Getty Images
The fight over contraception access isn't going especially well for Republicans, with polls showing the American mainstream consistently siding with the Obama administration on the issue. As the debate deteriorates, some have begun spinning wild tales to explain how and why this entire fiasco has been an elaborate Democratic setup.
Joan Walsh asked, "Did crafty Dems make contraception a campaign issue?" The answer, as Joan explained, is no.
Did you know the GOP doesn't want to be talking about contraception? That it's an issue ginned up by opportunistic Democrats? Rush Limbaugh made that case last week (while also insisting Republicans would win an election decided on culture war issues, so I'm not sure what his problem was). But Wednesday it made its way to the Washington Post's women's blog, in a piece by Melinda Henneberger headlined: "It's Democrats who are putting focus on birth control."
Limbaugh thinks this is part of a plot against Rick Santorum. Some on Fox News believe it's a scheme hatched by liberals who hate the poor. A surprisingly large group of conservatives is convinced that ABC News' George Stephanopoulos is tied to the conspiracy.
Let's pause for a moment to note how we got to this point.
In August, the Obama administration announced some good news: thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and following the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, contraception would be covered by insurance plans as preventive care.
The health care reform law already requires insurers to cover "preventive health services" for free, but the announcement was part of a regulatory process that defines what those services will include. In January, administration officials said churches would be exempt, and in February, the White House tried to end the discussion altogether by saying religiously-affiliated employers wouldn't have to pay directly for contraception coverage.
Neither the White House nor Democrats in general showed any interest in making a fuss about this. Indeed, the news was largely overlooked by the media and the larger political world for months -- this was an obscure regulatory process, and it wasn't especially controversial.
It wasn't until this month that Republicans, eager for a culture-war fight, latched onto contraception access as a top priority.
"It's Democrats who are putting the focus on birth control"? That's backwards. It wasn't the Democrats' idea to introduce the odious Blunt Amendment; it wasn't the Democrats' idea for Darrell Issa to hold a hearing on contraception with an all-male panel of witnesses; it wasn't Democrats' idea for Rick Santorum to say on camera that contraception is "not okay"; it wasn't Democrats who encouraged Republicans to pursue "Personhood" amendments; and it wasn't the Democrats' idea for the Republican presidential candidates to spend 15 minutes on the subject in last night's debate.
Joan Walsh added, "[H]onestly, I find it stunning that anyone is arguing that it's Democrats who are 'putting focus' on this issue and then profiting from it, politically or financially." When the right is losing, conservatives' desperation leads them to some pretty strange arguments.
Leave a Comment:
The argument wasn't viable on its own, but the GOP candidates thought there was life in it, so they clung to their position, and they fought it, and now it's grown into this parody of an argument. A sad and tragic thing.
I also believe that because women haven't been vocal about "abortion" and the efforts to repeal it, the GOP and their evangelical base felt emboldened to start on "contraception"....
Maddow fans will like this presentation:
Michael Huemer - The Irrationality of Politics
The GOP stepped into a giant pile of @!$%# and the stench will cling to them for a long time. Stupid is as stupid does!
You got it. The Bishops Conference saw an opportunity to inject themselves into politics and Republicans not only jumped on it, but turned it into the contraception issue. No doubt the Bishops Conference is still smarting from the spanking they got with public opinion after the compromise. Any further statements by the bishops are going to be ignored unless the Republicans decide to make it an issue. I want contraception to be the big issue for Republicans because that is going to be a winner for them. /snark
Then why did Obama "accomodate"?
I would like to ask all the GOP candidates if they or their wives were virgins when they married? I mean, we already know Newt's 2nd and 3rd wives were sexually active PRIOR to marriage.
If they have it their way, based on their answers last night, sex would only be acceptable if you are married. This would lead us back to the 40's, 50's and 60's when unwed pregnant women/girls were shipped off to convents to give birth and surrender the baby for adoption.
I wonder why they believe God gave women a clitoris?
A design mistake which can be surgically corrected.
God doesn't make mistakes.
Then how do Republicans explain women?
All men are mutants, really. During the 1st trimester when the "baby" is just a clump of cells called a zygote, it is made up of X chromosomes or more simply put it is female. Only during the end of the 1st trimester if there is sufficient testosterone do the chromosomes mutate and drop a leg to become a Y chromosome. Therefore every human being starts its life as a female and then mutates into a male. No wonder Religious Fanatics want to keep Science out of the conversation. Really!
I like that......nice work!!
No. Mammalian offspring inherit one X chromosome from the mother (who only has X chromosomes to give) and either an X or a Y from the father. Male germ cells (sperm) are haploid (one chromosome from each pair) and thus some are "male" (with a Y) and some are "female" (with an X). The offspring is either XX or XY from the time of fertilization.
