Wait until after the revolution, honey
Today, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert asked, why listen to Republicans? Indeed. And yet this morning came the shocking and startling news that our new president has asked House Democrats to cut a provision that would expand contraceptive family planning for Medicaid patients.
Why? According to the AP/Austin American-Statesman, "several Democratic officials said that House leaders likely would abandon the provision at Obama's request, which was made 'at a time when the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.' A final decision is expected on Tuesday, when Obama is scheduled to meet separately with House and Senate Republicans."
I don't know if this will happen, but if it does, President Obama will have denied contraceptive planning--we're not even discussing abortion here--to those women who can least afford it.
For years, reproductive justice activists have argued that the Religious Right has always wanted to eliminate more than abortion and that their real agenda is to limit women's reproductive health and choices, or to put it more bluntly, to end the rupture between sexuality and reproduction.
President Obama doesn't need to court Republicans, especially on the back of women's bodies. I hope that the outcry of opposition will cause him to reverse this misguided decision, which affects the poorest women and girls in our nation.
I agree. The only way to win the 'symbol wars' the neo-cons are always launching is to address the real issues. Family planning is an unalloyed assistance to the poor as the lead post points out. I think that should be the determinative factor rather than this is a symbolically important issue to the neo-cons, so give the neo-cons a break. Bush was willing to trash science basically on the grounds that it was symbolically important to do so. Giving into neo-con symbolism has terrible consequences. Obama or people in the adminstraion can definitely argue the facts on this.
January 27, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears likely to me that Obama and the Dems in Congress are not abandoning the idea of greater access to contraception. They've just recognized that it doesn't belong in the stimulus plan. My hope would be that the same provision would be placed in some other bill soon.
January 27, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly. In fact, if I were looking for ground to give, this might well be it.
This has nothing to do with denying contraceptive planning to Medicaid patients. Because the economic stimulus bill should have nothing to do with providing contraceptive planning to Medicaid patients.
January 27, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts, too, Wordie.
January 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
2 questions:
1. What exactly does this have to do with economic stimulus?
2. Is this the only bill this Congress is going to propose and pass?
Answers, nothing and no. Also I don't get why keeping the waiver requirement is a big deal for the time being in an Obama Administration, who clearly favors access to family planning services. Wouldn't they grant they waivers?
January 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
#2 Well said - direct and to the point. I think Dems are so used to being out in the cold they think this is their only chance to get warm before someone kicks them out again.
January 27, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Obama is not denying women access to contraception. He believes in women having choices. Remember the reversal on the Mexico City Policy. Please keep in mind that these are not his last days in office and people need to stop trying to stuff everything AND the kitchen sink into this bill. I don't think this should be a part of the stimulus, but part of something that is specifically put together for women. I'm really getting tired of this shit, I need a break from TPM. I left Dkos because I believed you guys were more level headed and intelligent. Turns out it's the same old garbage.
January 27, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, something specifically put together for women, which dies in committee.
January 27, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feeling defeated already?
Why is it that now one side has more "power" that side seems obligated to act like the other "side" when they complained about the aforementioned behavior for the duration?
Dorn nailed this one.
January 27, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today anyway.
January 27, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I don't think we should pass up any chances to ram things down the throats of the Republicans so hard their asses land in the mid-Atlantic. Screw the "bipartisanship" dance. Make them howl.
January 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've just handily become like Cheney.
January 27, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the strategy is "We'll drop this from the stimulus so you can support that, and then we'll add this to something else and pass it over your objections anyway," then that's fine.
But then somebody needs to let us know that's the plan. Taking that on faith seems like a mistake.
January 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair, though we, the plebes, may not be privy to the intricacies of such horsetrading.
January 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not sure why this has to be secret, really. It's a pretty simple proposition: Hey Mr. Conservative, I'm not going to force this issue that makes you crazy into the stimulus bill so vote for it, but we are going to bring this issue up as its own bill and we have a majority so you can vote for it or not, it's all the same to us.
It's not like that depends on secrecy.
January 27, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I was just pointing out the typical top down view taken by our "leaders" towards we, the little people.
January 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That occured to me, but why give the cons a platform for their demagoguery?
January 27, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems entirely possible that they put it in the stimulus, knowing full well the Republicans would oppose it, then use it as an example of compromise by agreeing to take it out. They now have Republicans on record saying their only problem with it is that it didn't belong in a stimulus package.
When it comes up in a more fitting bill, it's more likely to get bipartisan support.
January 27, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What country do you live in where $200 million for "family planning services" will receive bipartisan support?
Because in the USA, it's a non-starter.
January 27, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with tpmgary. This is really smart politics in service of progressive policies. Disarm some on the right, pass the stimulus (either with their support or with them looking churlish), then pass the contraceptive piece in a separate piece of legislation (where it probably belongs, since it doesn't seem stimulative, at least in an economic sense). This is sticking it to the Republicans, but with a subtle strategy, not a bludgeon. I don't wanna feel good, I want to enact real change.
January 27, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
On your path to a bizarre world in which there is a "rupture" between "sexuality" and "reproduction," at least you impliedly admit the bankruptcy in human rights that is abortion.
January 27, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike:
So - we can assume you have a child to show for every time you have *beeped* a woman? (eyeroll)
I hate to break it to you, dipwad, but 'sex' and 'reproduction' have been 'ruptured' since the first human ancestor learned something to do with a banana besides peel and eat it.
Except in the infantile and childish fantasy world you seem to inhabit.
January 28, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike,
I can make an argument that male masturbation is a form of "bankruptcy in human rights."
January 28, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink