home

Obama v. McCain on Family Planning

Nicholas Kristoff calls attention to another substantive policy difference between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Senator Obama supports U.N.-led efforts to promote family planning; Senator McCain stands with President Bush in opposing certain crucial efforts to help women reduce unwanted pregnancies in Africa and Asia.

In other words, Obama supports making birth control easier to obtain. The ready availability of birth control reduces demand for abortions, so you'd think McCain would be on board. Instead, he's on board the right wing aversion to funding any program that makes it easier for women to make choices about their reproductive lives.

[More ...]

The latest bout of reproductive-health madness came in the last couple of weeks when the U.S. Agency for International Development ordered six African countries to ensure that no U.S.-financed condoms, birth control pills, I.U.D.’s or other contraceptives are furnished to Marie Stopes International, a British-based aid group that operates clinics in poor countries.

The Bush administration says it took this action because Marie Stopes International works with the U.N. Population Fund in China. President Bush has cut all financing for the population fund on the — false — basis that it supports China’s family-planning program. ...

Mr. Bush’s defunding of the U.N. Population Fund — backed by Senator McCain — has persisted since 2002. What is new is the extension of that policy to a leading private family-planning organization like Marie Stopes International.

“The irony and hypocrisy of it is that this is a bone to the self-described ‘pro-life’ movement, but it will result in deaths to women who just want to space their births,” said Dana Hovig, the chief executive of Marie Stopes International. The organization estimates that the result will be at least 157,000 additional unwanted pregnancies per year, leading to 62,000 additional abortions and 660 women dying in childbirth.

Why would McCain support such a wrongheaded approach?

Mr. McCain seems to have supported Mr. Bush, mostly out of instinct, and when a reporter asked him this spring whether American aid should finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa, he initially said, “I haven’t thought about it,” and later added, “You’ve stumped me.”

Add this to the long list of issues, including the economy, that stump McCain.

< New Barriers to Voting | Baiting McCain: "Say It To My Face" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And yet (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:56:28 AM EST
    some so-called "democrats" either will vote for McCain or will only vote downticket.

    Amazing.

    I'm not worried about Democratic women (none / 0) (#14)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    leaving the top of the ballot blank.  Right now there's not much recourse for Hillary supporters who are angry at the DNC other than not voting for Obama.  So be it.  

    What we should focus on is the bigger picture that our disaffected Dem voters represent.  We have non-representation of the majority of the country (the middle class) as was evidenced by the bank bailout without main street relief.  We have opponents in the GE who are basing their presidential bid on lies that generate hatred, anger, and disrespect amongst their followers.  We have followers on our own side who can hardly contain their sexism and ageism against their perceived opponents (Hillary supporters last spring, ageism against McCain now).  And to add to the "culture war" and politics of distractions, diversions and deceit, we have the potential for massive election fraud this year destroying the very framework of democracy in our country.  

    Basically, we've allowed our country to become a plutocracy over the past 20-50 years, but now it's imploding because we have a strong middle class with expectations of a high standard of living and control over their government.  If our economy collapses, most Americans could find themselves having to work for what third world country laborers get paid.  

    Seems to me we need to do much more than just get Barack Obama elected.

     

    Parent

    National Healthcare (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    Free reproductive care for all!

    I can get behind that.  Better than dealing with insurance companies that pay for Viagra but not oral BC.  

    (Never could understand that.  It would take decades of BC pills to equal the cost of one pregnancy and delivery.  An ounce of prevention and all that...)

    A lot of HMO's/health insurers... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    ...wouldn't even offer maternity coverage if they weren't mandated to do so by the states under small employer group laws.  

    Even then, in some cases (usually individual applications for coverage), being pregnant is considered a pre-existing condition and results in those women being turned down for coverage.  

    Parent

    Don't get me started! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    Insurance companies are probably reason #1 I'm for UHC.  It's not like Minimum Wage Maggie can walk into her local insurance office and find an affordable, reliable policy that will allow her to afford to keep herself healthy.  

    If that was a reality, UHC wouldn't be desperately needed.  Right now we have a private health care system available only to the wealthy or connected (employer-based) and everyone else is either praying they don't fall ill or that the stretched public health systems will care for them.  The problem is that the public health care system isn't really a system, it's more like a sieve because it has so many gaps.