Not remotely. The chromosomes don't change, but thanks to genes expressed on the Y chromosome the embryo produces testosterone, which causes some a change in somatic development: the testes descend, the urethra fuses with the genital tract, etc.
Female sex hormones cause other changes in development, by the way: in cases of "complete androgen insensitivity syndrome" the child is to all appearances female but never develops a uterus. The syndrome runs in families, with all "girls" being born and to all appearances developing normally but only half of them remotely capable of reproduction. The fact that these women (no scare quotes, that's what they feel like) have XY chromosomes often only turns up when they're trying to get pregnant and see a fertility specialist.
I don't know what the true origin of gender is, but one theory that I read about was that the differentiation evolved as sort of an arms race. Competing reproductive behaviors. And Sex is basically both genders taking advantage of each other. (So much has changed ;)
It might help you to understand what DC is talking about by researching the Lyon's Hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
A long-time friend who doggedly insists she is still "a moderate Republican at heart" and laments she hasn't found anyone on the "R" side of a ballot to vote for in a long time, blames the whole contraception folly on "Fox, fools and focus groups."
"Fox made a big stink about it when a few far-right wing religious people started screaming, and it was picked up by fools who kept repeating the crap" she told me. "So somebody in a campaign focus grouped the controversy and it tested well because all of the people in the focus groups were self-identified conservative likely primary voters. That's when Romney and Gingrich started running with it.
"The problem is," she explained, "the 10 people sitting in any of those focus groups don't reflect the country, they reflect the extreme fringe who take over caucuses and vote in primaries. So candidates and the party thought they had a winning issue. What idiots."
She may have a point.
The GOP is bleeding moderates from the Party like a hemorrhage. It is too bad the GOP has turned from grand into goofy! They have lost so much credibility by letting morons run the show. Even I feel bad about this because a rational and reasonable debate between different views is no longer possible. It's one view against a lot of crazy talk and it demeans the strength of both sides.
nicely put...I had been a long supporter of the two party system...now this is just stupid talking points, instead of meaninful debates.
The issue really started with the Komen foundation trying to yank planned parenthood funding. Right there the Republicans should have seen the blow back by women and shut up, but didn't and entered the fray. This was quickly followed by the Obama contraception decision, and accommodation to religious institutions. Here again the Republicans could have avoided the issue but couldn't resist, the bishops were upset, so they made it a religious freedom issue and thought the base would rally around them. The problem is that the base is really a minority of the population. So now women's groups and independents, Catholic women are up in arms, and they are a group the Republican candidate must have, so the spin machine was turned on to say the Democrats held a gun to Rep Issa's head and forced him to have these hearings. So they wish it was true, but alas not. It didn't help that Va. got so much publicity on the Vaginal sonogram issue, or that a Republican Indiana State Senator accused the Girl Scouts of promoting lesbians, and abortions. As Ollie used to say to Stanley "this is another fine mess you've gotten me into" !
It's the old definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It's similar to the trolls who comment here. They come in, hijack the conversation, and change the message.
Why talk about the economy when you have nothing of consequence to say? You can talk about contraception and create quite a kerfuffle, hide behind the smokescreen and watch all hell break loose, grateful for the process because then you get more time to magnetize those lies about the economy and spout them as your "plan" for fixing the country. Not nearly as sexy as talking about contraception and abortion.
How's that for an oxymoron?
This is somewhat off-topic, but wasn't yesterday Ash Wednesday? And aren't Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich both Catholic? Yes and yes. So where were the ashes that were supposed to be on their foreheads last night? My guess is that they were afraid they would scare off the evangelical, non-Catholic base by wearing the ashes. So much for devotion to your religion.
Yep. While on Chris Matthews show, Melinda Henneberger wore her ash like a gunshot wound on her forehead. I wish Chris would quit having her on, at least to talk on this topic. Her views on the 'contraception controversy' are ridiculous.
Actually ... I can NOT believe I'm going to defend Rick Santorum ... I did see a speech he made yesterday and it was clear to these former-Catholic eyes that he had been to Ash Wednesday services. The ash was fading but was there.
KJ,CR,IA ... look what you made me do!! Damn you *shakes fist* ... ;-)
As for devotion to religion. I remember seeing Ann Coulter talking her usual hateful stuff proudly wearing a cross around her neck. This is another example of using and abusing religion and religion to dumb to realize it.
