home

Where Do The Presidential Candidates Stand?

Today, Speaker Pelosi joined Senators Clinton and Murray condemning the Bush Administration's proposed new Department of HHS regulations regarding contraceptive services. Yesterday, Senators Clinton and Murray wrote:

It has come to our attention that the Department of Health and Human Services may be preparing draft regulations that would create new obstacles for women seeking contraceptive services. One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of "abortion." This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – "abortions" and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms. We strongly urge you to reconsider these regulations before they are released. We are extremely concerned by this proposal's potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health.

It so happens that no matter what President Bush does on this issue, we will have a new President in January 2009 with the power to endorse or overturn President Bush's actions. While I applaud the Speaker and the two Senators, I think it is imperative to hear from the Presidential candidates on this issue, as we know they will have the power to confirm or overturn any decision President Bush makes. The voters have a right to know.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< First Guantanamo Trial to Begin Monday | Bill Clinton 'Ready To Go' For Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama has an opportunity here (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:32:22 PM EST
    He can unequivocally come out in favor of one of the most basic rights a woman has. It seems like a no-brainer. Here is where we find out if Obama cares more about women or about reaching out to Christian Conservatives. There is a time when I would not have doubted that a Democratic candidate for President would be squarely behind contraception. I'm not sure now what will happen.

    At the faith forum (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    he wouldn't/couldn't say when life beigins. That was/is a huge issue for me.

    Parent
    Actually. (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    by not stating that "life begins at conception" he is already rejecting the right-wing playbook and framing.

    Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama on July 8:

    The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), saying his 100 rating by the fund for consistently backing pro-abortion legislation makes him the best choice for president.

    ...

    "Last month, the board of the national Planned Parenthood Action Fund voted unanimously to recommend endorsing Senator Obama. That recommendation was ratified by Planned Parenthood's local action organizations, which represent the interests of all 100 Planned Parenthood affiliates," she added....

    "In contrast," Brewer said, "Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has a zero percent voting record on women's reproductive health and has stated he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 25 years in Washington, D.C., Sen. McCain has cast 125 votes against women's health."

    This is only the second time Planned Parenthood has endorsed a Presidential candidate.  In this link, Cecile Richards, Ann Richards's daughter, explains the endorsement.

    Parent

    John Kerry said that life begins at conception (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    He did so in early July 2004:

    I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.

    So, was John Kerry to the right of Obama on this issue?   Why does Kerry get slack on this issue, and Obama gets none--even with a 100% voting record?  

    Parent

    I remember him (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    promising Charlie Gibson to appoint pro-choice justices at one of the debates. It was unequivocal. That's what matters.

    Parent
    This isn't about Kerry (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    it's about Obama and his umm and uhhhhh answer to the question. And about other comments and actions on his part.

    Do not try and convince me about Obama and womens issues. Only he can do that.

    Parent

    you left out the next part of the quote (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by lucy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    John Kerry went on to say:

    "But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

    I don't care personally what a candidate thinks about abortion, I just care what he will do with policy.  The Bush administration is trying to change policy, Bush is not making a statement of personal opinion.

    I want to hear what Obama thinks about redefining abortion in terms of policy.  So far....nothing.


    Parent

    Kerry is a practicing Catholic. Obama (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:09:01 PM EST
    isn't.

    Parent
    And, that is why Obama refused to say (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM EST
    life begins at conception.....

    Parent
    Since when? (1.33 / 3) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST

    He can unequivocally come out in favor of one of the most basic rights a woman has.

    Since when does a woman or man for that matter have a right to make others pay for their contraceptives?

    Parent

    That's not what this is about (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by CST on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    It's not about paying for it, it's about restricting access and not providing at all.

    Parent
    We're talking about medical insurance (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:47:37 PM EST
    Women have a right to have their medical insurance pay for prescription only medications. I can't think of a single other instance where there is any debate about having insurance pay for prescription meds. If they want to make contraceptives uninsurable, all they have to do is to make them over the counter.

    Parent
    OTC anything tends to make (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    me nervous.

    But I'd make an exception for oral contraception.

    (Sorry.  People tend to be far too casual about OTC medications for my taste.  I think they wanted to make statins OTC, and that class of drugs can cause some serious problems.  Liver damage anyone?  I wonder how many people even read the dosing information, let alone side effects and contraindications.)

