So why did the Obama Administration pick the birth control fight at this time?

[toddwv]

There has to be a reason as to why the Obama Admin rolled out this huge social issue. I'm sure it has performed exactly as expected by dumping a ton of lighter fluid on an election season that continues to heat up exponentially.

Is it a way to draw some errant progressives and even moderates back in the fold?
Is it a way to draw a very clear distinction in the minds of women trying to open their eyes to what the current day right-wing in America truly represents?
A huge dividing line showing just how extremists the right-wing in American has gotten?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a chance occurrence and I'm even surer that it's not going to end well for the Republicans and their enablers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. I think it was a mistake and those supporting it did not expect a back lash.

That said, quite rightly eventually it will be accepted policy.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Ditto. It was a boo-boo. They're already backtracking. I can't believe they made this mistake.

It was so obvious that it was a bad move politically. I'M not even sure I back the decision, and I'm not religious and am female in favor of contraception.

That said, there will be a compromise. Probably they'll drop the requirement to provide contraception that is abortive.

[Fool Count]

23. Mistake? It's an absolute winner no matter how you look at it. Everybody uses birth control.

Even catholics. Even catholic priests. At least the heterosexual ones. Don't tell me they don't have sex.
That's like one thing that would benefit almost every voter personally.

[MattBaggins]

29. They believe all contraceptives are abortive

Who should be a part of the bullshit "compromise"? Will there be an equal number of women and women's advocates in the room?

[msanthrope]

37. There was no backtrack. And no boo-boo. Planned PArenthood is supporting the President's switch

to the insurer.

So now, the Catholic hierarchy will have to explain why they don't like the insurer-based accommodation...

[Honeycombe8]

54. As I said, there would be a backtrack, which there has been. The fact that they changed it ...

The fact that they changed it indicates that the original decision was indeed a boo-boo. They were all surprised at the controversy. Well, duh. Anyone could have told them that, if they were thinking it through. Biden, a Catholic, had warned them, to no avail, what effect this would have. Which was true.

Now there's a second initiative. I doubt this one changes, but we'll see.

What I would've done would be to some birth control, but leave out the ones that are abortive (IUD, morning after pill). Birth control pills are not abortive, if I recall. That would've put the Catholic Church's stance on much weaker ground. There IS a federal law, remember, that exempts some organizations from having to provide abortions under any circumstance.

[yardwork]

41. Contraception that is abortive? What do you mean?

[msanthrope]

36. Wrong. They expected the backlash, and even had Plan B ready to go.

Now the insurers will pay, but contraceptive coverage still is happening.

The only people whining and bitching are loads of celibate white men. Not the Catholic base.....

[backscatter712]

48. No, I think they anticipated the right-wing screech-fest.

And concluded that they could just stick up the middle finger, endure a few FOX News cycles of wedge-issue wedgies, But in the end, women voters will flock to Democrats and away from bible-thumping Republicans in droves.

Women's issues, including abortion and contraception, are a winner for Democrats. The backlash against Komen proved that.

In other words, it's us Democrats giving the Republicans a wedge-issue wedgie for a change.

[spanone]

2. the catholic church rolled it out

[Johonny]

4. +1

[stopbush]

3. Dunno. Maybe because women's rights shouldn't have to wait for a more-convenient time,

especially as no time is convenient when one considers today's Republic Party.

[IndyJones]

6. True. I still cannot believe we are even having this debate in 2012.

Brought to you by the same men who hid pedophiles for decades. They suddenly have a "moral compass" when it doesn't involve themselves.

[stopbush]

20. Brought to you by men who have never had sex with a woman, who don't have children and never will,

and who will never know the responsibility that comes with raising and providing for a family.

Yeah, that's the kind of considered, expert advice women need to hear in the 21st century.

Here's a thought - how about womens groups issue a statement instructing the RCC on how they should be interpreting their religious dogma.

Amazing that in this day and age a bunch of out-of-touch, decadent males think they have the right to tell women - real live women with real live health concerns - what they can and cannot do with their reproductive systems, and all based on a bunch of religious mumbo-jumbo make believe.

[Firebrand Gary]

21. IndyJones, you remind me of somebody....

Hmmmm

[IndyJones]

58. I hope I remind you of someone you like!

[Firebrand Gary]

63. Of course!

Of a super cool colleague that I worked with near Sacramento.

[IndyJones]

64. Oh, bummer. I don't think that's me. I am in So Cal.

[MH1]

45. This. ^^^^ Particularly the part about pedophiles.

[moriah]

7. Agreed.

Besides, really what will happen if we do not approve contraception coverage is that women will do like they used to when insurance companies routinely would not cover the pill for contraception.

You will see a spike in the number of people who report irregular menstrual cycles and painful periods.

