

Corporations have rights.

Fetuses have rights.

Women have rights.... but only if they don't get in the way of any of the aforementioned.

What?  Are we back to the 1950s?   http://i965.photobucket.com/albums/ae140/sigcarlfred/sigcarlfred2/backin50s.jpg   I'd post the cartoon myself, but with the netbook I'm using currently, I can't do it.

Great points, everyone. I do feel like I've crashed back into another decade or century recently. What a nightmare a Santorum presidency would be. Saw this on a blog: "Republicans only want government small enough to fit into a woman's private parts."

The thing that boggles my mind is that the current GOP could start putting women in shackles as a preliminary requirement for obtaining birth control (maybe in some states they already have) and 40% of women will still vote against Obama.

I heard Idaho was trying to pass a bill which required women to have a "doctor note" as to why she was getting birth control. What are we in 7th grade? So it allowed employers to have access to our medical records to make sure we were all good girls and not those secret sluts who use birth control to prevent pregnancy. Please wake me up and tell me when this nightmare is over. The good news is that the bill I referred to is in a "holding pattern" because of so much backlash. I thought these Republicans were against too much government and they are going to open up my medical records for all to see? This is beyond a War on Women and I'm glad women-and the men who respect us-are fighting back!

The GOP is digging its own grave with these pieces of legislation in states around the country. I didn't think it was remotely possible for the Democrats to take back the House of Representatives in 2012, but now I'm not so sure. The overall depth of anger at the GOP seems monumental.

I don't think this one issue is enough to swing the House back to the Democrats.  Women voters are interested in many issues not just birth control.

The media has played along with this idea that the GOP is waging a "war on women" because some Republicans don't think that employers should be mandated to make free birth control part of all insurance plans.

But women are split on this issue.  According to a poll done by the New York Times on March 12:

“Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive 53-38  for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university.”

 

Methinks you are mis-construing this. It is not just the contraception issue (which you just made mention of) but an entire litany of legislation that negatively affects women's rights, both at the federal level, and in various states... all of which being introduced or championed by Republicans. If you think that will be no big deal election-wise, you are of course entitled to that opinion. I happen to think otherwise. I am not a female and I am really p.o.ed about it. I can imagine how women feel.

I guess we will see in November.

Wishful thinking, Brandon. President Obama was always going to win women in this upcoming election but the question was by how much. Thanks to these extreme policies targeting issues important to women, I think President Obama will gain an even greater percentage of the women vote than in 2008. Apparently, the Republicans seem more focused on getting the vote of a minority of bishops than the majority of women. I keep seeing posts of frustration from my female FB friends who are proudly conservative and very Catholic railing against what the Republicans are doing and urging women to stand together against the efforts to take us back in time. I mean-efforts to make us reveal our medical records to our employers to say why we are on the pill? Forcing women to have a unnecesary sonogram or vaginal probe AND pay for it themselves because a bunch of Republicans think women can't educate themselves or discuss a painful decision like this with a doctor? Do they think we are that dumb? How can you support things like that, Brandon, when you say you want small government? And why aren't men who want Viagra subject to the same humiliation? That's why it's a war on women. We are the subjects of these oppressive policies.

I believe that we should be more aware on how we'll handle things properly so as to have a better opinion towards this matter. What's your stand on this issue? should be more aware on When I was growing up, there was a family in our town that went on dumpster diving adventures every weekend. The mom of the family would often say, “One man’s trash is another man’s prize.” Although we often made fun of them behind their backs, all of us liked playing in their yard, which became a playground of bizarre toys culled from their weekly excursions. In the economic depression, it is tough to judge anybody for doing anything that decreases expenses and doesn't hurt another person. An installment loan is what you may need to get all the right clothing you need to get started.

Conservatives, Don't worry.  All the support you are losing among women will be compensated by the voter suppression legislation to which Atty General Holder seems somewhere between vaguely aware and totally oblvious.  You guys will do fine.

Funny how the same group espousing free markets don't feel that applies to voter registration.

I agree, assuming that "free markets" include no oversight on  government contracts (complete with insane overcharges from contractors), ludicrous consulting fees (Gingrich and Freddie Mac for starters), insane farm subsidies, influence peddling by former Congressional reps and staffs, and Santa Claus' bag of oil and gas production tax breaks. Yup.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.