Et tu, Barack?

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Yesterday, the Republicans, accompanied by a sadly uninformed media, led a frenzied bitch fest over the inclusion of a family planning provision in the Democrats' stimulus package. That provision, a mere $200 million of a $825 billion stimulus package, which represents 1/4 of 1%, or 0.225%, of the overall budget, offered a safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance.

But the ideology-plagued Republicans, and their media enablers, couldn't seem to figure out why unemployed Americans without health insurance would possibly want, or need, to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. They seemed mystified that a surprise addition of a new family member could batter a no-income family financially, or when multiplied exponentially, a state, and work against everything a stimulus package is supposed to stimulate. Rep. John Boehner wondered aloud, "How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"

News story after news story reports that many Americans suffering through the collapse of the economy (like the 71,000 who were laid off yesterday) are, among other lifestyle changes, postponing having a child. Planning when to have a child based on whether you can support one seems like a pretty common sense approach. It could even be described as "responsible" which, you will recall, was the overarching theme of our new president's inaugural speech. One small part of the stimulus package the Democrats presented offered this family planning safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance. The staged Republican freak-out revealed the degree to which they are out-of-touch with Americans' lives, as if we needed another reminder. The more disturbing part is how quickly President Obama surrendered to this pressure. Without a single attempt to explain the importance of family planning in the lives of struggling Americans, the White House distanced itself from the provision. After a day of bizarre media misinterpretation of the proposal, Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, told Cybercast News Service that it was not Obama's idea and that "the principles of what he thought should be in the package--that wasn't part of that."

Yet just last Friday Obama, in a statement accompanying his rescinding of the Global Gag Rule, recognized the importance family planning plays in "promoting global economic development" and promised "In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning." Unless he meant fresh as in impudent and presumptuous, I'm confused. If family planning can promote economic development globally, why won't it here?

Experts say, it would. According Cory Richards, VP of Public Policy at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote on RH Reality Check,

"Assisting states with their Medicaid programs is a proven and effective strategy for stimulating the economy in times of economic distress. That's why the stimulus package contains $87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs. One can only assume that Rep. Boehner's singling out for criticism the Medicaid spending for contraception is politically motivated.

Not only is it politically motivated, it is highly ironic coming from a self-described fiscal conservative who repeatedly says the stimulus package should include spending that doesn't increase the deficit. When the Congressional Budget Office assessed a virtually identical provision in 2007, it found that it would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. An expansion such as the one permitted by the stimulus package could save Rep. Boehner's state of Ohio $1.4 million in 2009 - money that could make a real difference in a hard-hit state that is struggling with significant budget shortfalls."

The Republican opposition to the family planning provision is without merit but does serve as a perfect tool to misrepresent a thoughtful stimulus package; one that takes in to consideration real people's lives. And this misrepresentation found a bullhorn in a media that
likes to go light on the facts, especially with regard to reproductive health. (The Republicans and the media, both of which like to think of themselves as loyal opposition, may make a powerful, reckless, and frightening pair.) On his show, Chris Matthews compared the family planning provision in the stimulus package to China's coercive abortion policy stating:

"I don't know. It sounds a little like China. I think everybody should have family planning and everybody believes in birth control as a right. I'm for -- abortion is a right and all that. It's all right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births?"

On Fox News, Neil Cavuto bizarrely argued that unwanted pregnancies are good for the economy because, "You want more people eventually in this country paying into social security because you have more people retiring."

James Pethokoukis, blogger for US News and World Reports, abandoned all journalistic integrity when covering the stimulus package and got all misty-eyed about unwanted pregnancy, stating "This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the "wrong people" as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow." Wow is right, this guy writes for US News and World Reports? Guess those layoffs in the publishing industry weren't broad enough.

After suffering through eight years of attacks on contraception, we come out the other end with surging teen birth rates in 26 states and increases in STDs. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports that the cost to taxpayers (federal, state, and local) of teen childbearing in the United States in 2004 alone was $9.1 billion. We know that for every dollar invested in family planning the federal government saves $4. The Republican distortion campaign will, sadly, prevent Americans from understanding what they already know -- especially in hard economic times family planning makes sense.

Update: Today, the House Democrats announced they were dropping the contraception provision from the bill.

This post originally appeared on RH Reality Check--Information, commentary and community for Reproductive Health and Justice.

Comments

[miamia]

I read your article, I disagree that this should have been in the Stimulus package.

[auntiecairo]

While I agree with the concept I don't see why the contraception language needs to be in the stimulus package -- Obama wants to change how business is done - and that means both sides - hopefully once this is done he'll address the tacking on of pork, special interests w/o time for review that currently occurs when there are budget votes -- both sides are equally guilty - and we need to be sure items such as the contraception language is for the betterment of citizens and not related to a drug manufacturer or other special interest group.