    Parent

    Yeah, no one (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:03:19 PM EST
    has a right to make others pay for their heart pills, either....

    Let them all eat cake....

    Parent

    Or Viagra? (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    Oral contraceptives are used for many (none / 0) (#134)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    Health issues outside of stopping and unwanted pregnancies.  I can theoretically understand that insurance shouldn't pay for contraceptives (though think about how much cheaper it would be for society if it was), but these blanket rules get in the way of proper healthcare completely distinct from pregnancy and acni.

    Parent
    Yeah - if this is not a no-brainer (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    then the term has lost all meaning.

    Parent
    If your statement was true, (none / 0) (#25)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    then men would overwhelmingly support abortion.

    Parent
    Yes, actually (none / 0) (#109)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM EST
    that's exactly what she said. If men got pregnant, they would indeed not only support it but celebrate it.

    Parent
    Why would anyone celebrate abortion? (none / 0) (#133)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:00:44 PM EST
    That makes no sense.  It makes sense to celebrate that a women has the right to choose, but abortion is not something one should take lightly, or celebrate.  Being pro choice is VERY different then being pro abortion.  Life is created at some point from momement 1 to 9 months.  When that occurs is a matter of personal debate, and thus should be the personal choice of the pregnant woman (up through a certain point).

    Parent
    Sam. You're a guy, right? (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:25:28 AM EST
    Yes. What is your point? (none / 0) (#147)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:02:00 AM EST
    The point is that (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    you apparently can't tell when your gender is being mocked.

    Parent
    If Obama doesn't condemn this (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    he'll lose me forever.  Really.  I'll pull the lever for him, but nothing else.

    But I'm pretty sure he'll come out against it on principle (seriously, this is appalling).  Or if you folks prefer, he'll do it because Clinton already has, and politically this isn't something on which he can disagree with her.

    Define "lost", please. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    I'll join the chorus of boos. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    And then still vote for him because of the SCOTUS (I'm not much into full self-immolation).

    Parent
    If he doesn't condem this (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    how can you trust he'll do right with SCOTUS?

    Parent
    pull the lever for him, but nothing else (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    what else do you imagine he needs from you?

    Parent
    Um... the whole "support" thing. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    My donations, my phone calls, my boots on the ground... I'm not much of a keyboard warrior, ultimately.  I typically do stuff for the candidates I support.

    Parent
    no offense (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    but I suspect all he really cares about is the pulling the lever part

    Parent
    None taken. And none intended toward you (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    when I say that you're dead wrong.  Obama's depending on the ground game, heavily.  Not to overstate my own very minor importance in the scheme of things, but individual efforts will matter in this campaign, as in all others.

    Parent
    What's a canceled fundraiser (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    (or whatever the deal was with that) have to do with GOTV efforts in what will most likely be a turnout election?  Pretty dumb comparison.

    Parent
    Well, I hear John Sheridan (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    is stepping down as President of the Interstellar Alliance...

    Parent
    I agree with the Capt it's only the vote that (4.80 / 5) (#29)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    matters, but good for you for being a 'doing' person.

    Parent
    McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by desertswine on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    will somehow stand squarely on both sides of the issue.  He will be both for contraception and against contraception.

    Oh great (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    Another opportunity for McCain to appear reasonable simply by being not-quite-as-wingnutty as Bush.

    An interesting thought process on your part (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    Why do you think McCain will agree with the Clinton/Murray/Pelosi position? For that matter, why do you think Obama will?

    Finally, why do you think that taking such a position will be a political positive for McCain?

    Parent

    Do you think McCain would hesitate (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:45:55 PM EST
    to triangulate?

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    He has a problem with his base.

    That is why this is a perfect squeeze issue for Obama, IF he believes in Contrast.

    Parent

    The "Me too!" strategy only won once (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:05:30 PM EST
    and that was in the Democratic primary.

    I've never seen it win for a Dem in a presidential election.

    Parent

    Today Sen. Obama "me too"d (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    Al Gore's speech.

    Parent
    Riiiiight. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
    I'll have to look his response up.  I'd love to see "My administration will make this proposal a reality!".  

    Parent
    Here you go [from Huff Post]: (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:27:41 PM EST
    UPDATE: In a statement released after Gore's speech, Barack Obama chimed in:

    "For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President. It's a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer."



