Backlash against Sandra Fluke

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Attempt to motivate the religious right to turn out like they did for Bush?  Romney is more than likely going to win the nomination and they need something to motivate them to vote for a Mormon president.

[SilentScreams]

What that particular host said was inappropriate. Yet targeting him for what he said is hypocritical. Where was the same righteous indignation when;

Ed Shultz called Palin a bimbo;
Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a right-wing slut;
Keith Olbermann said S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents;
Matt Taibbi wrote "When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.”
Chris Matthews has said Hillary Clinton is a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.”
Bill Maher called Palin a "dumb twat" and described her as a c*nt
Bill Maher made a joke about Santorum's wife using a vibrator.

Double standard much? Oh, those mean republicans...can't they just be nice? 

[Trieste]

What that particular host said was inappropriate. Yet targeting him for what he said is hypocritical. Where was the same righteous indignation when;

I don't know, where was it? Where was Mr. Radio Announcer's angry ranting against Bill Maher? Where was the supportive indignation when Palin was under fire? She has a base, she has a very vocal base, except perhaps they don't quite care about their women as much as they might like us to think.

Or maybe the Radio Announcer Fiasco isn't about right or left, it's not about dems or GOP, it's about a despicable man deliberately misinterpreting Ms. Fluke's testimony and indulging himself in a three-day jag of good ol' slut-shaming. And it pissed reasonable people, conservative or liberal, right the fuck off.

Hm. :P

*snip*

I'm not ignoring you, AndyZ. I really just don't have any answers for you. I think you're probably significantly more to the right side of moderate than I am? Not sure about that, though.

[SilentScreams]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t? 

[Caela]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t?

It's not reasonable or o.k. for either to call anyone a slut or a cunt. Both do it for ratings and I, frankly, think it shows a lack of intelligence on the part of both men. If you can't argue against someone's point of view without personally smearing them, then I think it's your own stance that is probably in need of some serious questioning.

As for the media traction both men did, or didn't get, that is, again, mostly about ratings. You get far higher ratings and more outrage going after the guy that is supposed to be the mouthpiece for conservative "family values" calling someone a slut, than you do out off of someone who makes it a point to be, repeatedly, shameless and sarcastic. One simply has more shock value (and thus brings in more ratings) than another.

The fact is (again just in my POV, YMMV) is that both men are highly inflammatory and often inappropriate, both have their fans and detractors, and BOTH should be apologizing to the women they have insulted and denigrated on their respective shows. I doubt, however, that either one's ego will let them give an actual HONEST apology to women they so obviously have no respect for and it makes me sad that these are the type of people we (general we, not anyone specific) listen to for our political commentary.

[Trieste]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t?

That's not what I said, so please don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t?

No one said that it was. But this isn't the first time down the road for Limbaugh.

[gaggedLouise]

People in the media who sense that their friends would love it if they called some person a d**b c**t, a w**re, a "trophy know-it-all hooker" or a "blackmail lawmaker" etc, commonly know how to find excuses that don't instantly and obviously backfire on themselves. I agree Limbaugh has been down this road before (yes, he's notorious even over here, at least with those who follow U.S. politics) and the really serious bit is that he has many buddies and allies who accept this kind of talk.

[AndyZ]

I'm not ignoring you, AndyZ. I really just don't have any answers for you. I think you're probably significantly more to the right side of moderate than I am? Not sure about that, though.

That's fine ^_^  I would actually consider myself closer to libertarian, although there's a lot of things where I want to see the double standards addressed.  I tend to equate things which most people don't see a link between, like abortion and euthanasia.


As far as how it's fine for folks on MSNBC to say sexist things about women but not Rush, the way I figure it, either both are acceptable or both are not.  However, to me, it's rather telling that such things have been going on for years and that there's never been a public outcry until Rush says something.

It really reminds me of my youth.  I was the oldest child, so when my siblings would hit me, and I'd tell my parents, either they wouldn't believe me or they'd just wave it off and say to forgive them.  However, if I'd hit them, I'd be punished.  If I then pointed out that they hit me, then we'd both get an equal punishment.

My solution became rather simple: I'd hit them back.  We'd both get punished, and then they stopped hitting me.  When I tried just waiting it out for my parents to make them stop hitting me otherwise, it didn't happen.

I don't think Rush is smart enough to have said something derogatory just to point out the double standard, but it's astonishing how this is the first time we've seen an outcry like this.  Even when NOW stood up for Bachmann when Newsweek put her on the cover, there was silence.

Now, I can gladly deal with the standard of that either all derogatory comments are hateful and do not have a place in civilized discourse, or that speech is completely free and that people who say stupid and hateful things point themselves out as fools to be ignored.  However, we must decide which it is, and hold everyone to that same standard.

I do not accept the argument that some people are held to different standards, even if some have different ranges of listening audiences.  Surely national TV shows are, if not equivalent to national radio shows, more valued because TV is used far more prominently than radio.

Do we boycott everyone, Ed Schultz, Keith Obermann, Bill Maher, Newsweek, Matt Taibbi, Chris Matthews, and Lord Voldemort?  Or do we just accept it as their right, and point and laugh at them for the fools that they are when they say such things?

[Oniya]

It may be that this is the start of a change in how people view this sort of thing.  This being the first one may have been more or less 'timing'.  Back when Maher made his remarks about Sarah Palin, there wasn't a general feeling among women that their rights to their own health were under attack, and because the attack on Fluke came when it did, and in the manner that it did, the proverbial camel suffered a catastrophic spinal fracture. 

In addition, a thirty-odd-year-old woman attending school to get a better job could be anyone, or anyone's neighbor.  Politicians, TV personalities, and even authors are still, to many people, 'a thing apart'.  You don't think of an author living next door, or a TV personality, and certainly not a politician (unless you live in a podunk town like I do, and the mayor sidelines as a cashier.)  I go to the bus stop with the little Oni, and one of the mothers there is about my age and trying to get through a business law degree.

[AndyZ]

It may be that this is the start of a change in how people view this sort of thing.  This being the first one may have been more or less 'timing'.  Back when Maher made his remarks about Sarah Palin, there wasn't a general feeling among women that their rights to their own health were under attack, and because the attack on Fluke came when it did, and in the manner that it did, the proverbial camel suffered a catastrophic spinal fracture. 

Am I correct in that your argument here is that because the news media continues to discuss women's rights, the Overton window has shifted to the point where the only reason that Rush was attacked about this was because it's a women's health issue, and not just because it's misogynistic?

((This is an honest question, not rhetorical.  I feel like this is what I'm getting and it's probably not what you're saying.))

In addition, a thirty-odd-year-old woman attending school to get a better job could be anyone, or anyone's neighbor.  Politicians, TV personalities, and even authors are still, to many people, 'a thing apart'.  You don't think of an author living next door, or a TV personality, and certainly not a politician (unless you live in a podunk town like I do, and the mayor sidelines as a cashier.)  I go to the bus stop with the little Oni, and one of the mothers there is about my age and trying to get through a business law degree.

Possibly.  We pick a woman to speak to Congress who's not an expert and has nothing but testimonial witnessing to tell them and people relate to her better than the expert.

If pathos is the cry that drives us into action, however, logos must either silence that cry or allow for some degree of fairness between such attacks.



P.S.  Oniya, I owe you an apology also because I misread: you were talking about insurance plans and not Medicare.  I'm sure you already saw my earlier bit about private companies and all, but still felt it right to say.

[gaggedLouise]

If pathos is the cry that drives us into action, however, logos must either silence that cry or allow for some degree of fairness between such attacks.

The trouble is that different people, and different camps in a debate, and in society, have wildly divergent ideas about in what corners logos and pathos are to be found (I'm referring to the level of "knowing or judging on what grounds one is doing something, or taking a view" here, not just to the bare fact that people want different things, have different aims and programs).  At what points someone would be driven by reason and at what points by passion and agitated emotion, or somebody else's trumped-up emotions (that's rethoric, you know). Besides, one can't really ask that everyone taking part in a debate should be able to step out of themselves and make an 'objective', calm and fair assessment of when they are being passionate, pigheaded or driven by sound reasoned arguments; it only works under special circumstances, like, if it's a small circle and every one of them shares the same frame of ideas, some of the same outlooks.

I agree that people who are discussing in public sometimes ought to do a bit more thinking, facts checking and self-restraint of expression before they speak up - especially if they make a living out of voicing opinions - but many of the folks in this thread may not be at one with you about just what it means to validate an opinion through the use of informed reason, and not just through clever words or hectoring.

The public arenas of debate - newspapers, magazines, radio, parliament, town halls - used to hold up the promise of a reflective discussion (I'm deliberately omitting tv because it hasn't, in general, been much to compare with in reasoned debate, not on its own anyway) where the weight of people's different viewpoints and passions could be brought face to face, and could be weighed and fairly discussed. But they are hardly working that way anymore. The fact of having your shouty voice heard, and getting heard fast, counts for more in those arenas today than actually having something solid and relevant to say, at least that's often how you get to the privileged places where you can get many to hear your soundbites. Both Limbaugh, Palin, Maher, Santorum and Schulz know that.

[Oniya]

Am I correct in that your argument here is that because the news media continues to discuss women's rights, the Overton window has shifted to the point where the only reason that Rush was attacked about this was because it's a women's health issue, and not just because it's misogynistic?

((This is an honest question, not rhetorical.  I feel like this is what I'm getting and it's probably not what you're saying.))

It's kind of a sensitization issue.  My theory is that, up until now, the shock jocks got away with it because we could roll our eyes and say 'Yes, these guys are jerks, but - you know - it's his schtick.  It's not like real people think like that.'  Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that.  Then, all of a sudden, we have 'Everywoman' getting completely misrepresented on the show (like I said, a person that any one of us could run into in our daily lives), and boom. 

Another thing that's been pointed out in other places is the pay-vs.-public aspect of the various shows.  ClearChannel is something that is carried by numerous public radio stations (as opposed to those only available on Sirius or other pay services).   

Going from SilentScream's earlier list:

Bill Maher is on HBO. 
Olbermann is on basic cable (although he recently left MSNBC for a satellite TV channel after a suspension). 
Matthews is also on basic cable, but I would point out that his comments about Clinton did spark protests outside the studio - so there was outrage.
Taibbi seems to be a print journalist only - I saw Rolling Stone and a weblog listed in his current outlets.

Ed Schultz is an interesting case, and probably the only close comparison, since he is also on a syndicated radio show.  He was suspended over the Ingraham insult, and issued a public apology.  (I finally found the text to it.)  Compared to the apology issued to Fluke - there really isn't much of a comparison.  Schultz spends the entirety of his speech on saying he was wrong, and Limbaugh spends over half of his saying 'why are we even talking about this?'  Also, Laura Ingraham accepted Schultz's apology.

P.S.  Oniya, I owe you an apology also because I misread: you were talking about insurance plans and not Medicare.  I'm sure you already saw my earlier bit about private companies and all, but still felt it right to say.

I appreciate that.  The confusion over insurance companies vs. getting it 'for free' seems to be rampant, unfortunately.

[kylie]

     I haven't seen, or read the Maher example in any detail.  Off the bat, I would say there are a few things Maher has said on various topics that have occasionally ranged (for me) from very imprecisely worded, to potentially misguided.  By and large, though, I've agreed with the spirit of his remarks when I have heard them in the past.  I think that more often than some, he has a reasonable and somewhat informed basis -- even for a dry comic -- for where he's coming from. 

     Sure, it's very cathartic at times to fling names, any names.  It could even be sexy for a time to toss sexual ones (if only more people would synchronize their watches on that question).  Of course, it does happen occasionally in less noticed ways here and there.  Now when we get to general philosophies being repeated over and over without much care, about women (or service jobs, read: largely women, not to mention Blacks/Latinos) making less money, or women being more tied to the husband and home, or women and anything else feminine or "weak" requiring special humiliation for being sexual beings.  Those seem more Republican to me, and more Rush than Maher on the whole.  I suspect the remarks are just so much closer to the tone and philosophy of so many more things that Rush has been saying for such a long time. 

    I do say "suspect" because I couldn't stand listening to the guy, and have largely tuned him out from many years ago.  Find some transcripts or audio files and judge for yourself.  Although it's been said academically that conservative voters will tend to abhor sarcastic critique, so as a demographic, it's kind of uncertain how much of Maher they would actually bother to review either.

[BitterSweet]

I guess my main problem with the whole issue is … what the hell is wrong with casual sex?  That's the heart of the issue, a certain group of people don't want women, in particular, to have sex without facing some form of 'punishment' – pregnancy or STDs or something.  The fact that radio host whats-his-name immediately leapt to sex tapes and slut shaming makes pretty clear that it's the idea of women having actual sex because they want that is figuring large in the minds of people like him.

All the complaints about how casual sex is going to ruin our civilization is patently false and there's no proof beyond 'cause I/the bible said so'.  Sexual mores have changed radically over the decades/centuries/forever and clearly humanity  is managing to get along just fine - we're not in danger of extinction due to over use of birth control and countries where it's freely available (as in free) and used are just as (if not more) 'civilized' than we are.

Almost all human beings do it at some point in their lives, whether it's serial monogamy like Newt G or hooking up in college or hitting the bars on Friday nights.  Sex is part of how many human beings do things.

Most of us also want to be responsible about it and not get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) until we want children (if we do at all), not pass STDs around, nor get them (though condoms are the best protection for that and are non-prescription) and generally – as adults – have control over our own bodies.  There is no reason in the world to restrict, deny, or prevent men or women from having free and easy access to birth control methods.

As to the religious question … frankly, fuck that.  There is no reason in the world, and the US Constitution specifically forbids, using any specific religious doctrine to guide politics.  Talk about personal responsibility, if a religious doctrine stats no birth control, or whatever, then it is the responsibility of those who follow that religion to well, follow that religion and it's not for the US government to step in and do it for them.  If religious organizations want to act in the public sphere, they need to provide the same benefits and services that anyone else who operates in the public sphere do.  Prior to emancipation, the bible and Christianity was used to defend slavery, now that's considered ridiculous – clearly the bible and other religious tenants are capable of adapting to changing views.   The vast majority of women (and thus the vast majority of people in general) use or have used birth control and approve of it's use.

This should be a non-issue as it is in most of the rest of the civilized world.  It's ridiculous that we're fighting over this like school kids giggling over the word vagina.

[Shjade]

I guess my main problem with the whole issue is … what the hell is wrong with casual sex? 

The informality. No one has sex in a proper tux with tails or ballgown anymore. It's disgraceful. You should all be ashamed.

[Trieste]

Slander and lies. I have a closet full of ballgowns for my sex. Sure, I get some odd looks when I show up at the biker bar downtown to get my one-nighter on, but I certainly wouldn't call it casual. ;)

[AndyZ]

Fair warning that I'm sleep deprived, so if I goof something again, please prod me so I catch it.  This thread just moves so fast that I don't want to get left behind, and besides, I found something I want to post.

The trouble is that different people, and different camps in a debate, and in society, have wildly divergent ideas about in what corners logos and pathos are to be found (I'm referring to the level of "knowing or judging on what grounds one is doing something, or taking a view" here, not just to the bare fact that people want different things, have different aims and programs).  At what points someone would be driven by reason and at what points by passion and agitated emotion, or somebody else's trumped-up emotions (that's rethoric, you know). Besides, one can't really ask that everyone taking part in a debate should be able to step out of themselves and make an 'objective', calm and fair assessment of when they are being passionate, pigheaded or driven by sound reasoned arguments; it only works under special circumstances, like, if it's a small circle and every one of them shares the same frame of ideas, some of the same outlooks.

I agree that people who are discussing in public sometimes ought to do a bit more thinking, facts checking and self-restraint of expression before they speak up - especially if they make a living out of voicing opinions - but many of the folks in this thread may not be at one with you about just what it means to validate an opinion through the use of informed reason, and not just through clever words or hectoring.

The public arenas of debate - newspapers, magazines, radio, parliament, town halls - used to hold up the promise of a reflective discussion (I'm deliberately omitting tv because it hasn't, in general, been much to compare with in reasoned debate, not on its own anyway) where the weight of people's different viewpoints and passions could be brought face to face, and could be weighed and fairly discussed. But they are hardly working that way anymore. The fact of having your shouty voice heard, and getting heard fast, counts for more in those arenas today than actually having something solid and relevant to say, at least that's often how you get to the privileged places where you can get many to hear your soundbites. Both Limbaugh, Palin, Maher, Santorum and Schulz know that.

The way I figure it, you can't really separate logic and emotion, but the two do have to work in harmony when you work at public policy.  Ideally, emotion should drive you towards fixing things, but logic should determine how you do so.  It's far too easy for someone to put up a plea for a fix to something, but it's logically not the best course of action.

For example, we all saw the Haiti relief funds last year.  Pathos demands compassion and that we send money.  However, when you look at how the money was squandered, logic shows that giving money to those relief funds isn't a proper course of action.

If we accept that purely pathos methods are acceptable, then ad hominem attacks would be acceptable as well, and people wouldn't have any problem with Rush's statements.

I would love to see a return to a more reflective discourse, but if either a Republican or Democrat wanted to do so, they should begin by cleaning out their own party before attacking the other.  Doing otherwise usually leads either to a double standard or to the exasperation that nothing will ever get better.

It's kind of a sensitization issue.  My theory is that, up until now, the shock jocks got away with it because we could roll our eyes and say 'Yes, these guys are jerks, but - you know - it's his schtick.  It's not like real people think like that.'  Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that.  Then, all of a sudden, we have 'Everywoman' getting completely misrepresented on the show (like I said, a person that any one of us could run into in our daily lives), and boom. 

Another thing that's been pointed out in other places is the pay-vs.-public aspect of the various shows.  ClearChannel is something that is carried by numerous public radio stations (as opposed to those only available on Sirius or other pay services).   

Going from SilentScream's earlier list:

Bill Maher is on HBO. 
Olbermann is on basic cable (although he recently left MSNBC for a satellite TV channel after a suspension). 
Matthews is also on basic cable, but I would point out that his comments about Clinton did spark protests outside the studio - so there was outrage.
Taibbi seems to be a print journalist only - I saw Rolling Stone and a weblog listed in his current outlets.

Ed Schultz is an interesting case, and probably the only close comparison, since he is also on a syndicated radio show.  He was suspended over the Ingraham insult, and issued a public apology.  (I finally found the text to it.)  Compared to the apology issued to Fluke - there really isn't much of a comparison.  Schultz spends the entirety of his speech on saying he was wrong, and Limbaugh spends over half of his saying 'why are we even talking about this?'  Also, Laura Ingraham accepted Schultz's apology.

I'm not really convinced it's that the public noticed it so much as that the mainstream news media jumped on this story, which they aren't so quick and vehement to do with similar cases.  I need a clarification of one part of your post, though, if you'd be so kind:

Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that.

There's a number of possible ways to read this, and I'd prefer to just let you clarify rather than make a fool of myself again.

I appreciate that.  The confusion over insurance companies vs. getting it 'for free' seems to be rampant, unfortunately.

I think I figured out why.  It's at the bottom of this post.

Slander and lies. I have a closet full of ballgowns for my sex. Sure, I get some odd looks when I show up at the biker bar downtown to get my one-nighter on, but I certainly wouldn't call it casual. ;)

Why is it that I know you're kidding and yet the plot bunnies still make demands of me? ;_;



Saw this and thought it'd add to the debate:

WARNING! Watching This Video Will Lower Your I.Q.

As usual, ignore any comments that people add (including the title) and it's a clip from where they had Sandra Fluke on CNN.  It mentions she has an op-ed piece, listed here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/opinion/fluke-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I'll cover the video first.

One thing she mentions on there is how the staff gets access to contraception and the students are asking for the same.  Stupid question, but she is actually paying for insurance, right?  Does she only have access to the health insurance of Georgetown University, or is she getting it free with her education?

If it comes as part of the cost, I'd consider dropping that part because it seems like it's part of the anti-monopoly thing that they went after Microsoft for.  I could well be wrong; someone please explain.

I really like the points Will Cain (I think he said his name was; it went by fast) made, and was a little sad she didn't give a straight answer there.  This, however, is how we rapidly get into the question of whether it should be free.  I'll quote her statement:

“I think there are multiple ways to limit access. Certainly making something illegal would be the most extreme form, but not covering it as a health care benefit the way other types of health care benefits are covered is another way to limit access and that’s what many women across the country are currently experiencing when they — even if they have insurance, co-pays, can be as high as $50 a month, which is significant for a woman not making a lot of money.”

Oniya, I think you can easily see how people get confused here and start thinking she's talking about more than just the private insurance matters.

On to the op-ed.

Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.

So part of the new health care law is that all private insurance plans are required to include contraception, regardless of religion.  Furthermore, the mandate that everyone has to purchase private insurance means that everyone has to pay for this.

Now, I realize that you aren't required to get or use birth control, only that you're paying for a plan which would get it for you free of charge should you choose.  However, not only will the cost of the health care rise in order to pay for birth control (because nothing is truly free), but by the very nature of insurance, you're paying for everyone else.

Now, this part of the law I'll disagree with.  Alcohol isn't against my religion, but I'd be against a mandated food plan in which you pay so much per month and get all the free food, drink and alcohol you want.  Granted, I'd be against a mandated food plan on principle, but doubly so if it forced people in this way.

I see commercials on TV all the time that say "Free with purchase."  It's a blatant oxymoron.  If you see a commercial that says "Buy this TV and get a DVD player free," then of course you're buying both a TV and a DVD player.  It's just a marketing gimmick.  The same rule applies to buffets, insurance, and any other such package deals.

If health insurance wasn't going to be mandated, though, I'd probably still be against the federal government forcing health insurance companies to carry contraception.  I'd imagine that being more the type of deal where auto insurance can be dirt cheap if you don't care that it'll do absolutely nothing to cover any damage to your car.  Explanations to the contrary are welcome.

I could imagine an argument that if you had a minimal deal, employers would only offer that plan.  However, logic would suggest that an unscrupulous employer who gouges his employees on things like health insurance would also not pay more than minimum wage, given how both require a minimal payment on the part of the unscrupulous employer.  If that's the case, however, it doesn't seem to hold up.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm

It's 2007, but it's .gov so I figure it's going to have minimal party bias.

Among those paid by the hour in 2007, 267,000 were reported as earning exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Nearly 1.5 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum. Together, these 1.7 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.3 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

If only 2.3 percent of people are actually getting minimum wage, with any number of those jobs being places like McDonalds which got a waiver from the health care law anyway, it seems like most places wouldn't hold to a minimum health care coverage deal either.

[Oniya]

There's a number of possible ways to read this, and I'd prefer to just let you clarify rather than make a fool of myself again.

I'm referring to things like the 'heartbeat' bill, and bills that would require a woman to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound prior to terminating a pregnancy, regardless of her reasons for doing so.  (Virginia backed off from this one, and now only requires an abdominal ultrasound - still, I wonder who has to pay for that?) There was a Wisconsin state senator on TV a few days ago talking about how non-marital parenthood (aka 'single mothers') should be emphasized as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.  (On that same show, a researcher pointed out that if you normalize for income, single parent families and two-parent families come in just about even on that.)  Arizona has passed a bill that would allow doctors to not give a pregnant woman information about conditions that may cause her to want to terminate the pregnancy (this includes conditions that would result in the child having a short and painful life, like Tay-Sachs).

[Trieste]

Arizona also has this gem on the table allowing employers to inquire as to why their employees are on birth control. Everyone who wants their boss regulating their sex life, raise your hand.

[Oniya]

Arizona also has this gem on the table allowing employers to inquire as to why their employees are on birth control. Everyone who wants their boss regulating their sex life, raise your hand.

Regulating?  Try 'knowing about'!  I bet you get the same number of hands up.

[Callie Del Noire]

I find it interesting that Will Cain is saying that it should be the employer's choice to decide what and what isn't covered. This could, without a setting of specific standards by SOMEONE, lead to anything that can't be directly attributed to the job. (Or the employer's beliefs..).

The biggest problem I see is this lack of accepting of another's view point.. on BOTH sides.  Compromise, discussion, debate and negotiation are all bad words now. We no longer have a nation where people can differ in opinion and work towards something that can help all. It's all or nothing now, purely partisan politics.

We NEED statesmen and leaders. Problem is, as I've seen up close when my brother ran for govenor, the party leaders (the unelected ones who run the parties) want sheeple who walk the line and do what they say. If that is overly harsh, consider what we see on both sides. Bipartisan has become a 'dirty' word. For anyone offering a quiet well articulated arguement on why they should work with the opposition is called 'soft', 'moderate' or 'faux conservative/liberal' (depending on which side of the divide their bread is buttered on).

Men like Jesse Helms or Ted Kennedy weren't nice, or even.. 'good' (to some folks definitions) but they LED. They looked, and listened. They thought for themselves and openly disagreed with party platform items that were in conflict with their (or their constituents) beliefs. For example, Jesse Helms was a conservative man with tight beliefs in personal acts, responsibility and accountability BUT he also pushed for debt forgiveness for foreign nations (arguing that we could get more capital in forgiving debts that we'll never get paid for anyway, and he did this with BONO of U2.. I nearly fell out of my chair when these two very diverse men led this).

Too much control by the party and too little thought by themselves. Acts like Limbaugh, and his counterparts on the other side of the divide, do little to encourage initiative much less actual leadership by elected men.

Mark Twain said much about the Press leading the public by the news.. and I find it surprising that a century later.. we're back in the same mess. Media and Politicians in bed together for THEIR benefit not ours.

[BitterSweet]

Now, I realize that you aren't required to get or use birth control, only that you're paying for a plan which would get it for you free of charge should you choose.  However, not only will the cost of the health care rise in order to pay for birth control (because nothing is truly free), but by the very nature of insurance, you're paying for everyone else.

This is a dead horse that gets beaten every time health insurance companies are required to pay for something.  The same argument was used against paying for: mammograms, breast reconstruction after breast cancer, mental health care, any pharmaceuticals at all, preventative care, gastric bypass surgery ... on an on.  Yet, somehow insurance companies manage to make comfortable profits.  The cost of health insurance is not rising due to birth control or mammograms (or even gastric bypass) but because we are hugely over testing and over treating and preferentially choosing the most expensive, least cost effective ways of managing health possible.

Again, somehow countries like most in N. Europe who provide totally free and quite widespread health insurance have managed to stay as solvent as any other country during this time.

The US health system is badly out of whack, and it's not because insurance companies are being asked to provide coverage.

[vtboy]

This is a dead horse that gets beaten every time health insurance companies are required to pay for something.  The same argument was used against paying for: mammograms, breast reconstruction after breast cancer, mental health care, any pharmaceuticals at all, preventative care, gastric bypass surgery ... on an on.  Yet, somehow insurance companies manage to make comfortable profits.  The cost of health insurance is not rising due to birth control or mammograms (or even gastric bypass) but because we are hugely over testing and over treating and preferentially choosing the most expensive, least cost effective ways of managing health possible.

Again, somehow countries like most in N. Europe who provide totally free and quite widespread health insurance have managed to stay as solvent as any other country during this time.

The US health system is badly out of whack, and it's not because insurance companies are being asked to provide coverage.

No question but that we have a dysfunctional health care system which prefers the treatment of disease to its prevention and devotes enormous resources to little benefit at end of life.

That said, the fact that we are wasteful and foolish consumers of health care (a byproduct, at least in part, of the fact that the decision to purchase a treatment is generally not made by those who pay for it) does not strike me as the most compelling argument for requiring the addition of contraception to the benefits provided by health insurance. Moreover, unless you want to define pregnancy as a disease or injury, contraceptive medication is not really analogous to mammograms, post-surgical breast reconstruction, mental health care, most other pharmaceuticals, preventative care, and gastric bypass surgery, each of which is designed to prevent, manage or cure disease or injury, or their aftermaths.

Perhaps the greater good would be enhanced by expanding the notion of health care coverage beyond these sorts of benefits to include those which permit or facilitate certain lifestyle choices (I hate that term, but cannot think of another at the moment) like contraception. Though I agree that including birth control coverage among the benefits provided by health insurance policies is unlikely to bankrupt the insurers, there can be little doubt the insurers will pass the added costs on to their insureds. The question, then, becomes whether the entire pool of persons covered by health insurance, which includes women outside of childbearing years, women who wish to conceive, women unable to conceive, women who are not sexually active, and women who rely on birth control methods other than medication, should be saddled with the additional premiums required to defray the expenses of those who want their pills paid for.

Perhas the better approach is to allow health insurers to offer their customers the choice between policies which do not include contraception and, at a higher premium, policies which do. Of course, beyond whatever economies might be achieved through the application of the purchasing power of insurers to contraceptive medication, I doubt those insured by the latter type of policy would see much of a reduction in their overall health care costs.

[Trieste]

Moreover, unless you want to define pregnancy as a disease or injury, contraceptive medication is not really analogous to mammograms, post-surgical breast reconstruction, mental health care, most other pharmaceuticals, preventative care, and gastric bypass surgery, each of which is designed to prevent, manage or cure disease or injury, or their aftermaths.

Pregnancy has the distinction of being quite uniquely a female problem, despite the fact that it takes two to tango. It is too often used as a punitive consequence for sex, and then politicians ask openly why there are so many poor, what is wrong with parents these days, etc and so forth. I understand the dislike of casual sex, but quite frankly I'm impatient with conservatives wishing to have their cake and eat it too. Outlaw birth control and make abortion legal and accessible, or outlaw abortion and make contraception legal and accessible. Those are the compromises I see as viable options between the liberal "legalize it all and make it free" and the conservative "ban it all".

I honestly cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 20-fucking-12.

>.>