80sGirl - my apologies. I know that's a bitter pill to swallow. I just figured that since I saw many others with ashes well into the evening, Santorum had either washed his off before the debate (which is still a possibility) or didn't get them at all. I know I used to wash mine off as soon as I got home from school (I'm also a recovering Catholic), but then I never claimed the same level of devotion as Santorum.
I used to say that too, but I've fully recovered.
KJ, you're so forgiven :-). I figure it come off either from sweating from the work of keeping track of all the lies he was going to have to confess or it rubbed off when he changed sweater vests.
Either way, you're right, it is somewhat surprising that he didn't make a bigger show of it so maybe he's trying to tone it down to appeal to a wider base of the narrow, narrow-minded base?
@Brena1 I was wondering what that was on her head.
Any thing republicans do or say that is a failure is always the fault of another. Even children accept more responsibility than today's republicans.
I believe Peggy Noonan in the WSj opinion section first made a big stink about the provision controversy in early February... She said that the administration was trying to sneak this provision through,hoping no one would notice....but, boy oh boy, she was not going to let this go unnoticed. She made it a very big deal, and as I understand, she is not a democrat.
What? overlooked for months? The announcement was made at the end of January not to include religious organizations in the exemption and in a matter of days the Catholic church issued opposition, the House leadership threatened to take action,...I'm confused where the "months" were? Please explain. The administration had been in discussion about the what the final policy should say and when they announced it, the opposition was very strong in a matter of days!
RobDon - two paragraphs up from your quote:
"In August, the Obama administration announced some good news: thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and following the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, contraception would be covered by insurance plans as preventive care."
That ought to explain it, but just in case, "the news" that was overlooked was the August announcement.
KJ, that was a general announcement with no specifics and with the understanding that federal policy governing religious exceptions would still be in place. It wasn't until the last of January that the DHS announced the specifics and that is when the uproar began.
The development of how it affected religious organizations were on going. President Obama gave Archbishop Dolan a call on January 20 informing him of the decision NOT to exempt Catholic (and other religious) organizations from the requirements.
You do not dispute this timeline do you? Do you think the decision was made in August about Catholic hospitals, schools, charities, etc?
RobDon - No I'm not disputing the timeline you're talking about with the decision about Catholic hospitals, etc. I was just pointing out that Steve's blog was laying out a timeline that began in August. You are correct when you assert that the controversy arose much more quickly than several months, upon the administration's clarification of the policy. In comparison with the industry I work in, this is quite common. A regulation is approved and issued, and over the course of months (sometimes years) that follow, clarification is sought by the industry and given by the agency of the government.
So I don't think we're really in any disagreement here, which makes me wonder why the hubbub over Steve's reference to "for months."
which makes me wonder why the hubbub over Steve's reference to "for months."
That's because the implication is that the Republicans didn't say anything about something done in August until they started looking for a "culture-war" issue to latch on to.
The reason was not a culture war, but a religious rights issue. The right has no problem with insurance covering contraception. They do have a problem with the Federal government mandating religious organizations do something in violation of long held teachings of someone's faith. Why can't the Left see this is a religious issue, not a cultural reproduction rights issue?
Do you not think this blog posting was trying to make the point "this issue has been around since August, why are the Republicans just making a controversy of it unless they want a culture war fight?" That's what the blog post seems to say to me. And I say it is in error grossly on the time line which makes the argument sort of moot. IMHO.
Deeply held views are often wrong, when exposed to decency or science. The GOP spends a lot of time denying science since it is inconvenient, and decency doesn't exist where self-interest is king. Ask yourself this. How many of the GOP currently in state or federal legislatures ran on the policies they currently espouse? Their vision of America is not the vision of the majority, and their disregard for what the majority of America wants borders on criminal.
You just don't understand. The far right wants to quietly take over, they never thought people would notice this type of religious legislation. Dang it it's the lamestream media that caused this by shining a light upon it!
As for Rush, who the heck listens to his lies anymore?
Rush has a pretty good following from those most active selecting a GOP candidate.
Lots of ALEC legislation has made its way into GOP held legislatures around the country. "Canned" GOP legistlation for every State!
VA bills have made it through committee and are headed to the House of Delegates: Personhood bill, anti-HPV vaccine bill, and we are still waiting for the "watered down" Vagina Governor McDonnell's ultrasound bill. The legislature has already made changes to health facilities who offer abortions (and ONLY those facilities) that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for those facilities to continue to offer services. The new facility rules are usually "grandfathered" and required of only new facilities, but not the case this time. As a Virginian, I am so angry! Way to go GOP, piss off every woman in America!
Also too....Democrats are tricking Republicans into leaving rakes on their sidewalks and driveways for Republicans to step on....