    Parent
    Better than I expected. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:40:20 AM EST
    But still short of unqualified support, definitely a "Me too...kind of." answer.  In ten years?  Hitting goals on a schedule?  I didn't hear that.

    Parent
    Especially given McCain's lame response (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    to the disparity in insurance coverage....

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST
    it is not mainstream to oppose birth control.  That's why the presentable part of the right wing is always very slippery about it.

    Hey, if McCain wants to run on overturning Griswold as well as Roe, he can be my guest.

    Parent

    And do you think his wingnut base (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    will applaud him? He loses vots with this, one way or anther.

    Parent
    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    I kinda think the marginal benefit of driving yet another wedge between McCain and the evangelicals is small at this point.

    I think every opportunity McCain gets to distinguish himself from Bush chips away at the Bush's Third Term narrative.

    Parent

    I think not on THIS issue (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    Besides, if THE ISSUE gains, then screw the politics.

    Let's put this one away.

    Parent

    Then you underestimate (none / 0) (#53)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    the evangelicals imo.

    Parent
    This morning on Morning Joe..... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    ...Scarborough said that Republicans are not against contraception. I think what he forgot to add is that they are not against contraception, but they are against making it easy or affordable for women.

    Parent
    The GOP is not against contraception (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    if it is for married women.  Anyone else, they don't approve.

    Parent
    That's how it was in the excessive '60s (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:17:30 PM EST
    since birth control was not legalized for single women in most states until the '70s.

    Since Obama thinks the '60s were "excessive," I have to hope that he does not want to take us back to the  '50s -- before The Pill was available (at least for birth control . . . although some got it through the back door, as it were, for "regulation of menses"!).

    Parent

    No, he has voiced strong support (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:28:41 PM EST
    for Griswold and said it would be a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee--which is about as close a proxy to Roe as you can get.  Ginsburg refused to answer Roe questions during her confirmation process.

    Parent
    In 2005, when (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    Republicans were at full tilt, some pharmacists as you may recall stopped filling prescriptions for certain kinds of birth control.....

    Some of those pharmacists were in the rich areas of Dallas--the Republican heart of Texas.  There was a quiet revolution in the Dallas suburbs--the refusal to fill prescriptions did not recur.

    Religious people believe in contraception....Even Evangelicals and almost all devout Catholics...

    But symbolism is all....Perhaps McCain pays a  (small) price with the anti-abortion people.

    Parent

    Yep! there are plenty of GOP (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:33:04 PM EST
    women who are pro-choice and if McCain supports contraception equity with Viagra for example, he will win hearts in that group.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    McCain already voted against requiring insurance companies to cover birth control.

    Parent
    And I disagree with that vehemently (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:18:55 PM EST
    But this regulation would allow pharmacies the right to refuse to dispense birth control even to someone standing there with cash in their hands.  This is much further down the road than not paying for it with insurance.

    Parent
    That was even with insurance (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    and it continues since 2005, as do "pharmacists' conscience" bills, etc.  But those are a different topic, as you no doubt know.

    Parent
    If the wingnuts become convinced... (none / 0) (#130)
    by EL seattle on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:49:38 PM EST
    ...that Obama can't be trusted to keep his promises, it might be easy for someone to motivate them to vote for an anti-Obama.  If he does any re-adjustment of his position on topics like this, it will only add to their suspicion of Obama, which might eventually trump their dislike of McCain.      

    Never mind the race issue for a moment.  Remember how paranoid many on the right can become about things like "fifth columns" and "socialists"?  Now try to view Obama's campaign and his often hyper-energetic supporters through this prism of paranoia and conspiracy.  

    The more Obama can be portrayed as untrustworthy, the more republicans might start to view the new democrats almost like a dangerous religious cult.  McCain can move to the center on a lot of issues like this one, if the far right starts to get more paranoid about how far left Obama might be.      

    The wingnuts may not like McCain.  They may hate McCain.  But if they really start to fear Obama, they may vote for McCain in droves.  Especially if they think he's still mostly on the far right side.  

    Parent

    People like some predictability (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    in presidents, especially in uncertain times.  So I think your thinking extends to far more than the right wing voters.  