    Parent

    Or Minimum Wage Mark for that matter. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    At least Minimum Wage Mark (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    won't find himself pregnant!

    I'm not sure why BC pills never went OTC.  Cracked me up when I found a common OTC sleep aid is an antihistamine with sedative effects rivaling barbituates.  You can get stuff to jazz you up and knock you out, but you can't get something to keep you from getting pregnant?

    Probably the "pro" life types who would throw a complete hissy fit if they thought their daughters could get BC control without them knowing.

    Parent

    I noticed the other day... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    ...that at my local Safeway, condoms are now behind the counter of the pharmacy. I guess we can't have people just grabbing them off the shelf anymore.  

    I don't think we will ever get past the Puritan shame of anything sexual in this country.  

    Parent

    Further off topic... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:42:30 PM EST
    They were lobbying to get cholesterol-lowering statin drugs sold OTC.

    There's a little side effect possible with statin drugs.  They can cause liver damage.  So I think they should sell statin drugs OTC only if the words "CAN CAUSE LIVER DAMAGE" are printed in a type larger than anything else on the container.

    Really.  If you are putting your liver at risk by taking a medication, I think you should know about it before you buy it, take it home and throw out the precautions sheet.

    Parent

    minimum wage mark (none / 0) (#21)
    by Julianne on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    Well apparently you are not as informed as you think you are. Any woman can walk into the local health dept & after a free gynecological exam by a health care provider get FREE birth control pills, condoms or other birth control pills with no questions asked other than questions about her health status. And no, birth control pills do NOT need to be OTC. They can have some very serious side effects for some women. That is why they should only be dispensed under the direction of a health care provider.

    Parent
    Never could understand that? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by imhotep on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:01:22 PM EST
    This is still a very patriarchal society.  Plus the drug companies push those very expensive so-called "ed" drugs.  ED is one of those made-up conditions like "over-active bladder".  
    Do you ever see a commercial for condoms or birth control pills on the evening news?  Or tampons or Kotex?  Hah!
    Yet we are treated nightly to commercials discussing penis malfunctions.

    Parent
    what I love is that they play this (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    ED commercials at all times of the day...

    "Daddy, what's ED?"

    lol...

    Parent

    And what do they use to sell ED drugs? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    Sex!

    It's funny how the ED drug commercials went from being incredibly cautious and clinical to highly suggestive.  

    Parent

    It's Like Maggie and Mark Upthread (none / 0) (#18)
    by daring grace on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM EST
    The conversation about abortion among the anti choice crowd always centers on the woman and her perceived irresponsibility or moral laxness in 'getting herself into that position'. It has seldom, if ever, examined that it takes two to tango and what about all these potential papas out there and THEIR responsibility and morality?

    I was an unwilling witness to a chortling discussion among men in a newstand once where they were saying things like: "These gals oughta learn to keep their knees together, har har har har."

    When I got to the head of the line and paid for my purchase, I suggested maybe those men ought to figure out how to keep their flies zipped up, har, har, har, har...Crickets. You could see no one had ever suggested that to them. It had never entered their 'minds' and they were, even then, shooing that distasteful heresy out as fast as they could.

    What a world, what a world, to quote the Wicked Witch of the West.

    Parent

    Obama supports providing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    birth control.  McCain doesn't.  Obama votes for legislation to help our veterans.  McCain doesn't.  If only Obama would stress these differences.  Too risky, I guess.

    I can't understand how (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    but of course I'm not doing internal polling.  One thing I notice about my nation, during times of perceived prosperity its Puritan roots become reenergized and my reproductive rights become the tools of Satan.  When we cycle back to having to work harder everyday for our daily bread suddenly my reproductive rights become my freedoms again and sometimes even free of charge.  Happens every time!

    Parent
    McCain (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by WifeMotherof4 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    Vote for McCain!!

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407882,00.html

    www.jillstanek.com

    Too scared to try it in the US (none / 0) (#5)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:24:11 AM EST
    the GOP loves to impose this extreme control over other counties.

    Not a shining example of the U.S. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    being a force for greater good in the world.

    Parent