Women should not have to lie to their doctors to get appropriate medical care.

[Sgent]

49. In this case they could have

The law doesn't go into effect into 2014.

So delaying the announcement until after the election would have had no effect on when women would be eligible for this benefit.

[piedmont]

5. It looks to me that the Administration is baiting Republicans...

into ever more extreme positions and rhetoric. I think it's working.

[Whisp]

35. I think so too.

It's putting a lot of light on these rw assholes. There is no way the church or the Sanatoriums are going to come out of this looking good.

There's always big bru ha ha for Anything Obama wants to change so I don't think it was a surprise at all to the admin, they seem to know what they are doing.

[DevonRex]

8. It was absolutely deliberate. And it's genius.

All the repub presidential candidates are anti-abortion. Two are catholic and will align with the church on everything. One is Mormon and Mormons don't like birth control either. None wantsthe govt to tell churches what to do. they all hate the health care law.

What better way to showcase these things than the birth control issue? They would be dangerous for women in this country. After all, if abortion is outlawed AND we can't get the most effective birth control then their churches control OUR lives.

Yes, it solidifies women's support for Democrats. Yes, it accentuates the importance of Supreme Court picks. And it points out just how extreme the Repubs are. They are downright scary. For people who are disappointed with Obama, knowing how crazy the Repubs are could be the difference in voting and staying home.

[Tumbulu]

16. I agree with you!!!!!! (nt)

[Brettongarcia]

18. Repubs see Contraception as a huge loser for themselves! Catholics switch on this issue

See current discussion on this topic elsewhere in DU.

The argument is that surprisingly, 90-98% of sexually active Catholics have used birth control at one point or another. So it seems that actually, most Catholics in actual practice, deep down, support contraception.

So the argument is this: if the Church/Repubs want to make an issue out of it, they lose; their own constituency turns against them.

[DevonRex]

19. Isn't it delicious?

Apparently the Repubs are already losing 20% of their voters to Obama. Who knows how bad it could get for them if they keep pushing this.

[yardwork]

42. And it was smart of the Obama administration to do this now, not late in the election season.

By the time fall rolls around this "controversy" will be over and done with and the Republicans will be unable to get any traction from it. I agree that the timing was perfect.

[DevonRex]

53. You're right.

And by that time the RWers will have cemented their backward positions in the voters' minds. They won't be able to walk it back.

THe Komen disaster plus the BC disaster coming at the same time is the best thin that could happen for Dems. They're willing to let women die of breast cancer rather than fund an org that many women rely on for health care. Up in the mountains there are areas where small PP clinics are the only doctors' offices in the entire county. And if a pregnant woman has a medical emergency she and the baby could die before getting to larger town. If the wingers only understood that PP saves the lives of women and babies.

It's not just for women, either. My boys both went there with their girlfriends for birth control counseling. OMG, there's that heinous thing again -birth control! IMO some churches hate it because pregnancy is how they can determine who's a "slut" and who's a "good Christian girl."

Another thought I've had is that since society has gotten used to single parenting, some churches have turned to LGBT hate. Their members can only feel righteous in comparison to sinners, so they always have to have "sinners" to compare themselves to. After all, it's so much easier to point fingers at other people than it is to actually help their congregations become nice people, isn't it?

I will shut up now. I promise.

[yardwork]

62. Don't shut up! You're on a roll, girl!

[Enrique]

43. it's genius by definition

since it was Obama's decision.

[redqueen]

55. +1

[Skittles]

9. dunno

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

[redqueen]

56. Well...

That seemed to get less attention than I'd expect.

[politicasista]

10. Calling their bluff

The more he exposes them, the better he looks.

[pennylane100]

11. When did the issue of addressing equality in health insurance become "picking a fight".

The shame is that the Obama has waited till it is politically expedient to bring these issues up. He should have made this an off limits for discussion subject at the beginning of his presidency. However, as long as he holds firm, I will be happy.

[Roselma]

12. They didn't pick this time. The Catholic bishops and Republicans did.

This was known about for weeks and has been in the works for months. In many states, this is ALREADY the policy. In some of those states there isn't even a religious exemption for churches like this policy has.

No...this is a cynical attempt on the part of the Republicans to resurrect a culture war issue, because they're getting nervous about the chances for their nominee to beat Obama in the fall. I think this is going to backfire, because I don't know and have never met in-person a non-clergy person who doesn't or hasn't used contraception. Are there any non-clergy people anywhere who have never used contraception (except for Santorum...his wife did us contraception prior to their marriage)? ...well maybe the Duggers didn't.

[TheMastersNemesis]

13. Crunch Time

The issue was going to have to be addressed eventually. It is probably better to do it now than wait. I think that the administration was surprised by the response. There was no way to predict the response because there were a lot of places within the religious institutions who were apparently providing coverage anyway and there seems to have been no objection.

