Every evaluation of the Obama presidency starts with the same basic dilemma. Obama took office facing the worst crises since Franklin Roosevelt. He promptly enacted a stimulus packages that staved off a depression, made good on health care reform sidetracked for half a century, and won the appointment of eminent women to the Supreme Court and the Cabinet -- all over the efforts of an obstructionist minority who would rather have the country fail than see this president succeed.
So why the dismay among progressives generally and feminists, in particular? The answer is straightforward. In the face of extremist opposition that gives disproportionate influence to a would-be American Taliban, the administration caves and (worse) extracts no price for allowing policies hostile to women to triumph. The result puts women's interests on the defensive throughout the country.
The next fight on the agenda will be over the regulations implementing health care reform. Efforts are underway to insure access to contraception as part of preventive care. Eighty-nine percent of sexually active women use birth control, and an overwhelming majority of the public favors greater contraceptive support. Birth control pills can run as high as $75 per month, and with the recession, growing numbers of women report that they can't afford them. Yet, the Republican right is determined to fight these measures, confident that if it says "sex," the administration will cut and run.
The pattern started with the stimulus package. The original proposal would have made it easier for the states to provide contraception to women while they were in the hospital giving birth at government expense. The Republican minority yelled "family planning" and the administration yanked the proposal before anyone realized what it was about. To understand the implications, start with the underreported fact that 40% of all births in the United States are paid for by Medicaid. That means that 40% of all births are to women at or near the poverty line. Add the fact that over the period before the financial crisis, unintended pregnancies fell 20% for middle class women - who had access to the more effective contraceptives available with medical insurance -- while rising rising 29% for the group who would have benefited from the stimulus proposal. (Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3809006.pdf)
Now ask, why do Republicans oppose contraception for poor women who are having children at taxpayer expense? Because they can get it away with it. When Republicans say "family planning," many hear "abortion," even though this proposal's only impact on abortions would be to reduce them. Opposition to family planning also caters to rabid social conservatives who view contraception as government subsidization of "those sluts" (in the words of one Republican Congressman). When the administration pulled the proposal without a fight, the opposition kept its coded messages veiled from the centrists who might disagree -- and paid no political price for advancing the agenda of those who would bring back the scarlet letter, if not the veil.
Imagine what would happen if the Obama administration fought back long enough to make the opposition explain exactly why they are so opposed. When congressional Democrats forced repeated votes on unemployment insurance, we got to hear how such benefits are less important than tax cuts for the wealthy, and how in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, they discourage the unemployed from taking jobs. Imagine asking the same representatives to explain why they opposed reducing the paperwork so that Idaho can get the same contraceptive benefits Mississippi already has (the real impact of the stimulus proposal). Think of the news clips that might result if Senator Ensign (R. Nev. and conservative Christian caught funneling payments to his paramour's family) were asked whether he agreed that poor women should be forced to have more babies so that they will have less sex. Consider the fun news cameramen might have finding a Congressman who cannot fathom that married women might use birth control.
Women are most in need of a champion who embrace real "sex education" and demonstrate just how intolerant the opposition to women's reproductive needs has become. True bipartisanship will become possible only if the administration spotlights and discredits the extremism of its opponents.
Hormonal contraceptives not fully safe for obese women, says a study
Government to fund implant contraceptive
Philippine Bishops on Sex-Ed/Abortion: State Must Obey Moral Law
Weed Wars: Sex toys retailer pumps $100000 into California marijuana push
Forget contraceptives, go natural, church teaches
Health insurers may soon offer contraceptives at no extra cost
Here is the problem. What you call caving on issues without exacting a price, I call the basic framework of how to pass unpassable legislation. The Stim bill had to pass. The three GOP votes we needed to get it passed made a demand. It wasn't a let's compromise moment. It was a do this or we will allow the nation to sink in to a depression. Choices had to be made and the GOP, as a party willing to DESTROY the nation, wins in those kinds of fights. The GOP is willing to let it all burn down.
Health Care was different. The conservative dems blocked the women's push to work around hyde. I understand the motivation to play games with the health care bill to get what you want. But the reality is that Hyde, if unspecified in that bill, would have been dead. And women thought they were so clever by not having and open floor fight. One that they could have used to drive home the point that Hyde was unconstitutional on its face. You guys made a strategic decision and got beat. Then you wanted the President to bail you out. Nope. Not how this works. You picked the fight, you got beat. You don't get another bite at the apple.
With almost all associated costs and almost all other medical costs covered by insurance. Women will have the money to pay for their own abortions. As they have always paid for them.
Now, I wonder how many of you all are making it past that first statement to see what else I have to say, and havn't started tossing all sorts of hate my way at this point. So, let me continue.
While I, personally (the key word), oppose abortion, I also understand that I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. If asked, I will give my opinion, but that is all I will do. Much like I don't like people stepping into my life and trying to tell me how to live it, I try to do the same in return. I don't judge people who choose to have one, and have been there with someone as support when they went to have one performed.
I believe that we do need a comprehensive sex education system. We need one where not only is abstinence taught, but also how to be responsible with sex. And this system cannot be one where the burden of responsibility is laid out on girls and women. For instance, abstinence-only is always taught from the standpoint that it is the woman's responsibility to say no. Even sex-ed is more focused to the woman being responsible, while teaching men "keep a rubber in your wallet".
This needs to be fixed, where responsibility is equally shared by all.
Fanned.
Isn't it curious that the Americans who can most afford to have children often have the lowest birthrates and vice versa?
This goes for women in developed and developing countries. This benefits everyone--it is not just a women's issue.
Who could argue with that?
We need to remove the barriers to access--make sure that it is affordable and accessible and that people can get the information they need.
As for abortion killing more women than men, yeah, 100% more, just like childbirth.
Finally, abstnence only worked really well for Bristol Palin, right?
"No More Apologies: It's Time To Stand Up For Our Convictions"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-dean/no-more-apologies----its_b_659043.html
And I agree with both of them.
Absolutely true--for feminists, for racial minorities, for religious minorities, gays, for science,for regulation, for the enviornment, for sensible economic policies, for fair taxation, for everything.
Now if only the administration would try.
Maybe you don't need some DFH with unshaven pits adlegs tellimg you it's ok to use birth control. I can accept that. But can you accept the fact that we are not going to allow conservative women with antiquated ideas to hijack our movement.
If you don't like the platform of the feminist movement than start your own f--king movement. We don't need you and we d@mn sure aren't going to support you.
Conservatives couldn't agree with that statement.