This is what I think’s going on regarding the contraception controversy…

[Little Star]

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2012, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

You can tell me if I’m wrong.

After watching MSNBC last night, especially Lawrence, I’ve come to the conclusion that the media is trying to provide cover for a reverse in the Obama administration’s position.

I can understand where Biden and the left leaning media are coming from and they have a point that Dem’s can’t risk the re-election of Obama over this.

However, my issue is, why have we allowed the Right to frame this issue as abortion?

Why not come out full bore and say that the Obama administration’s rule is about coverage of contraceptives in health care plans NOT about abortions?

The far right once again has been allowed to frame the issue. They need to be challenged hard on their hypocrisy.

I believe if we could set this issue straight with the general public it would be a plus for Obama not a negative.

[bluecoat_fan]

1. I see it more as being framed as War on Religon(Christianity).

Which feeds on the Obama is a Muslim junk. Obama should turn it around and frame it as a War on Women.

[Yooperman]

3. I agree with you

The republicans see this as an opportunity to make an issue when there really isn't one.... they are creating this conflict and it is exactly what you stated...it is all an illusion as there is no war on religion. Typical republican strategy.

YM

[Little Star]

6. If your looking at the big picture....

Yes, the right is trying to frame this as a war on religion (which includes the abortion battle).

We may need to fight this one battle about contraceptives not equaling abortion in order to win the larger war on women.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. You can see that in this letter that I found on the website for Senator John Boozman.

Dear President Obama and Secretary Sebelius:

I write to express my opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services sterilizations and contraceptives mandate.

Religious freedom is a fundamental American truth enshrined in our Constitution. The government must never force faith-based institutions to abandon central tenets of their religion. Your decision to require religious hospitals, schools, charities, advocacy groups, and other organizations to provide sterilization and contraceptive services, which conflict with their religion teachings, is a gross government overstep. This is an unprecedented, unnecessary federal mandate that violates First Amendment religious freedoms.

In practice, I am also concerned with the impact this rule will have on millions of students, veterans, children, seniors, single parents, individuals with disabilities, and others who rely on religious organizations for important humanitarian services. Faith-based charities, schools, and hospitals provide a critical safety net in communities across our country. These entities recognize our moral obligation to care for the least of us. However, many have said they will not operate in a way that violates their religious teachings. This will threaten education, healthcare, and social service for millions of Americans. In short, faith-based humanitarian organizations need an advocate in Washington—not an enemy. Your decision is a needless, hostile burden that jeopardizes their work.

In addition, this mandate reaffirms the fears that so many Americans have about your administration’s approach to healthcare: Washington-centered rules, controls, and commands that prioritize politics over patients. The government should always defer to patients, physicians, families, and religious organizations when it comes to complex healthcare decisions. Far-reaching federal regulations, particularly those that drive up healthcare costs for everyone, regardless of whether they want or need contraceptives, frighten Americans and cause them to lose faith in government.

I respectfully urge you to take immediate action and reverse this decision.

Boozman is a cosponsor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012, a bill to repeal the mandate.

http://boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1e64765a-6dc3-42d9-9a76-2666e3eb0431


As you can see, the first rattle out of the box, he brings up religious freedom. I don't expect it will do much good, but I sent him an email requesting that he withdraw his opposition to President Obama's policy. I reminded him that BC pills have been used as treatment for various medical conditions and that I believed that individuals should be free to choose what they felt was moral or immoral, not their employers.

[Little Star]

20. +1 for your points!

[JDPriestly]

21. It is a war on women -- especially poor women, especially working women,

especially young, working mothers, especially middle-aged women who don't want to have a baby just as they enter their 50s. This is a war on women.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think the media are throwing stones, not

providing cover. They always accept the Republican frames.

[JDPriestly]

22. The Republican frames are so nutty that they give the media

lots of shock appeal.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. So it's Win-Win for them.

[leveymg]

4. Frame the issue, and provide cover. That's the media's job. They'll keep their jobs, again.

This is like HRC, redux. We'll end up with what they wanted all along - another move to the Right for the Dems thanks to Obama's radical centrism.

[ProSense]

5. The

Catholic Church isn't going to be satisfied. There is a reason they decided to pounce at this moment. This rule is in place in many states, and institutions around the country already provide a contraceptive benefit.

If the administration's compromise is rejected, it should make an issue out of the fact that these groups are not interested in compromise and stick to the original position. Then there needs to be a noisy campaign to drown out the noisy Catholic Church.

The majority of Americans approve.

[Little Star]

7. I agree but...

watching Lawrence last night with his charts and graphs it seems he was trying to show that a majority of Americans don't approve.

[ProSense]

10. If

"watching Lawrence last night with his charts and graphs it seems he was trying to show that a majority of Americans don't approve."

...that's the case he's full of it:

Poll: Majority of Catholics support contraception coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002279428

Fifty Years Later, 86% of Americans Believe Having "the Pill" Available Is Very Good For Society (May 2010)
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/331/Default.aspx

Thomson Reuters-NPR Health Poll Finds Most Americans Support Government Insurance Subsidies for Birth Control Pills (June 2011)
http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/healthcare/thomson-reuters-NPR-poll-birth-control

[Little Star]

11. Did you see his show last night?...

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what he was saying. I wish someone who watched would speak up about what he was saying.