    Others may be saying, well, I know that I won't like __% of what McCain does, but I can predict that.  But I don't know what Obama will do, so I might like more of what he does -- or I might not like anywhere as much of what he does.

    That is the fear: Even more uncertainties now, when there are so many already.

    Parent

    Obviously a winning political issue (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:45:12 PM EST
    for Obama. This is a pro-choice country and we are a pro-choice party.

    It's also right to stand with the Murray and Clinton on this.

    Let's see if he does. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    Not just pro-choice (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    This is a seriously right-wing bill.  Most pro-lifers I know wouldn't want to cut off access to birth control.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    It's Santorum territory.

    Parent
    actually most "pro-life" (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:52:04 PM EST
    people also happen to be anti birth controll.  because the dont really care about life they just dont want you to have sex.


    Parent
    most of the loudest , most obnoxious pro-lifers (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    don't want anyone to have sex, and have often succeeded in making their numbers seem much larger than they are.

    Steve M is right, "the presentable part of the right wing" has problems with abortion but not nearly so much with contraception.

    However, I don't think they'd really protest or go to the mat for it, so McCain may be alright giving this a big okey-dokey. (electorally alright, not in any other way).

    Parent

    Not even... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    the moralists in the Republican party wanna risk a pregancy every time they get lucky.  Of course they have no big issue with contraception.

    If anything their beef is that the state is paying for somebody else's birth control...it's all about the Benjamins.

    Parent

    while giving male viagra a thumbs up! (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    that's a problem for me. ok for men but NO FOR WOMEN?

    Parent
    no problem with Viagra (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    but try handing out condoms

    Parent
    let me clarify what i meant. i was up to 2 (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    working last night and every night this week. women can't get insurance to pay for birth control, yet men get it for viagra. that is where i have a problem. have a nice evening, capt howdy!

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    its absurd.  if men could get pregnant (thank the sun god they can not) there would be no problem.


    Parent
    A single pregnancy (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:56:55 PM EST
    and delivery costs the state about the same as decades worth of contraception.

    Prevention really IS cost effective.  It also divides the fiscal conservatives and pragmatists from the hard line social conservatives.

    I sometimes think that the appropriate heaven for social conservatives would be to be born into a Depression era slum so they could preach to all their fellow slum dwellers about the virtues of hard work and personal responsibility.

    Parent

    You Give Them Too Much Credit, (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    I'm afraid.

    There are some 'moderate' anti choice proponents who have no problem with contraception, and 'artificial' forms of family planning. But many (most?) of the religious based people see abortion as an endpoint on a continuum of 'anti-child' behaviors and attitudes with contraception also on the spectrum.

    I still find it hard to believe that it was only in 1965 that the SC effectively legalized the USE of contraceptives and that this case originated in Connecticut (!)

    There's a lengthy NY Times magazine article from 2006 that explores some of the right's attitudes toward contraception.

    I can't see the Republicans of today deviating much from this, but maybe a couple would peel off and vote with the Dems.

    Parent

    NY Times Article Link (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:08:20 PM EST
    Excellent observation (none / 0) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:06:01 PM EST
    Valhalla

    Parent
    Control Women (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    I don't think it's about having sex.  They're happy for you to have sex with your heterosexual spouse, just so long as it might end in pregnancy.

    What they really want is to control women and that begins by taking away their ability to control when and how they get pregnant.  Hillary Clinton is the first viable woman candidate for president and a member of the first generation of women to have access to affordable, reliable birth control entirely within their control.  This is not, IMO, a coincidence.

    As a practical matter, if you take away women's reproductive rights, you take away a lot of their other rights, too.

    Parent

    yup. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    barefoot and pregnant springs to mind . . .

    Parent
    Bingo. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Iphie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    And well said -- the only thing you leave out is the desire to punish -- which is, of course, part of the control.

    Parent
    It's not a bill (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    it's a pending Bush admin. regulation.  No votes happen on this.

    Parent
    Thanks for covering this BTD (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    This is just nutty. I wrote an e-mail to Sen. Murray thanking her for standing up for me and will do the same to Sen. Clinton and Spkr. Pelosi when I get home. Brava to them.  

    I too am interested in hearing from the candidates. There's no excuse for silence.

    Thanks for being a MAN who covered this, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by lmv on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:06:55 PM EST
    We can't rid ourselves of gender bias as long as we consider such a fundamental issue as birth control to be a "woman's problem."  (Hence, so is pregnancy, childrearing and daycare.)  

