The Obama administration said it would give religious organizations one additional year to comply with a new policy requiring employers to provide free contraception services in insurance plans. Roman Catholic bishops and other church leaders had protested the new rules, which were announced in August by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, following a recommendation of the National Sciences’ Institute of Medicine.
It was designed to drive down the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion by making birth control available under the preventive health care services that all insurers must cover without a deductible or co-payment.
Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship were already exempt, but some religious leaders wanted the exemption broadly expanded.
Even so, the question is likely to linger as a campaign issue.
Oh, goody. My basic health is a campaign issue. Again. I’m sure this will be a rational and fact-based debate.
To me, this is a public health regulation. Birth control prevents pregnancy. Pregnancy is, among other things, a health issue for women. Preventing pregnancy, at the most basic level, is something women do to avoid changes to their own health. They’re avoiding some other big changes, too, but at the most basic, immediate level they’re preventing the changes to their own health that pregnancy brings. I can’t separate “preventing pregnancy” and “a woman’s health” because that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Democrats believe public health is a legitimate role for the state and Democrats believe that women are part of the public. Do women have unique health issues that men don’t have? Yeah. They do. That doesn’t take women out of the public health population. One of the goals of the health care law was to give people access to preventative health services without additional out of pocket costs. If women are using birth control as a preventative health measure, and tens of millions of them are, then birth control is well within that frame.
On a political level, I’m more than willing to have a fight with conservatives over access to birth control. I do not believe that access to birth control is at all controversial among the general public, so let’s go.
Birth control is the most commonly prescribed drug for women age 18 to 44, and polls suggest that large majorities of Americans of all faiths support its use.
Sadly, we’ll have to start at the customary 30,00 feet, with Mitt Romney lying his ass off to avoid the topic altogether. I know that applies to nearly any discussion that involves Mitt Romney, but here he’s lying about what he knows and doesn’t know on whether states may ban birth control:
former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney stumbled badly on a Constitutional question from moderator George Stephanopoulos, first trying to punt it to “our Constitutionalist” Ron Paul, then demonstrating painful ignorance about the issues of privacy and banning contraception. The Republican crowd was none too pleased with the line of questioning, booing Stephanopoulos several times.
“Absolutely…I want to get to that core question,” Stephanopoulos continued. “Do you believe states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”
Romney immediately tried to evade the question. “George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. Do states have the right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine circumstances where a state would want to do so.”
“I would oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking — given the fact there’s no state that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our Constitutionalist here.”
“Do you believe states have that right or not?” Stephanopoulos pressed.
“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do and asking me if I want to do it or not is kind of a silly thing.”
“Hold on a second. governor, you went to Harvard law school. you know very well…”
“Has the Supreme Court decided states do not have the right to provide contraception?” he asked.
“Yes,” Stephanopoulos answered, “they have. ’65, Griswold v. Connecticut.”
“Absolutely…I want to get to that core question,”
Nope. That’s not my core question. As far as I’m concerned, Griswold is settled law. Conservatives lost on that ages ago. I want to move on. I have a different question.
Is access to contraception about public health, my health? See, I think it is. That’s the question I want answered. I know media and conservatives don’t want to talk about birth control in that context, but I don’t accept that. Media and conservatives have framed and limited debate by taking it 30,000 feet up in the air where it’s abstract and they feel safe and comfy, and, incidentally, where conservatives are insulated from the political risk that comes with speaking frankly and plainly about real, live women. I’m not listening to another debate about birth control where women are never mentioned. Sorry. Not doing that. If we’re going to discuss birth control, and we are, because conservatives insist on making anything to do with what we coyly call “reproductive health” a national controversy, I have to demand we all come crashing back to earth and talk about women, our health, and the practical reality of our lives.
Villago Delenda Est
Let me say this as politely as I can muster:
FUCK the boy-buggering garbage that are the US Roman Catholic bishops. FUCK them with a rusty, unlubed chainsaw that can’t be turned off.
Lolis
Romney only wants to discuss things in quiet rooms, where preferably no women are invited.
West of the Cascades
Have there ever been televised Presidential debates that do not have a studio audience? Lily-livered “moderators” like Stephanopolous and John King have a hard enough time asking difficult questions and follow-up questions without audiences interrupting with boos or the sort of cringe-inducing standing ovation that Newt got for lashing out at the media when John King offered him a chance to respond to his ex-wife questioning Newt’s lack of moral character and hypocrisy.
