President Obama has often spoken of the influence his mother had in shaping his life. Stanley Ann Dunham was smart, worldly, independent and free-spirited. The president has said he "learned about empathy" from her. He also learned to relate to the struggles of families trying to make the most of their lives with few financial resources to do so. He has cited her healthcare struggles -- specifically as a woman claimed by two forms of gender specific cancer -- as being fundamental in lending direction to his political moral compass. Therefore when I heard the news that the president is very close to caving on one of the most important healthcare issues facing women, for the purposes of political expediency, I couldn't help but think that were his mother alive today she would tell him that his compass is off, and he is in grave danger of losing his way.
Just a few months ago I wrote that it was through women's health issues that President Obama could end up leaving his greatest legacy. I stand by that statement today. It's just that when I first wrote it I assumed the president's legacy on these issues would be positive. That now seems less likely.
A non-partisan panel convened by the Institute of Medicine recommended that insurance companies be required to cover birth control for free as a form of preventative care under the new healthcare law. I can't think of any medication that more accurately fits the definition of "preventative" than one whose sole purpose is to prevent something, in this case, pregnancy. As I noted at the time of my last piece on this subject, "If the government follows the panel's recommendations, this could end up being not just one of the most important moments in the reproductive rights movement since Roe v. Wade, but the most important moment ever." (Click here to see a list of the most important reproductive rights cases besides Roe v. Wade. Click here to see a list of ancient forms of birth control.)
Though contraception access seems like one of those no-brainer issues that people of all political stripes who agree on little else, should be able to agree on, of course in politics today nothing is that simple. Despite the White House already publicly agreeing to exemptions for religious institutions, some religious leaders are arguing that the language doesn't go far enough. According to the New York Times, "after protests by Roman Catholic bishops, charities, schools and universities, the White House is considering a change that would grant a broad exemption to health plans sponsored by employers who object to such coverage for moral and religious reasons. Churches may already qualify for an exemption. The proposal being weighed by the White House would expand the exemption to many universities, hospitals, clinics and other entities associated with religious organizations."
In other words, the changes being considered by the White House would essentially render the medical panel's recommendation null and void, allowing any employer to claim religious reservations and thereby deny covering contraception as preventative care.
As I have written before, I am one of the few people who can find gray area in just about any political issue, from capital punishment, to affirmative action, and yes, abortion. The lone exception for me is really birth control accessibility because it directly affects so many other issues, which is why opposition to its availability leaves me perplexed, not to mention angry.
To the consternation of some readers I do use words like "personal responsibility" in my writing and stand by doing so. People shouldn't knowingly make personal choices that they expect other people to pay for. But just as you can't expect people to pull themselves up by their boot straps if you hide all of the boots from them, you can't place obstacle after obstacle in someone's way, and then criticize them for taking too long to get to the finish line, or for giving up and quitting the race altogether.
That's precisely what obstacles to birth control do to poor women and families -- and increasingly to middle class families as well. If fiscal conservatives want to spend less on government programs like welfare, then why not make it easier for families not to have children they cannot afford to raise? And if religious conservatives are so opposed to abortion and consider it a crime against humanity, then why not make it easier for fewer women to find themselves in the position of seeking one? But another concern in all of this is the slippery slope it puts us on when we start practicing religion in the examining room. What happens when an institution wants to claim religious exemptions for covering treatment for an AIDS patient who contracted the HIV virus in a manner they consider morally questionable?
Those of us who are tired of this political posturing should remember that the real culprits in the political standoff over contraception are not conservatives. At least they are fighting for something that they believe. The White House appears not to be fighting at all and this fact makes it seem as though the president and those around him no longer know what they actually believe in, or what they stand for. If we can't get the president to fight for something as simple as birth control -- something studies show 99% of sexually active women in this country have used and something polls show the overwhelming majority of Americans believe should be administered without insurance co-pays -- then how can we expect him to have the courage and conviction to fight on the issues that are less clear cut?
Studies show that the average American woman aspires to a family comprised of two children in her lifetime, a family much like the president's own. Not only does he have two daughters, his mother, an only child, also had two. This seems to indicate that the phenomenal women that have shaped the president's life understand the value of family planning in a way that he, and the men he surrounds himself with in senior positions within his administration, do not.
If President Obama is not man enough for the fight for women and families, perhaps he should hand the reins over to someone who is.
I can think of a few good women who could handle the job. He happens to be married to one of them.