[DaCoach]

Render to the stimulus bill things that stimulate and to health bills things that deal with health. Hasn't the past eight years of misguided attachments to bills taught us anything?

[Muriella]

I have 3 children. While pregnant, I had time off work for medical appointments and complications. Nausea and exhaustion, common in the first few months of a pregnancy, made it difficult to do the work that was easily completed when not pregnant.

I had to train another employee to take over my position while I'd be on mat leave. After returning to work I had to take unplanned days off if my child was ill.

I did not take advantage of my pregnancy. I was a good employee before, during and after my pregnancies. The fact is pregnancy is hard on a body and very few women can say that their production while pregnant was the up to the same standards as before or after their pregnancy.

Unplanned pregnancies would have added concerns that would affect the job.

The EMPLOYER, not the employee, would benefit from fewer pregnancies among employees, or employees' partners. There would be far less interruptions due to medical appointments or sick days. There would be no paying two people to do one job for the training period. No days off work to care for a sick child.

Employers paying extended mat leave and health benefits are further ahead paying for 1 pill/day as opposed to costs associated with a pregnant employee, which begin with the first medical appointment, and lasts for as long as the child is eligible for the employee's medical plan.

Birth control could benefit the employer as much as a tax break.

[Biloxiblues]

Let's start identifying those who oppose contraception as "Pro-Abortion". It is because of their efforts to deny access to contraception so many unwanted pregnancies occur. DUH! They can't have it both ways.

Doesn't preventing unwanted pregnancies lead to fewer abortions or am I just having delusions of logic?

[Angus703]

wow...well I read this yesterday, and today I got an email from Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood today. Why are the Democrats scared, they have the votes I believe, they won't loose any support for the family planning, from most people that voted for them, so WHY?

Call the White House Comment Line, Talk to a Staffer

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/abcjan09_call_af/iixsnxsrqkemdkn?source=abcjan09_e2_af

[JohnJames]

Maybe Obama's pal, Rick Warren, told him to nix it. Message to the Obama administration - You'll never win the allegiance of the religious right whackos ( They're dreaming of President Sarah). But you might lose the allegiance of "them that brung ya" if you keep trying.

[ran6110]

Maybe those old guys in Congress should lose their health play covered access to Viagra? I mean we pay their salaries and benefits so shouldn't we have a little control of their reproductive activities?

I always found it amazing that for most women birth control isn't covered under their health plan but Viagra is so the geezers can get an erection!

Just saying...

[lisa12345]

drop it and put it in health care legislation

[JohnJames]

It seems they have dropped it but if and when it appears again you can bet Republicans will raise hell, characterizing it as a nefarious "socialist" plot to keep the poor from having children. You'd never know they once got such political mileage out of "welfare queens".

[connorin]

Quick question here kids...

When Republicans win, bipartisanship to you means that we work with you and do what you say to do (After all Bush worked with Teddy on the Education bill but gets no credit for working with you guys) or they are considered partisan...

However, when democrats win, it means republicans must sign on to what you want to do or they are considered partisan...

Funny but the dictionary talks about people WORKING TOGETHER to reach an achievement

[CellarDoor]

I am not remotely a republican but yet I clearly remember progressives lamenting the "sneaky bits" entered into bi-partisan Republican sponsored bills and though the reasons may be different (planned parenthood versus say, a gift to the oil industry), both are wrong here.

I think all of us should remember that in times of economic crisis, all of the very important work supporting the few must be put aside for the more critical work of saving our economy that affects the whole.

This is simply a manner of supporting the greatest number of people first. Senior citizens have no need for family planning. Married couples may or may not have need. Unmarried adults may not need it at all (I can buy my own condoms). In fact, I'd argue that is it a relatively narrow portion of the US population that actually needs family planning but the overall bulk of Americans affected by the economy need the that fixed before we fix the social ills. Even if I'm wrong, if it's not 50% or more who need it, we simply must go with the greater need for the greater amount of people.

Yes, we must fix this leaky house of state and we will...but we must first put out the fire that threatens all of us or we may not have a 'leaky house' to even fix.

[citizensrus]

I say we are headed for the worst economic downturn (to put it mildly) since the great depression. Even my mother experienced the great depression as a child, not an adult. But..here is my story. My uncles, aunts, were split up in their family because their parents could not afford to feed them during the great depression. My dad and brothers did not have heating and if it weren't for a famliy goat never would have had milk. If it weren't for charity they would have died for lack of food.
My father in law starved to the point of nearly dying during the great depression. My mother in law did okay because she lived on a farm.
If we are headed into territory of no jobs for an extended period of time..prevention is vital. We need to have family planning or contraception available at the outset. That's today.
Read archives of the NYT...and look up when abortions were most plentiful. It was during recessions.
Look up today the stories of adults finding their siblings they were separated from because their parents couldn't hold the family together during the great depression. There was no job...no money..no food.
Married couples most of all will need contraception during a recession.