    The reason Obama should speak about this issue is precisely because he's a man.  Of course, Hillary has a strong position on it, and good for her for speaking out.  But, more impact would be made if Obama said something - or any prominent male Dem.

    Not only would that be true leadership but it would signal a real change, that both men and women take BC seriously.  

    The issue here is access to BC, not abortion.  Once BC is conflated with abortion, the game is over.  We must be proactive about separating these issues and reinforcing the idea that, while BC is the responsibility of both consenting adults, abortion remains between the woman, her god (if any) and her doctor.  

    Obama could plainly, unequivocally support BC and unfettered access to it.  And, if he doesn't, it will speak volumes about him.

    Parent

    Pelosi, Murray, Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    What they have in common is their femalehood. Here's what's wrong with our party: when an issue comes up that is devastating to families (men too need contraception) in general and women specifically, who stands up? Some of the women and almost none of the men. This is big and a huge travesty if those HHS regulations get any further than a first draft.
    Where are the guys?

    You hit in on the head! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:58:32 PM EST
    This is exactly where Dems have always (in the past 40 years) had problems. They are seen as a party not of principles but of groups (women, black, hispanic, etc...).

    Parent
    Where they've always been. (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:59:49 PM EST
    It would be nice to finally get a majority of men to realize that it's not just a problem/concern/issue for women, as if women lived in a separate country apart from men.

    Parent
    seriously where are the men? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    And how would they like it if we started putting restrictions on masturbation?

    Parent
    And take away their Viagra. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    Which insurance pays for.

    Parent
    LOL word! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    And there's plenty of women who go on oral contraception not for preventing pregnancy, but for health reasons. Can we say the same about Viagra?

    Parent
    Mmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    Mental distress?

    Parent
    pet peeve #XXXX (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    Pregnancy can be "pre-existing condition".
    Prescription birth control isn't an automatic benefit.

    But Viagra?  Especially when they haven't bothered to roll out a similar product for women?

    Hello double standard!

    Parent

    Allow me... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    as a dude to say insurance covering Viagra is such a joke.    

    I can understand the argument behind not covering birth control in cases where it is not needed for a medical condition...but under the same argument there is no way in hell Viagra should be covered.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    Why is that? Sexual dsyfunction is a medical problem. The insurance cos should cover all meds that are prescribed by a doctor, if that is part of your plan, including birth control and medical MJ.

    Parent
    I don't know squeak.... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    I see Viagra as more of a lifestyle drug...nobody will die, get sick, or suffer in pain if they don't have it.  

    Then again, I'd make it available over the counter....along with all other drugs.

    One things for sure...you can't cover Viagra and not Birth Control...that's just wrong.  It's gotta be both or neither.

    Parent

    To which I have to say (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:22:00 PM EST
    . . . um, are you 60 yet? :-)

    Parent
    kdog confessed yesterday (none / 0) (#118)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:56:50 PM EST
    that he is still in the age range that considers itself immortal. We'll have to see if not having Viagra available through his insurance when he's 60 causes him "pain". I think I can hang around that long. The women in my family live to be really old.

    Parent
    If my junk stops workin'.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:03:08 AM EST
    I think I'll be able to procure my own Viagra...the stuff ain't exactly hard to get.

    And if I was destitute I still wouldn't expect taxpayers to foot the bill for my romps...it would be akin to asking the govt. for free reefer or cigarettes in my mind.

    Parent

    Side note (none / 0) (#135)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:19:40 PM EST
    One of the biggest drug races right now is a female viagra.  But it is much for complicated.  Viagra was a huge scientific breakthrough that we take for granted now.  My guess is that the female vigra will be sort of a post menapause libdo drug + anti osteoporosis + anti breast cancer drug.  Some women do take Viagra (illegally) to enlarge their clitoruses (same physiology as a penis).  

    The complexicity of the physiology is the same reason there is no pill for men (which I would love for them to make).  If we cut off our testosterone, men would have some serious health issues.

    Parent

    Side note (none / 0) (#136)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:20:08 PM EST
    One of the biggest drug races right now is a female viagra.  But it is much for complicated.  Viagra was a huge scientific breakthrough that we take for granted now.  My guess is that the female vigra will be sort of a post menapause libdo drug + anti osteoporosis + anti breast cancer drug.  Some women do take Viagra (illegally) to enlarge their clitoruses (same physiology as a penis).  

    The complexicity of the physiology is the same reason there is no pill for men (which I would love for them to make).  If we cut off our testosterone, men would have some serious health issues.

    Parent

    Good insider insights -- thanks! (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    More preventatives against osteoporosis -- I say this as one with a high genetic tendency to it but an inability to use the current medications -- and against breast cancer would be most welcome.

    Parent
    Help with Osteoporosis (none / 0) (#162)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    I had a long osteoporosis write up (I think you can e-mail my profile?).  There is a discussion of the different types of drugs as well.

    Parent
    Not trying to convince you (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:33:57 PM EST
    but did you see this?

    Parent
    Good One! (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:38:38 PM EST
    What a loser.  

    Parent
    He didn't want to admit (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:48:50 PM EST
    anything about his own Viagra prescription....and the other?--whatever...

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    If I am Impotant, I need to sound impotant kind of  answer.

    Parent
    That would be funny... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by desertswine on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    if it wasn't so pathetic. I can't belive that guy is running for president.

    Parent
    cant watch video at worki (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    Is that the one where McCain won't answer the viagra/birth control question?  That was just *#@?!

    I can't believe he's a legit candidate, really. That response was ridiculous.  

    Parent

    Every sperm is sacred. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:16:49 PM EST
    but managable (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#95)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    Too bad we don't see that commercial in prime time on the major networks.  (Or do we?  I haven't been watching them lately.)

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:17:44 PM EST
    Last I looked, I am a man.

    Parent
    thanks again (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    I appreciate you covering issues like this. Especially the all your posts about sexism/the acceptance of it.

    Parent
    I think they meant of the Congressional (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    leadership.

    Parent
    Yes you are (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:05:17 PM EST
    I was talking about the leadership and people with power to guide the conversation. And I specifically didn't say all men. But you my friend are in the minority.

    Parent
    Men are in the minority (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:31:41 PM EST
    You are a REAL man IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by splashy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:08:31 PM EST
    Because you cover things like sexism and other issues that affect us all, rather than ignoring them  by saying they are "just women's issues."

    I appreciate it immensely!

    Parent

    You had to LOOK?! (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:22:45 PM EST
    I cant answer your last question (none / 0) (#54)
    by magster on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    because my hands are tied.

    Parent
    Well, as we're on our way to a theocracy (none / 0) (#160)
    by Iphie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    (and an expansion of Bush's faith based initiatives is another step in that direction) then your suggestion is perfectly logical.

    Parent
    and if pelosi stopped thinking everyday (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    all day that the world revolves around her and started thinking about american citizens, it would make a profound difference. she is double down in my book.

    Parent
    I say let's give Madam Speaker (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:31:48 PM EST
    credit here.

    Parent
    I will give her credit (none / 0) (#129)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:21:56 PM EST
    when she organizes some action on this.  If this letter is just the prelude to action, great.  Bring it on.

    But she's so in issue-debt that even if gets a lot of credit, she's still not even-steven, for me.

    Parent

    i can think of some thing. impeachment is (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    off the table. not standing up on iraq, not standing up on fisa. i could go on and on and on. and that's the problem.

    Parent
    oculus please share with us some (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:58:31 PM EST
    things for which "madame speaker" should get credit. you know congress's poll numbers are lower the bush for a reason. the main reason she hasn't lead but proved an adept member of hoyer brand politcs. enough already!

    Parent
    Quite true, but, I say, credit where credit is (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:24:03 PM EST
    due.  I'm very happy she is speaking out on this particular issue and it rather surprises me she is doing so.

    Parent
    hope springs eternal! i hope that if the dems (none / 0) (#139)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    do win then i hope they address some of the issues long ignored. i have my doubts.

    Parent
    "Eternal hope." Brings back (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:08:56 AM EST
    many unpleasant memories!

    Parent
    smile! yup dk! (none / 0) (#141)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:13:13 AM EST
    here i am working tonight again. i needed a break and a smile!

    Parent
    I'm at work but obviously not working! (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:14:24 AM EST
    well i am sitting at home with popcorn (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40:38 AM EST
    the tv on and working on my computer. thank goodness i can kick back and work here. it makes things less tedious. in the morning i get my coffee and walk to the office.

    be careful going home. ok!