The GOP saw it as a wedge issue to split even some Christians. The evil GOP empire is about fragmenting the country into a thousand pieces. Create as much anger and hatred for each other as you can. They are terrorists plain and simple. They use intimidation, political violence, deceit, etc etc etc to inflame the public.

They always count on people pulling back and not responding. They are violent against any dissent or talk back. They demand civility when they are code calling for violence. Things would just explode if one of their meeting was stopped. Yet they will stop yours and send in their little brown shirts.

And contraception coverage is attacked under the guise of abortion. It the perfect wedge issue in their eyes. And no matter what Obama did there would be trouble.

Allowing the Catholic Church and other fundy religions to set public policy is ending the separation of church and state. The Jehovahs Witnesses want blood transfusions exempted. Does that mean the Christian Scientists want to be totally exempted?

[TheKentuckian]

15. Define "pick". I'm not sure what was instigated other than not granting a bullshit exemption to an

employer.

Maybe I missed something but it seems like you are saying that in your house, if your kid were to not hand over their bike on demand to some punkass bully that you would deem that they "picked" the fight.

There are no grounds to grant a waiver that there will be some mystical "good time" stop granting them and no grounds that don't exist right now.

I see no case for not providing this coverage to every woman in the country and leaving it to the individual as to if they will utilize it.

[JDPriestly]

17. Takes the golden hue from the halos of the Christian right.

[DCKit]

22. President Obama simply handed a can of gas to the RW, and let them run with it.

They'll scream and wail and tear their hair out, but it'll be old news by November. By highlighting the insanity of the argument, sane Republicans are forced to reconcile the issue and, finally, make up their damn minds. It's not abortion, it's pregnancy prevention.

In doing so, he's also hijacked a favorite subject of the RW, while the courts in CA have taken out the other (Teh Gay). By November, (R) candidates won't have these old standbys available to whip up the base, and they'll have to resort to even crazier, more vicious attacks.

The Obama Administration didn't provide ammunition, they pulled a Dr. Kevorkian on the Republicans.

[Puzzledtraveller]

25. The opposition has a lot of time

Religious institutions are tenacious and it will pick up steam and numbers. You can guarantee this, as to what effect it will have, that is debatable.

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. A simple clause

to exempt institutions that object on religious grounds would solve the whole problem, and add that some health savings account plans be offered where in the employee could technically use that money to buy "what they need" since it would not be directly contributing to contraception etc.

[jeff47]

27. I'm starting a new religion

One of our sacraments will be to sacrifice a Republican to our god every week.

I demand a simple clause exempting us from murder statutes. That would solve the whole problem of stomping all over my religious liberty.

On a more serious note, religious freedom ends when when it forces other people to comply with that religion.

[CTyankee]

28. but how would that work? Wouldn't that be a hassle for women? A two step instead of a

simple one-step process?

[davsand]

26. I'd say it pretty clearly illustrates a major difference between the parties and that is good.

This is, after all, an election year. This particular issue does provide an excellent picture of the two parties and their attitudes on a fundamental issue facing the majority of voters. Dunno for sure if it was calculated or a happy occurance, but either way it will mobilize an awful lot of people that might have otherwise been willing to sit out this election. Obama and the rest of the Dems all across the ticket--including some local races--directly benefit from a motivated base.

One thing about this issue that is particularly smart, IMO, is how neatly it divides the GOP and all its factions. Never forget that the GOP has an entire wing of the party that is not especially motivated by "moral" issues, but rather, MONEY issues. Division in their ranks is a good thing for Dems.

YMMV.



Laura

[flexnor]

32. more like a distinction WITHOUT a difference

if you care about economic interests

google Obama H-1b, read anything you like

[MH1]

47. You think the HUGE distinction between the parties on women's issues is an irrelevant difference?

Do the progressive women in your life know this?

[flexnor]

50. i'm not saying that women's issues are unimportant

what i AM saying, is that the parties differ on these issues to split people who are united by economic interests

and yes, the progressive women in my life DO know I think that, and agree with me

[grantcart]

30. to gin up Santorum to help take Romney out?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/10/why_the_white_house_picked_a_contraception_fight.html

In one month this issue will have lost its 'heat' and some reasonable allowance will be made and women will still have coverage.

If it takes out Romney and puts the bizzaro candidate Santorum in it will have proved to be a very clever, er, chess move indeed.

[joshcryer]

60. +1, this is one reason why. It was definitely political calculation.