If you have time, I found a link to the segment where he talked about this and showed the charts I was talking about, could you watch it? I would be interested in what you think he was saying. Gawd only knows I could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/46335957#46335969

[ProSense]

17. Thanks,

I watched. He showed more results from the poll, specific to the question of institutions. (The overall for the general issue is in parentheses)

Americans support 49% (55) to 45% (40)
Catholics 52% (58) to 45% (37)
Catholic voters 49% to 52%

O'Donnell said the last category was likely what Biden is focused on. Still, a plurality (almost half) of all Americans support the rule for institutions, and more than half of Catholics.

He also pointed out that this is without hearing the arguments in support of the rule.

[FBaggins]

8. Because it comes down to the same thing.

You aren't using the same definition of "abortion" that the Catholic Church does.

When life begins is, from their perspective at least, very much a religious issue. We can claim, as you say, that the decision really just covers contraception (which they would oppose anyway), but they'll just come back with a complaint that now you're going to force them to accept your definition of when life begins.

There's no easy way out of this one.

[Little Star]

13. I was trying to make the point that...

Many Catholics may be against abortion but they are not against contraception.

By allowing the issue to be conflated as the same is a big mistake. Yes, the church may try to sell it the way you describe but Cafeteria Catholics, of which there are many, think there is a difference.

Cafeteria Catholics (being the ones we need to reach) are hearing this issue presented by the right as abortion. The left needs to say loud and clear; NO this issue is only about contraceptives. I believe that would make the Cafeteria Catholics think about it differently. But they are not hearing any rebuttal from the left. They are only hearing “we may have to cave on this” from our side.

[FBaggins]

16. Right... but not all contraception is the same.

There are plenty of catholics who (in disagreement with the church) will accept contraception that keeps an egg from being fertilized, but not one that destroys a fertilized egg (it's that "when does life being" thing again). That's the different that I was talking about. The church opposes all artificial contraception used to take the life decision out of God's hands, but some of what we may call "contraception" also counts to them as an abortion.

More importantly, however, is the fact that many Catholics personally act in ways that contradict the church's teaching on this issue, but would still fight a government decision that forces the church to pay for things that it teaches are immoral.

IOW, they'll respect the church's principled stand even if they don't share the specific principle.

[Little Star]

18. lol. There are some who say "do as I say, not as I do"....

That is certainly the truth!

[PRETZEL]

9. For me personally

and after reading and participating somewhat on some of the various threads I's starting to believe that the Administration for whatever reason is allowing others to frame the debate. I think that's bad and we can pretty easily see why.

It just seems to me that over the last few days some of the things I've learned here, not from the WH, not from the media and most certainly not from any politician could most easily have made this such a non issue.

One of the things I remember reading the other day and forgive me if I have this wrong and please correct me is that this directive from HHS is the really just the Administration informing those who would be affected that policies that were part of past legislation which is still current law and was challenged and upheld by the EEOC back in 2000 will now be enforced. To me, if this is true and the WH hasn't framed the debate as "nothing more than enforcing current law" is beyond me. That is, imo, asking for a fight.

Another aspect that the WH isn't pressing is that the exemptions exist for employees who work directly for a church or other houses of worship are excluded from this enforcement. It's the employees of related religious activities who would be covered. That's a big difference. But it's also the biggest group of employees that would fall under a religions activities umbrella.

Finally, there is no mandate nor even the suggestion of one that birth control will be required to be taken by employees. The purpose of it was to mandate that it has to be available. It's not so much the cost. Costs will be (or should be) borne by all effected. Yes, there would be a small increase (imo anyway) to the employer for adding it to the list of available prescriptions but the employee would also bear some of the cost through their normal co-pay plans. It would be shared for those who choose to use that part of their prescription plan.

[Little Star]

14. We should not allow the right to frame the issue. Your right.

[Aerows]

15. This is the key point here

"there is no mandate nor even the suggestion of one that birth control will be required to be taken by employees". I can't understand that they are getting away with framing this as a religious issue. If you don't want to take birth control, don't take it.

I swear some of the ultra-religious types act as though the fact that people are even able to have sex is an affront to them. There are plenty of women on birth control for reasons other than sex, yet people act like they have a right to dictate what medication people are on as though they were physicians. This is what happens when you let anti-choice activists get too noisy - they start acting as though they are doctors and have the right to dictate what treatment people have available to them.

It's as disgusting as people who refuse to take their children to the doctor because they believe you can pray the sickness away. We've totally gone off the rails if in the 21st century we are even discussing birth control.

We have so many other problems in this nation that are so much more important than people hashing back and forth about religious issues. But then, naturally, if there weren't people generating flap over religious issues, then they have to actually do something to solve the real issues, which they can't or don't want to do.

[Little Star]

19. If the right has their way we'll be back to this....