Who decides these things? Would there ever be a debate where there wasn’t applause and booing, so the candidates would have to engage more with the people doing the questioning instead of “playing to the audience”?
c u n d gulag
Conservatives don’t care about women and their issues.
And too many men are oblivious to them.
So, maybe the way to make these issues stand out is to direct them towards men – especially since a greater portion of them are Conservative than women.
“Forced Labor” for women, also means ‘Forced Fatherhood’ for men, dumbasses!
So, you had a couple of beers at the bar with the boys tonight, spot a likely suspect, and your little man wants to play?
Well, you’re gonna have to pay!
So, yeah, Conservatives – you tell voters that you want to get rid of contraceptives!
Your choices if you decide to schtupp?
A potential STD v. a potential baby.
For a woman.
For a man.
That’s equality, Conservative-style!
in a little while, it’ll be Saturday night. ‘Feeling lucky, punks?’
Kay
@Lolis:
I can’t watch the debates, because they’re soul-killing, but, boy, reading a transcript you get a real sense of “weasel” w/Governor Romney.
I read a lot of transcripts. His scream WEASEL! :)
The endless qualifiers, the panicked shifts he makes, my goodness. I don’t know how he got this far.
Gretchen
My daughter has twice had major surgery in the last couple of years for very large ovarian tumors, which, thankfully, turned out after an excruciating wait for testing, to be benign. She is now cautiouslly considering the possibility of considering the possibility of having a baby. I find the possibility terrifying, and I think on some level so does she. Fuck all these assholes who think they have the slightest right to weigh in on this very personal and scary decision.
Kay
@efgoldman:
That’s part of the problem. Pregnancy is unlike anything men experience, so it’s difficult to…bring home the personal reality of the massive health changes that go along with that state of being :)
Comrade Dread
As someone who is pro-life (and against the death penalty and war), I wholeheartedly agree that contraceptions should be available to anyone wants it. Also, that we should make it as easy as possible to get.
Of course, I don’t subscribe to the Catholic theology.
Villago Delenda Est
The sluts need to be punished for having sex. Your health, Kay, needs to be changed to punish you for having sex. Or thinking of having sex.
This is what this is all about. Punish the sluts. To include wives and daughters. Punish them.
Which is why my reaction to this crap is so violent. They are so vindictive that they’ll endanger the lives of women they have never met in this casual, offhand manner without the slightest remorse.
It is completely against reason or empathy. It’s completely against economic efficiency. It’s counterproductive in countless ways. All because these assholes have a problem with women having agency.
Amir Khalid
@efgoldman:
I know it’s still there only because the edit button has gone AWOL, but this is a typo to be cherished.
burnspbesq
Just so we’re clear, the Supreme Court got to the socially correct answer in Griswold and Roe, but the opinions are crap. Emanations and penumbras? Puh-leeze.
Zagloba
“…the doctor waved his wand at my wand…”
Benjamin Franklin
Kay:
No need to provide cites for Romney’s lies. It’s stipulated.
kay
@Villago Delenda Est:
Well, that’s one theory. I myself subscribe to the “denying women agency” theory.
I get there because the new PR campaign (oddly) excludes women completely.
See what I mean? A slut has a will, and she acts as an adult. Sanctioning someone assumes that they act with independent thought and free will.
We’ve moved off even that. Now women are just..gone. They’re not in there. There’s the church and the state and the law and the fetus or baby. Sometimes the doctor is in the newer legislation. No woman.
I think I’d prefer the old slut frame, actually. That assumes agency.
WereBear (itouch)
I agree a million percent. Let’s have the whole banning birth control conversation loud and clear and on all channels. If this is the hill Republicans want to die on; charge!
kay
@burnspbesq:
I feel as if it’s fashionable to say this among lawyers, burns, but I accept that you believe it. Okay. They’re crap.
The problem is, no one has ever come up with anything better. I read Roe, now, today, and I can’t do any better. Can you?
JCT
@WereBear (itouch): Exactly. Every time we should ask “why exactly do you want to BAN birth control”. A simple question that they can try to answer.
The assault on women and their reproductive health that the 2010 elections have spawned is simply mind-boggling. And reprehensible. Actually, I’m having trouble even coming up with an appropriate adjective at this point.