    Parent

    Obama's prior voting record shows (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by magster on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    he's voted to expand, not restrict, access to contraceptives on a bill offered by Clinton.

    This is exactly the issue (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    Many of Obama's lukewarm and non-supporters are trying to determine whether Obama's support for reproductive rights goes anywhere beyond just casting votes.

    In other words, is he a passive supporter or an active supporter?  Will he work for pro-choice issues, or just give the minimum amount of agreement to retain his Dem cred?

    What actually does this statement mean, in real terms:

    I'll never back down in defending a woman's right to choose.

    Hmm -- 60/40 he says and does nothing.

    Parent

    Good (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    Then a statement from him should be no sweat.

    Parent
    Gotta check the focus groups! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    Sometimes I think they really do check the polls and focus groups before they say a word.

    It was easier in the primary.  They'd let Hillary go first, and if she got away with it, then they'd follow her lead.  (Or so it seemed...)

    It's hard to know where to start, because (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    I am just so angry about, and tired of, these people who think it is their business to get in the middle of private and personal decisions, and who give no thought to how their insistence on using religious beliefs to set policy affects the lives of people who believe that they have the right to be free of that kind of oppression.  And yes, it is oppression.

    So, where is Obama on this one?  Will we get a lecture on the wrenching moral decisions that reproductive issues engender?  Followed by equivocation and explanation of the nuance we just weren't quite smart enough to get?

    Ooh - tough decision for Obama...be unequivocal in his opposition to these (possible) proposed regulations his support for women  - just women, not women and the fill-in-the-blank-other-person who has to be part of it to make sure the woman doesn't make the "wrong" decision - to make decisions about their reproductive health - OR - say something that he thinks will placate those who agree with this kind of policy, while he wink-winks at those who don't.  

    See, this is where the rubber - pardon the birth-control pun - meets the road: abortion is a hot-button issue for many conservatives who perhaps might be willing to vote for Obama because he has pandered to the nth degree on faith-based initiatives, etc, so can he risk the loss of those possible votes?  But doesn't he worry about - shouldn't he worry about - the solidity of the pro-choice voters?

    This is what happens when you fool yourself into thinking you can be all things to all people - eventually, people expect you to take a stand.  I will be shocked if Obama is up to the task; I think he'll do what he usually does - let others take the fire on the front lines and wait until it is safe to say "me,too" with whatever group is still standing when the smoke clears.  I think I understand why he has not written a book entitled, "Courage of My Convictions."


    I'm not really sure anymore (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:34:21 PM EST
    If we are the pro choice party? As the party continues to reach out to religous groups for support, I think the line will become a lot fuzzier. I read a couple of weeks ago where the Dem from WI added additional funding to the abstence only program.

    WI gets an F on reproductive rights (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:25:28 PM EST
    and you wouldn't believe how bad it is here.  Roe v. Wade hardly exists, with what SCOTUS allows states to do.  (This is why we need an ERA in the Constitution. . . .)

    Ahem.  No, the Dems are not the pro-choice party.  See, e.g., Pennsylvania, Casey campaign, etc.

    Parent

    And let us not forget Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:36:10 PM EST
    Afterall, he signed the Hyde Amendment which barred public financing (Medicaid, military women, Indian Health Services) abortions. Carter not only signed the bill, he and his Sec. if HEW (today's HHS), Joseph Califano, jumped to strip public financing (which, let us not forget, affects poor women) before the Hyde Amendment even passed.

    When Judy Woodruff, who was then with ABC News, asked Carter if it was fair to burden poor women with this financial obstacle, Carter rather famously replied, "Life isn't fair, Judy."

    Parent

    You mean the (none / 0) (#71)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:45:49 PM EST
    "Pet your dog - not your date" sex education program started by Jesse Helms in the 90's?

    Parent
    That's the one (none / 0) (#76)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:50:27 PM EST
    We continue to sink millions of dollars a year into a program that has failed miserably. Every study I've read has shown it doesn't work. Evidently someone with political connections is making  a lot of money.

    Parent
    Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    posted a diary on this yesterday at Big Orange.  Here it is.  It didn't get much attention--but I tried.

    One of the reasons I left DKos (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    and not the only reason, was that when feminists on that site advocated for unequivocal support for pro-choice from their peers, they didn't get it.  Before the primaries, there was a lot of soul searching about what it would take to win the WH in '08.  The meme was that single issue voters, were going to be the death of the party.  Lots of (i am assuming they were young guys) were attacking women for their slavish devotion to "choice."  Women tried to point out that it was a human rights issue and that their whole life could change if they weren't able to control their fecundity. Lots of people didn't get it.

    Parent
    slavish devotion to "choice." (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    heh, and now we are supposed to vote for Obama because of it.

    Parent
    I remember the argument (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    from Markos that pro-choice groups and other interest groups should support the Democratic candidate, rather than a Republican who happened to agree with them on their issue....I think the example was pro-choice groups supporting Republican Lincoln Chafee (who I like very much) instead of the Democrat Whitehouse who was equally as good if not better on choice....

    And, Lieberman has a good record on choice, too.

    It was about interest groups being better team players by supporting the Democrat so long as he or she did not hold contrary views.

    Parent

    I thought it was more than that. I got the (none / 0) (#125)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    impression that there was a feeling that women should be willing to bargain away a 'choice litmus test' if the person was a Democrat and particularly good on other issues.  That was the rub.  How can you be a progressive and NOT support a life and death issue for almost half of the party? And for the guys it wasn't a life or death issue or they didn't take that much responsibility for it. Maybe Markos said something different, but I felt the people there were willing to throw us under the bus if they thought it would further their cause.

    Parent
    Lieberman has a good record on choice? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Iphie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    You mean Senator "Short-Ride"? He has a good record on doing what is necessary to get re-elected in CT -- which means being pro-choice. But when CT voters were given the option of a Democrat who was no-question, much better on choice, they chose him instead.

    Parent
    wow. beyond sad. (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:47:45 PM EST
    was that the only diary on it?

    Parent
    Not exactly (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    The diary on McCain's stammering nonresponse to the question of insurance coverage for contraception was a big deal and frontpaged.

    But this was from Planned Parenthood itself....Do people not know who they are?

    Maybe more discussion in the dairy would have helped.  Could have just been a quirk.

    Parent

    see my post above! (none / 0) (#126)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:55:26 PM EST
    AP had an article online today (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by dk on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    about evangelicals in Iowa.  The takeaway I got from the article is that the winner of Iowa in the GE will largely depend on whether evangelicals are energized for McCain, or whether they will stay home.

    So, I think this could actually be quite a wedge issue, for both candidates. McCain is in a bind because he risks losing evangelical support vis-a-vis moderate support.  Obama is in a bind because he risks his evangelical outreach (which may not be producing votes, but might be producing stay-at-home evangelicals this cycle) vs. liberal/moderate votes.

    The further irony is that, as bar far the more religious of the two candidate, my own suspicion is that Obama is sympathetic to health care workers who refuse to hand out contraceptives for religious reasons.  So, for both political AND personal reasons, he may not want, as he often puts it, to expend political capital on this.  Of course, though, he'll likely put out some post-partisan statement that will superficially say the right thing while sending not so subtle dog whistles to the evangelicals.

    Perhaps One of These Days (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:00:11 PM EST
    We'll get to a point where Democratic candidates tend to their base the way they and the GOP candidate tends to the rightwing base.  This is not Obama-specific, btw.  This has been going on for awhile.  The Dem always "moves to the center" read: moves to the right.  While the GOP candidate stays on the right.  

    And almost everyone, including liberal pundits, praise the Dem candidate for his good politics.  Nevermind that as a result the nation moves further right every election (and also that the Democrats don't have a very good track record on winning despite all these brilliant moves to the center of theirs).

    Parent

    Evangelicals like birth (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    control.....

    Parent
    This policy is beyond ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:44:26 PM EST
    I can't even believe that there are people who think this is a good idea.

    There is no way Barack Obama will support these regulations. Just no way.

    If he does, Bob Barr will get my vote in hopes of helping the Libertarians gain ballot access and public funds.

    A day has gone by now (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:07:57 AM EST
    and I'm not seeing anything from Obama on this.

    Anyone else catch a comment from him or his campaign about this bill?  Anyone?  Buehler?

    Uh huh.  There 'tis.