[mergina]

Et tu Barack indeed.

[mikselva]

If the government gives me more welfare money for each additional child I have, why would I want to stop having children? I would have at least 4 to qualify for free Medicaid in New York State.

[LHoney]

How else do the Rethugs expect to fill all those privately owned prisons??? Isn't that where these unwanted children wind up???

[Thabit]

Out of the 200 million only 20 million was for contraceptives (the other 180 million was to teach Republicans how to use them)

[loril]

This country is as uber obsessed with women having babies as it is with gay people having sexual relationships. And it makes us unable to see the forest for the trees. Of course people need to limit their child bearing during times of economic distress. But people do NOT want to accept this. Having as many children as one "wants" is a perk that most cannot imagine doing without. If you suggest otherwise people look at you like you have 2 heads and react like you just stank up the room.

I know because I am the parent of an only child by choice. And I have heard other people say some fairly insensitive things about how "damaging" it is not to have siblings. Sure, I would have loved to give her one...and I would have loved to have been able, financially, to start a family 10 years earlier, too. But I wasn't and I recognized that fact as did my husband. So we waited. It shouldn't be that outstanding of a decision. But apparently it is.

You would not know it from my little part of the world...but I do hear that smaller families are becoming more "normal" in our society. It is not like the last Depression, when you just "put one more potato in the pot" ...and kids worked on the family farm. Now you have to consider how you will help them train for 21st century jobs.. And that costs...

[CompashCat]

This country is SO obsessed with women having babies! Just look at the friggin' tabloids - its baby bump this and "cute celebrity baby pics" that. What is up with that??!!

I have a friend who is enjoying parenthood with her great husband and sweet little 2-year-old -- but times are tough and belts must be tightened. So what does she do? Go off birth control in order to give her toddler a sibling. I'm telling myself that there must be a maternal impulse going on here, but the "thinking people" in this friend's life advised her against a second child.

My rant is this: go work for social services, public schools, or the corrections system and tell me how great it is for a country to have a lot of "unwanted" children. Some parents manage to be good parents, but way too many end up being neglectful or abusive -- why would you want a child to be put through that??

I didn't have kids because I knew I wasn't up for the responsibility. People who have no or fewer children are realistic and pragmatic and deserve more respect. We need to get realistic about OVERPOPULATION as well!!

[reliant1]

Woo Hoo for you!! I had my tubes tied many decades ago - before I got married (no easy feat back then) and have never regretted it. I'm tired of the producers whining about lack of services - you know what - if you are an american woman w/o a kid there is no welfare. Why call it welfare - like it is an across the board lets help all who may be in need?

Call it what it is - welfare for women who produced and who now can't afford their productions (irregardless of why) - it is still the most discriminatory part of the american gov't - and it's lobbyists have excessive influence, all those lousy pols who produced are just lobbyists getting special treatment.

Babies should be outlawed for a generation or two....and women who chose to not have babies should be the ones getting the tax credits.

[Classof89]

(cont.)

One example that people really don't accept childless individuals is my experience on a job interview at an educational toy/school supply company. When the interviewer walked me through a warehouse of the products, she was telling me a little about the company and the supplies they sell. She then asked if I had any kids. I said "no". Conversation ceased right then and there. Just because I don't have kids does NOT mean that I don't have any interest about the company, nor do I lack the compassion or sensibility that comes with the capacity of handling products made for children. No surprise, I never received a call back; probably for the best anyway if I would have to work with judgemental folks like that.

I like kids (I was one myself), and have respect for some of the parents who truly are doing a good, but very hard job. All I ask is for respect for the seemingly rare ones who don't get the welcoming attention for living a decent life and making the right choices.

[Classof89]

Thank you! I don't have kids because 1.) I have never seen myself as a parental-type person; 2.) Like you, I'm not up for the responsibility, in my case, financially or mentally; and 3.) In this day and age, I could never consider bringing a child in all of this chaos in the world.

Kids have it way too rough nowadays, and some parents are busy trying to be friends with their children instead of doing the job of actual hands-on parenting. Then there are some who have children for bragging purposes, i.e., show off to family, friends, strangers to make them believe that they are somebody important. Now the family in California who just had octuplets (talk about contributing to population growth) will probably be offered some reality show, a la "Jon & Kate + 8", or a new home complete with baby necessities.