Zagloba
IANAL, but the Bill of Rights is explicitly not an exhaustive list of prohibitions on governmental power. The Court is free to find a right of the people against the government wherever they want to; it’s just that US jurisprudence since WWII has been reluctant to.
Of course, today we’ve also got explicitly written supreme-law-of-the-land like the UN declaration of human rights to go on, which I’m to lazy to go looking up the state of in the early seventies on my day off.
kay
@burnspbesq:
My point is that was a tough, tough call. Someone had to decide, because the fact is, it happened, and it happened in the political/legislative realm. It’s all well and good to look at that decision as legally suspect, but good luck with that case. You’ll need it.
If you want to argue what Romney’s arguing here, that it won’t happen again, well, okay.
Linda Featheringill
@Villago Delenda Est: #10
I see that “agency” has found its way into our vocabulary. :-)
To the topic at hand:
I long ago tired of listening to men talk about abortion and about contraception. Unless that man happens to be my physician. Then he can talk about it with my permission.
Sorry guys. Nothing personal. You’re probably really nice.
RSA
Nice post, Kay.
Romney’s weaseling is really amazing, but I’d also like to know how Newt would respond. “Mr. Gingrich, your church teaches that the use of condoms, the Pill, and other forms of contraception is a mortal sin. Would this influence your policy-making as President?”
Villago Delenda Est
@kay:
I see what you’re talking about.
They don’t want to go there with agency, to even admit it exists, so we’ll just ignore that.
The reasons for including birth control in health insurance are pretty much exactly as the Obama administration has stated. It’s a cost issue, and a cost control issue overall. If you have pregnancies planned, you’re going to control health care costs. Furthermore, you’re going to enhance, overall, the health of women, and that too is going to reduce health care costs by reducing demand. The fact is, biologically speaking, pregnancy is a health risk and it needs to be addressed. Always has been. Obviously, the intelligent designer fucked up with that entire aspect of his creation. Not very bright intelligent designer there.
However, once again, we see that the economic issues are not all that important to the reactionaries. This is a sexual morality issue to them, and practical considerations are trumped as they vindictively pursue their policies of oppression.
Villago Delenda Est
@Linda Featheringill:
I’ll let you do the talking for me on that, Linda. My support of women in these matters is absolute. I can’t get pregnant. That means my life experience leaves me totally unprepared to speak about it from anything but a theoretical position, and that’s of little help to someone who faces the consequences of their biology in ways I can’t begin to fathom, only imagine, and poorly at best.
Which is why those asshole bishops should STFU.
kay
@Linda Featheringill:
I don’t agree with that, I have to say. I think men are a legit part of the debate. I’m simply saying that it’s pretty ludicrous to leave real live women out, by framing this in such lofty, abstract terms.
This is about the health care law and what’s covered, at the lowest level. That has real and immediate consequences.
tjmn
@Kay: Pregnancy is unlike anything men experience, so it’s difficult to…bring home the personal reality of the massive health changes that go along with that state of being :)
Agree. How about a #14 Griswold cast iron skillet along side the head of every male conservative that is anti-women’s health? Every time he opens his yap about contraception. eqivalency of pain, so to speak, also, to. I am willing loan out said skillet.
Linda Featheringill
@kay:
See, Kay. That just shows you’re a nicer person than I am.
Signed,
Grumpy Old Slut with Lots of Agency. :-)
Roger Moore
@JCT:
And I think their answer in this case will be something like “we don’t want to ban birth control, we just don’t want to force it on organizations that have a genuine religious opposition to it”. I think that stinks. They’re ultimately asking for a broad 1st Amendment exemption to anything. This time it’s contraception. Another time it’s abortion, or having to treat gays equally. Then it’s going to be being forced to treat women equally. Then other minorities. I think there needs to be a bright line that they don’t get to ignore any law they like just because they can come up with a weak theological excuse.
Linda Featheringill
@Villago Delenda Est:
Thank you for your support. :-)
In theory, of course, men should have a say about contraception. But in reality, out in the world, there is a name for women who rely on men to handle contraception. That name is “Mother.”
kay
@Linda Featheringill:
I’m not. Nicer. I just stumble over the fact that we’re constantly telling boys (here) this is their responsibility too, so I can’t square that with keeping them out when it suits me. Just bring everyone in. Try that. What the hell, right? Worth a shot.
Linda Featheringill
@kay:
Good point.
