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 >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama has an opportunity here (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    That is just it (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by owenaprhys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    Based on his past statements, I don't expect Obama to have a problem with this, just as McCain probably doesn't.

    I read on a feminist site this statement:
    "If men could get pregnant, abortion would not only be a pretected right, it would be sanctified by the Church."

    The only way that women can get these rights protected is if the Supers stand up and reject the empty suit and through their support to Hillary.

    Neither man, will do anything about this travesty.

    [ Parent ]

    At the faith forum (5.00 / 5) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 5) (#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 ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    Yes. What is your point? (none / 0) (#147)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:02:00 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    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 ]
    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 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#98)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    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 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


    [ Parent ]
    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 / 9) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 5) (#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 (4.00 / 2) (#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 ]
    um, remember (4.40 / 5) (#55)
    by owenaprhys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    "we don't need the people, just their checks?"

    [ Parent ]
    What's a canceled fundraiser (1.00 / 1) (#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, if you say so (2.66 / 3) (#106)
    by owenaprhys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    Personally I see it as Obamaa doesn't give a damn about the people, he just wants the money.

    Also,  assume he gets elected (shudder), what will he do after he has beenin office for a year? start running for President of Earth?????

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I hear John Sheridan (5.00 / 2) (#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 (4.83 / 6) (#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 ]
    In this accelerated news cycle waiting 24 hours (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by elixir on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    to respond may appear to be testing the waters before swimming.  BHO should be out in front of this asap.... haven't heard anything yet.  The clock is ticking.

    Gotta check the focus groups! (5.00 / 3) (#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...)

    [ 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 / 1) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 2) (#16)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:49:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not just pro-choice (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 6) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 4) (#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
    link

    [ Parent ]
    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 / 3) (#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 / 7) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 6) (#38)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    Which insurance pays for.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL word! (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 3) (#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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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