Keli Goff is the author of "The GQ Candidate" and a Contributing Editor for Loop21.com where this piece originally appeared.
www.keligoff.com
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
And insurance should cover dental floss and toothpaste too!
And toilet paper!
Imagine the horror of denying the poor the opportunity to wipe their bottoms! It's so unfair!
The need for birth control is not a rare or unexpected occurrence, and is not the result of a medical disorder.
And if you can find an insurance policy that covers your routine birth control needs, you should buy it. You should encourage your employer to purchase that health plan.
But I don't think it's right to try and mandate any particular kind of insurance coverage. It's something that freedom and a lawful marketplace can sort out in a much more just and fair way than government decree.
Many people here also seem to miss how stunningly sexist a phrase 'man up' is.
If you think men are stronger than women that's your issue, but this a pretty strange blog to show it on.
You should be deeply ashamed of that statement.
A rapist or a thief believes in their cause as well.
Does that give them some sort of moral standing?
This dilemma EXISTS because of conservatives and their insistence that women allow life and death decisions to made by the state simple because we ARE women. And I'm sick to death of Barack Obama constantly being blamed for the bad behavior of republicans.
A mugger doesn't get to blame a policeman for not subduing him entirely. And what conservatives are doing to women's bodies is reproductive mugging.
It's wrong, it's sick, and it is VERY MUCH their fault.
And I daresay that the fact that women are putting up with this in silence when men would NEVER sit around waiting to be saved is why we get so much disrespect.
If republicans in congress passed a law allowing hospitals to deny men life saving care there would be blood in the streets yet women sit quietly and women like you say NOTHING about it. Female journalists don't cover it. Is it any wonder things are the way they are?
As a candidate, Obama said he would add troops to Afghanistan. As for Iraq, all remaining troops are scheduled to leave by the end of the year.
Thanks to Obama's leadership, DADT is now a thing of the past.
That deal on Bush tax cuts included tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits for the struggling middle class.
This statement bothers me. It has a subtle way of suggesting that a pregnancy is a problem. Something to be prevented such as polio or the flu for which you take a vaccine. Women fought very, very hard to take pregnancy out of the realm of health care so that they could not be forced onto disability or fired if employed while pregnant. I would hate to go back there, even if it means that women need to pay co-pays, deductibles, or the full price of birth control.
I'm no fan of Obama, but in this case, I think he is, perhaps more by default than design, supporting a woman's right to pursue her natural bodily functions on her own terms, without government, insurance or employer intervention.
Second of all, YES pregnancy is a huge problem to someone who doesn't want to be pregnant. I don't even see why the question would need to be asked. And like several other ignorant posters, you are blathering about "government" when the issue is whether women and/or their husbands who are paying premiums to health insurers should have birth control covered as a preventive care. The only possible answer is also YES. Birth control is to prevent pregnancy (and also used to treat other female health issues as well). If she gets the flu, as you suggest, she will be sick for perhaps a couple weeks. If she ends up unintentionally pregnant, the negative effects are much more profound, to say the least. You are FALSELY framing this as "government, insurance or employer intervention" when it's clearly nothing of the kind. Employers or insurers or government are NOT going to force women to take contraceptives just because they are covered without co-pay. You are making a ridiculous argument. It's STILL women pursuing their bodily functions on their OWN terms.
You view pregnancy as a disability? WOW.
Nor do I want to see pregnancy seen as a disability. Which it is not. You cannot have a disability claim for pregnancy in many states without a medically certified acknowledgment of a condition that may harm the fetus or the mother carrying that fetus. Pregnancy in and of itself is not a disability. It is normal.
Before you suggest that everyone paying a medical insurance premium should absorb the cost of a single woman wanting to stop pregnancy, think about what you are saying. Because that opens the door to things that might otherwise be seen as normal...cosmetic surgery to correct less than acceptable physical anomalies, aging of the skin, vitamin and mineral supplements, etc. How far do you want to open this door and who do you want to pay for it?
And won.
Which is probably more than we can and will ever be able to say about you.
An equally important issue, the Personhood bill that was defeated in Alabama, which would have wreaked havoc on a woman's reproductive rights, did not get a peep from him. Since the Republicans are lined up to propose that the same kind of draconian laws become the law of the land, it would have been an excellent time for him to distinguish himself as being supportive of a woman's right to choose by also praising that outcome.
I felt let down by his silence. He needs to do the math realize there are a lot more women voters than union voters.
Link, please.