Betty Cracker
@Gretchen: Exactly — situations like your daughter’s make the stakes of this “campaign issue” very real. I’m with Kay; let’s talk about what this really means for millions of woman rather than the 30K-feet political bullshit. I hope everything works out for your daughter.
losgatosca
I think there needs to be a bright line that they don’t get to ignore any law they like just because they can come up with a weak theological excuse.
Good thought, no traction. Gingrich gets applause after proposing presidential nullification of Supreme Court decisions that are ‘wrong.’
The mission from the Republican gods supersedes any law, common sense, or oath of office. It’s not hard to understand, it’s just difficult to reconcile that nonsense with any concept of a modern productive society.
WereBear (itouch)
@Gretchen: Absolutely chilling to think anyone but your daughter would have the final say.
I would be more sympathetic to the anti-choice brigade if their humanitarian concerns extended to the actual baby and/or the mother who gives birth or even to either parent who is then going to feed, clothe, and get health care for the subsequent child.
But they do not. And that makes their entire argument ring hollow.
Amir Khalid
@efgoldman:
If I’m not mistaken, FYWP only recognizes taboo words, not taboo phrases.
Gretchen
Thank you, Betty Cracker and were bear. She’s my darling baby. I’d do anything to protect her. To these guys she’s just a theory, and expendable.
Roger Moore
@WereBear (itouch):
They’re just committed to equal opportunity, GOP style. Every zygote deserves an equal opportunity to be born. After birth, though, everything a person does is his own doing, so there’s no need to provide step in and do anything to help people who are struggling.
CarolDuhart2
And I can’t get past their opposition to anything that smacks of assistance to the extra pregnancies that would occur: no health care, no housing nothing. Or the fact that some pregnancies are more sacred than others: think of the dog-whistle racism directed toward minority mothers, lesbian mothers, or any mother who is not Christian.
Also google “Demographic Winter” to get the feel of the panic at the browning not only of America, but the world, and the fear that the West will run out of certain people.
This tends to bring out the worst in a discussion about contraception and abortion.
Basilisc
Another way to look at the “agency” issue: no one is forcing employees of churches, mosques, etc to use birth control. They’re just covering that in insurance if they choose to. And if their religion says they shouldn’t, but they choose to anyway, that’s kind of a failure of the religion, isn’t it?
It’s similar to the school prayer issue: no one is banning kids from praying. They’re just banning schools from hosting kids praying. If you want the schools to do this, your saying your churches, mosques, etc aren’t doing a very good job of getting their younger members to pray.
Why, exactly, do “conservatives” want government to do the church’s job?
Villago Delenda Est
@Linda Featheringill:
Well, it does, after all, take two to tango, and men should ask questions prior to getting naked about contraception. Simply from a safe sex standpoint (as you’re sleeping with everyone who’s ever slept with your partner) men have a responsibility to ask and to make their druthers known. Certainly the woman, who has the most at risk in any heterosexual encounter, should make her druthers known. I’ve always been careful to ask, before hormones totally take over, how far my partner wants things to go. Terribly reasonable of me, I’m sure, but I want to get it done before I get too carried away with things and pure instinct takes over.
Given that some of these people object to vaccinations for cervical cancer specifically because they want the threat of disease hanging over people’s heads like some sort of sword of Damocles, it’s readily apparent that the practical concerns of contraception are secondary to their broomstick-up-the-ass attitudes about human sexuality in general. People are going to have sex. You can’t stop that short of pretty draconian measures that kinda undercut this entire “freedom” concept.
What bothers me even more is that it’s that they have to control the actions of others with whom they have absolutely no interaction at all, just because they can’t suspend their obsession with sex. It’s like all their concern about gay sex; if it bothers you, STOP FUCKING THINKING ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME! This obsession tells us more about YOU, bluenosed twits, than you’ll ever know about us.
It’s so frustrating. I thought we had gotten past a lot of this crap in the 60’s and 70’s. But no. Progress is a slow, slow climb.
patrick the pedantic literalist
The “pro-life” community has been able to separate and hide it’s position for limiting (or even criminalizing) contraception from it’s position on abortion. From a political point of view, this decision gives the pro-choice community the opportunity to enlighten the voting community on the link between all reproductive rights and the danger of letting someone else control them.