.......THWACK! #$%_ing Obama...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EryhQdXTjP8
Exactly. By the way, which Romney press conference was that?
If life begins at conception and embryos are given "all the rights and privileges, and immunities" of other citizens, as proposed in OK- what about the gay embroys? Are they first class citizens until they come out of the closet? Would love to hear any republican answer this question.
Life is sacred from conception to birth, after that you're on your own.
We Have a Big Problem -- This is a Planned Parenthood Tweet BREAKING: personhood & ultrasound bills pass committee in VA. Call Gov. McDonnell 804-786-2211: don't tell doctors how to practice medicine!
This is my reply - I phoned as requested and I was told 'We don't take comments from out of State so have a Good Day Sir" NO we cannot allow that!
I told them I was from Norfolk, VA. they took my call.
I promise not to put a strip club next to your church and I expect you to keep your church out of my bedroom.
It's also funny how they claim Santorum is extreme, when they picked this fight precisely when Santorum's campaign hit the stratosphere and the good jobs numbers came out. Originally, I think they meant to spin it as "religious freedom," you know, just like "it's not about the sex," but it always is, and they couldn't keep the culture warriors from going there.
Perhaps they could have made that case before they went a step further and wanted all choices between you and your doctor to align with your boss's conscience.
Basically they lost control of the optics, which was to attack birth control - with the aid of a compliant media - under the guise of stopping a war on religion, but they couldn't keep their own giddy culture warriors on script.
Why should a church, a non profit, get to tell the American people what they can do? This entire issue is not about religious freedom but about the freedom of the American people and separation of Church and state.
The Catholic Church is operating in the US. It should have to follow our laws, not dictate them. This entire issue is ridicules.
If they don't like the laws, tough tootie, they are not in charge. They cannot even tell their parishioners what to do, Catholic women use birth control. They have no credibility as far as most Americans are concerned....
MM
I agree. We do not live in a theocracy. Our government is based upon the Constitution, not the Bible, as the GOP would have you believe.
This is merely the Primary process playing out. This year for the GOP it is a race to the right. The politicians keep throwing red meat out to their base.
Of course the opposition to extreme policies shines a light on these same positions. The more extreme the position, the more light. At some point the issues catch fire and the general public pays attention.
For me it offers clarity. Extreme actions often uncover the hidden agenda. Take the contraception debate. It undermines the right to lifes purported purpose. It is not about the right to life, it is about controlling women. Take away contraception and you control a womens sexuality.
Whether you deny abortion, contraception methods or tell a woman she must wear a burka, it is always intended to control our species means of reproduction.
Only the tactics vary, never the intent. Whether it is a caveman dragging a woman to his cave, locking them in a harem, branding a scarlet A on their foreheads or abusing them with a vaginal probe to shame them, the intent is the same.
As Flip Wilson's Geraldine would say: "The Devil made me do it!"
"Of all bad men, bad religious men are the worst." c.s. lewis For all their sermons, both the GOP and the Catholic Bishops are more afraid of losing power than afraid of attacks on their religions.
You're not going to impress anyone by quoting a bitter atheist like Lewis who spent his life spouting his bile against Christianity.
Uh, what? Lewis spent a good part of his life as an Anglican and professional apologist.
By current standards, Lewis was a CINO.
But, yes, it was snarkasm.
I am the 75 year old widow of a prominent Miami, FL physician named Edmond Gamse and I would like to share some information you young people may not know.
I am the 75 year old widow of a prominent Miami physician named Edmond Gamse and would like to share some information you young people might not know about. Ed was a General Practioner but he delivered over 1000 babies in his time. He did not perform abortions because abortions were illegal, but he did take care of women who had been to back alley butchers or tried do it yourself methods with knitting needles and coathangers. Many of them were so damaged that they would never be able to have children when they wanted to, which made him very sad. He also told me that rich women did not have these problems- they just went to Cuba for their abortions. He had already retired when abortions became legal, but he was very glad about it. He would be appalled at the horror stories of the way women are being treated and/or abused these days.
but he di
ed
For those wondering what led the (R)s to put their footgun on full auto:
Obama proposed it. They opposed it. Spinal reflex (evidence isn't conclusive as to whether they have any higher functions.)
The Republicans say this is about religious freedom? That the Government should "never" restrict people of faith from expressing their beliefs? So if Muslims want to impose Sharia law the conservatives would support them? Sharia law should not be limited by our Government? That is an interesting turn of events. So if Muslims want to, just for example, build a Mosque near, oh say......ummmm....Ground Zero, the conservative republicans would defend them?
They are so effing duplicitous it boggles the mind. No government interference in religion they scream unless it means our government going to war with the middle east over their religious beliefs!