[flexnor]

31. because social issues divide people who are united by economic interests

for instance, a lot of people who are pro-choice and right to life are affected by outsourcing and H-1b visas and the resulting unemployment - but both parties want those who are on the economic receiving end of this issue divided by social issues

Both parties would rather have these people bickering about social issues, and there's only so many times you can bring up the 'flag burning' amendment issue

both parties are united for the economic interests of the elite against the middle and working classes, therefore, the latter must be divided

i've heard this arguement made by enlightened individuals on BOTH sides of social issues, and I am fully convinced of it

the 2 parties are united on money, and power. the rest is professional wrestling. the 'powers that be' couldnt care less whether someone used contraception, gets abortions or has a gay marriage

[flexnor]

33. i'm not saying social issues do not matter

i'm saying they dont matter to the people who ultimately decide when they get put on the political calander - while the issues DO matter to individuals, sometimes passionately, it is my firm believe that they are little more than tools for manipulation to the elite

for instance, in 1992, clinton and bush were bickering about flag buring and gays in the military, when BOTH of them were preparing to launch balistic missiles of economic armegedon against the middle and working classes in the form of NAFTA, WTO, MFN-China, H-1b visas etc

[flexnor]

38. I listened to some Christian radio in radio no-man's land years ago

and they had an interesting discussion related to the post above - they were wondering if the republican party was taking them for a ride, stringing them along on social issues, while tearing their families apart with endless overbearing corporate power

these were people who were driving home at night, feeling the exact same economic pressures and worries, maybe had the same bad day in the same workplace as those who post on this forum, because of the same economic policies

but they might see those here as unchristian, and you might see them as homophobic and bigoted, rather than each side seeing the other as stuck in the same dillema, even if you disagree about stuff outside of work

and that's exactly how the powers that be want it, divided an conquered....and most important, SILENT on the real reason all of you had a bad day

[TwilightGardener]

34. I don't think even-handedly enforcing a law is "picking a fight".

[yardwork]

44. Thank you. An important point.

The right wing loves to define our actions for us, always in negative terms. Enforcing laws - the constitutional obligation of the president - is recast as "picking a fight."

No.

[justiceischeap]

39. Certainly has women fired up, doesn't it? Especially on the heals of the Komen debacle

Who do you think women are going to think of when they go vote?

They guy that wants to provide us, and allow us, free access to birth control or the guys that want to deny us access to birth control completely?

I think the answer is obvious. This "fight" is going to be in the back of every woman's mind when she goes to vote.

[toddwv]

40. I would like to clarify my stance a bit to eliminate any misconceptions.

I think that this is an important step forward in women's health. It has to be done. Hell, it SHOULD'VE been done decades ago.

So yes, I am being cynically by assigning the timing to a political motive BUT looking over the past few years, it's an easy assignation to make. Not just because the Obama team is always looking for a chance to call out the "other side" but because the "other side" makes EVERYTHING and ANYTHING into a aggressive partisan battle. We just had a huge PR bruhaha when Komen yanked funds from Planned Parenthood on an obviously political basis. The timing of this BC mandate announcement was just too good to have been purely a result of serendipity. There is still a large swell of support that moved in PP's favor and forced Komen to reinstate funding for PP. BTW, don't forget to remind your favorite righties that if they were one of the many that dashed off to send funds to Komen for their prior decision, they have now effectively contributed to PP.

The BC mandate is something that needs to be done. The right-wing knows that in 10 years, people will be like "What? Are you serious? Birth control wasn't covered by insurance 10 years ago? Wow..." once we get this in place. So we all know that the fight isn't over. The minute we get a Republican President in office with enough control of Congress, they will put this at the top of their list of things to reverse. That provides one hell of a carrot for women and progressives (right or left) everywhere.

[Marr]

46. Corporate Democrats love issues like this.

It let's them take a position to the left of Republicans, without aggravating their Wall Street owners.

[flexnor]

52. bingo-neither wall street or silicon valley execs give 2 hoots about the social issues

among the cattle

[karynnj]

51. I think it was because to was the single best thing he could do for healthcare

The NYT article says:

Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/10/us/politics/10reuters-usa-contraceptives-factsheet.html?_r=1&ref=reuters

Think what this means. Givings millions of families an IMMEDIATE savings costs the insurance companies nothing - it cuts costs.
So, Obama simultaneously, increases the number of people who should approve of ACA and it actually is something that starts to bend the cost curve.

And as you say it energizes the base.

[toddwv]

59. Also, working women everywhere just got a $700-$1,200 dollar a year raise.

That has to be driving some far-righties batshit crazier.

[DonCoquixote]

57. all of the above

Especially since the GHOp really, really put a bad taste in people's mouths when they hijacjked the Komen foundation. It became obvious that yes, the GOP was going to hit below the belt.

[AlinPA]

61. Your item 2 IMO. "..a way to draw a very clear distinction in the minds of women trying to open

their eyes to what the current right-wing in America truly represents".