JasonF
I think there is a large component of sexism and sexual judgment going on here, but I think there’s also a large dose of “I don’t want to pay for other people’s health issues” that drives this too. I had one of my right-wing acquaintances argue that his health care premiums would be so much lower if the government wasn’t forcing insurance companies to cover “every itsy-bitsy little thing.”. It’s nonsense, of course — coverage of birth control is not a driver of insurance premiums — but that’s the way a lot of people on the right think.
burnspbesq
@kay:
“I read Roe, now, today, and I can’t do any better. Can you?”
No. And that’s a problem. If you continue to rely on the judiciary to protect these rights that you hold so dear, someday you will lose them. Because they aren’t in the Constitution. That simple, irrefutable truth has to inform everything that you do to protect those rights. This is a political issue, and short of a Constitutional amendment that you’ll never get, it requires political solutions. It requires a long, dismal, rearguard action in every state legislature, because when there is no Federal Constitutional right to reproductive choice, the Tenth Amendment throws you back to the state level.
Yutsano
@Basilisc:
Because conservatives do not want those two discrete entities to remain such. At least not the religious conservatives. They demand nothing less than Christian hegemony. And their interpretation must rule.
Villago Delenda Est
@JasonF:
What these people don’t get is that they’re paying it forward for that time (and it will come) when someone else will pay for their health needs. I paid it forward by putting my ass on the line in uniform. Yet these people would bitch and moan about that, without bothering to think that THEY might be in need of some support some day. More short term thinking, again.
pseudonymous in nc
The concept of “public health” is so shaky in the US for a variety of reasons, not least the idiotic thing it has in place of a healthcare system (OMG soshulism!) but also because there’s a subculture of quackery. Put simply, the idea that there are certain health issues that can’t be squeezed into the ideological box of “personal responsibility” and for which an all-encompassing approach is required — vaccination, care of the disabled or severely mentally ill, rare disorders that require focused comparative study to build up a corpus of medical knowledge — still seems controversial in the US.
Reproductive health is public health. This is not difficult to see when you have the struggles to reduce family sizes to manageable levels and prevent STDs (particularly HIV) in the developing world, but it is apparently hard to make the connection.
burnspbesq
@Roger Moore:
You’ve touched on the con law argument that nobody seems willing to make, i.e., that reproductive freedom is an Establishment Clause issue. The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I may choose to be bound by the teachings of my Catholic faith on this issue, but you should get to make that choice for yourself, not have it imposed on you.
arguingwithsignposts
@burnspbesq:
I realize that’s not how it’s usually interpreted, but the amendments are not all inclusive, and not just something state governments get to decide if the federal gov’t doesn’t.
Redshift
@Basilisc: One of the most appalling bits in the NPR story about this decision was the spokeswoman(!) for Cardinal Dolan complaining that this would “force citizens to buy contraception.” My initial reaction was “Huh?” until I figured out that she was dishonestly characterizing the requirement for employers to pay for insurance that paid for contraception. But I’m sure we’ll be hearing that line again.
The story was pretty good, btw. It noted that there are Catholic and other religious institutions that already provide this coverage, so it’s not exactly the absolute they’re making it out to be.
Redshift
@Villago Delenda Est: Or in other words, another round of IGMFY.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
The bishops seem to be arguing here that insuring the service is offering is tantamount to pushing birth control on their flock.
Which of course is utter bullshit.
They object to it for EVERYONE, and they seek to ram their theology down their throats.
BTW, I agree with you 100% that Freedom of Religion is pointless without Freedom from Religion, but there are plenty of people out there who don’t seem to think this. I’m biased, I grew up and and live in the most “unchurched” part of the country, the Pacific NW, but the contrast when I was stationed in the South was startling. If you’re not in church on Sunday, something is wrong with you. While the particular flavor of church is not that important, the fact that you’re in some church, even the Papist one, means, again, something is wrong with you.
kay
You know what then, Burns?
Overturn. Get the Federalist society lawyers in there and overturn that whole line of cases.
I’ve been listening to conservative lawyers lecture me on this since law school, and I’d sick of defending.
You defend. Overturn it if it’s unlawful.
You’ve got 5 justices.
Bring your fucking case already.
Then we beat you in the political realm. But good.
The onus isn’t on me. My side won. It’s on you.
Comrade Dread
I realize I’m in the minority of pro-life folks having more of a leftie political outlook, but I would support massive reformation of the adoption laws and process to make the process much more affordable and government subsidies for folks who want to adopt.
As well as subsidies for day care and continuing education and job training for those women who would choose to keep their children. Give them the opportunities for advancement so they (and their kids) have a better chance of success.
Hell, we should be doing this now anyway.
As for alternatives to Roe’s reasoning for a right to privacy, I’ve long thought that was covered as the poster above notes in the ninth and tenth amendments, as well as the fourth.
Comrade Dread
Of course, if you’re a Catholic organization employing Catholic folks, then you shouldn’t have to worry about your employees ever taking advantage of this, since the Church is against it, right?
Or maybe they just don’t trust their own membership to follow the Church’s flawed teachings on this topic.
Villago Delenda Est
@Villago Delenda Est:
Er, NOT in some church. I want my edit button back! Whaaaa!
Villago Delenda Est
@Redshift:
Yup, that’s the bottom line. Jon Kyl objecting to providing any health care services for bitches, period. Because he has his (pretty damn gold plated), so fuck you, serf scum!
Elizabelle
Kay:
OT, but here’s an article from the Christian Science Monitor that I thought you might find interesting, if you’ve not seen.
subhead: Mitt Romney in particular has used the South Carolina primary to test anti-labor union policies as a campaign issue. His pitch to expand right-to-work laws could lead to Wisconsin redux.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0121/The-hidden-issue-in-South-Carolina-primary-labor-union-clout
(Thought of you when I saw it; haven’t read article yet.)
kay
Burns, I resent how conservatives have managed to frame this, where liberals and Democrats re depending on courts to protect from political accountability on these issues.
If conservatives believe Griswold was wrongly decided, they need to overturn it, and accept the political risk that goes with that.
I agree with Griswold. I’m not going to hand you the win, and commence my “rearguard action” in the states.
You’ll have to bring, and win, your court case first.
TooManyJens
@Comrade Dread: I’m with you. I’m not sure if we’re in the minority or not, but we’re sure as hell in the minority of people who are organized and loud.
kay
And, I apologize for swearing at you Burns.
I’ve just been listening to that particular argument from conservatives for years, and I tire of it.
I want them to overturn, or stop threatening me with overturning.
I see political risk FOR CONSERVATIVES here, so I insist they get going, or stop threatening.
Anyway, I don’t mean you personally, so I’m sorry for swearing at you.
rikyrah
this was a good decision by the Administration
burnspbesq
@kay:
You’ve completely misunderstood me on this issue. I’m just telling you what is. I’ve said nothing about my personal views.
You know what? Shove it. If you’re determined to turn friends into enemies, so be it.
kay
No, Burns, you’re wrong.
“What is” IS Roe and Griswold.
You think they were wrongly decided.
You know how this works.
What’s your remedy?
Overturn them, and THEN you can give me advice on “rearguard state action”
I’m not going to take defense on “Griswold was wrongly decided” until conservatives overturn Griswold.
If they’re going to threaten, I think they should follow through and take the political risk that comes with that.
Again, I didn’t say Griswold was unlawful.
You did. There’s a remedy for that.
kay
Burns, conservatives are hiding behind Roe while sneering at it.
Liberals are constantly apologizing for that decision.
I want to turn that around. I want conservatives to defend their position, politically, without hiding behind a whole line of cases that they claim to want to overturn.
Roe protects conservatives, politically.
The political risk is shared by both sides.
kay
Burns, Santorum is telling the truth.
Without Griswold, contraception is in play.
Every national conservative should have to admit that, but they don’t.
Instead they insist that liberals defend.
Where is the political accountability in denouncing Roe yet never moving to overturn it?
Why should liberals have to defend?
Liberals agree with Roe.
slag
@kay: Bring it! Thank you so much, Kay! You have no idea how refreshing it is to see my thoughts on this issue written by someone else for a change. The time is over for liberal retreat on reproductive health. No more qualifiers. And yes, it’s past time for women to move back to the front of the battle.
slag
@burnspbesq:
By god you’re a perpetual pants-pisser. I’m usually on the side of unity, but quite frankly, we don’t need any more like you. No more apologists!
Sammi
Does this also affect students at religious institutions? I was shocked when, as a grad student at Georgetown, I could not get a birth control prescription at the student health clinic. I was obligated to take out loans for thousands of dollars for student health insurance (I was no longer covered by my parents health ins) but it was of no use to me. As a healthy 20-something, all I needed was birth control pills. Georgetown also prevented students from having free condom giveaway events.