A recovering economy is bad news for Republicans in 2012. If Republicans address social issues as virulently as they have the ‘contraception controversy,’ it will be a long, sad election season for them. Provisions in the Affordable Care Act made it so all employers had to cover contraceptive care. Republicans cried foul on infringing religious freedoms. This seemed a win-win for republicans: attack an already unpopular legislative bill, at least with conservatives, and pin the bill to a social issue they care deeply about.
But it didn’t really turn out that way. President Obama compromised. This consolation by the administration seemed a straight-forward alternative, but many still argued insurance companies would pass the costs of contraceptive care to the institutions through higher premiums, but this simply isn’t true. Furthermore, it’s in the insurance companies’ best interest, i.e. benefits their bottom-line, to offer free contraceptive care for ALL women.
The controversy should have died there, but, republicans kept on it. At a Congressional hearing, Darrell Issa actually barred a woman named Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, from giving testimony. Democrats, days later, held a congressional forum where Ms. Fluke finally gave her testimony. Republicans responded by letting Rush Limbaugh do the talking.
Limbaugh’s tirade has only served to help President Obama and the Democrats this fall. First of all, Limbaugh’s idiocy only proved how little he understands contraception and how women use it. Rachel Maddow expressed this brilliantly on her show Friday night. Limbaugh, and many other conservatives, do not seem to have a basic grasp of how contraceptive coverage works, and almost universally think contraception is solely used as an abortifacient, and ignore hormonal contraceptive use as a therapeutic drug, evidenced by Ms. Fluke’s testimony. Nobody is paying for somebody else’s contraceptive care. The taxes paid through your employer cover the health care benefits that YOU receive. If your employer objects to contraceptive coverage, or maybe they don’t like the diet pills you’ve been taking, or maybe the painkillers that you’re prescribed are too costly, and you have to go out of network to get those drugs then you’re essentially paying TWICE for medical insurance. As the Fluke testimony shows, going out of network can have disastrous consequences for women.
The right’s draconian furor against contraception will only further secure the women’s vote in 2012, especially the independent vote. Limbaugh, personally, is suffering. At least 9 advertisers, including AOL, Sleep Number, and a tax services company, have pulled their ads from his show. Limbaugh’s half-hearted (and now “left-blaming”) apology has been almost universally condemned as “insincere.” Even Ron Paul thinks it was all about ad revenue: "I don't think he's very apologetic. It's in his best interest, that's why he [apologized].” When a majority of Americans support the contraceptive requirement and conservative blowhards make such inexcusable comments, republicans are not only hurting their chances of winning the White House, but damage any chance to take the Senate or hold the House.
Showing posts with label Contraception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contraception. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Rick Santorum's Theocracy
I'm really trying to wrap my head around a Rick Santorum presidential victory and what it might mean for the country. And I find it a frightening scenario. First of all, I honestly do not think it will happen. I believe Michiganders will finally start thinking again before next Tuesday's Republican primary and Mitt Romney will win out after being ahead, then drastically falling, only to come to a tie again the weekend before the voters cast their ballots (that is, if he stops talking long enough...). This win for Romney will once again set him up as the front runner and I don't foresee Santorum coming back again. Much of Santorum's fall, however, is based on his own missteps (more on that momentarily). But should Santorum come in a close second in Michigan, and perhaps steal a few more primaries along the way, he could potentially be the Republican nominee against Obama. And even though many voters claim their highest priority is the economy in 2012, for many more the simple expulsion of Obama from the presidency factors much more and it may mean the President is not elected, giving candidate Santorum the White House. And if this happens, the bitterness still stinging your tongue from the Bush administration will suddenly seem like the most decadent wine you've ever tasted.
The number 1 issue on voters minds right now is the economy. Santorum, to his credit, recognizes he doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to the economy, spending, and earmarks, and his opponents are hitting him hard on it. Santorum's plan of government cuts and tax reductions will actually increase the deficit, just as Gingrich's and Romney's plans will do. In actuality, Ron Paul's deficit reduction plan is the only plan of the 4 remaining Republican candidates that will effectively reduce the deficit. Knowing his economic past may come back to haunt him, Santorum has attempted a debate 'coup' to change what the candidates are talking about. He criticized President Obama last week of practicing a "phony theology," questioning the very nature of the President's beliefs. Many from both sides of the aisle criticized this statement, and those who are incredulous to President Obama's stated Christian beliefs, and excoriated them for their double-standards. Santorum has also loudly drummed the "contraception controversy" and spoken of the President's "war on religion". Santorum is playing to his strengths and what he perceives as his best chance to secure the nomination and the White House: social issues. But there is a larger pretext to all of this: Santorum's want to create law based solely on "biblical law".
Santorum's questioning of President Obama's beliefs and his advocating to outlaw birth control, as well as abortions, and prohibiting same-sex marriage are directly linked to the former Senator's strict Catholic upbringing. Where most candidates and public officials recognize and abide the Constitution's separation of church and state, Santorum seems to be wholly ignorant of it (something many Conservatives might find interesting), or willfully blind to achieve his own selfish ends. The former Senator is running on a campaign that would essentially be the most theocratic administration in power in over 100 years. Santorum has unequivocally stated that civil law should "comport with God's law." Here's a video of him saying just that:
The number 1 issue on voters minds right now is the economy. Santorum, to his credit, recognizes he doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to the economy, spending, and earmarks, and his opponents are hitting him hard on it. Santorum's plan of government cuts and tax reductions will actually increase the deficit, just as Gingrich's and Romney's plans will do. In actuality, Ron Paul's deficit reduction plan is the only plan of the 4 remaining Republican candidates that will effectively reduce the deficit. Knowing his economic past may come back to haunt him, Santorum has attempted a debate 'coup' to change what the candidates are talking about. He criticized President Obama last week of practicing a "phony theology," questioning the very nature of the President's beliefs. Many from both sides of the aisle criticized this statement, and those who are incredulous to President Obama's stated Christian beliefs, and excoriated them for their double-standards. Santorum has also loudly drummed the "contraception controversy" and spoken of the President's "war on religion". Santorum is playing to his strengths and what he perceives as his best chance to secure the nomination and the White House: social issues. But there is a larger pretext to all of this: Santorum's want to create law based solely on "biblical law".
Santorum's questioning of President Obama's beliefs and his advocating to outlaw birth control, as well as abortions, and prohibiting same-sex marriage are directly linked to the former Senator's strict Catholic upbringing. Where most candidates and public officials recognize and abide the Constitution's separation of church and state, Santorum seems to be wholly ignorant of it (something many Conservatives might find interesting), or willfully blind to achieve his own selfish ends. The former Senator is running on a campaign that would essentially be the most theocratic administration in power in over 100 years. Santorum has unequivocally stated that civil law should "comport with God's law." Here's a video of him saying just that:
Santorum believes that sex serves no other purpose than procreation. He thinks sex, unless in the act of conceiving, is immoral. He believes this so strongly that he does not think contraception should be legal. He believes this so strongly that he does not think abortions should be legal, even in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman's life is in danger. He believes this so strongly that, though he claims to have nothing against gay people and purports to "know" many homosexuals, he thinks homosexuality is a sin because there is no biological expedient to homosexual sex, therefore making it immoral. As President, and as a member of the "liberty loving" right wing, Santorum would make all of these things illegal because he believes more strongly in a book written 2,000 years ago than all of the literature, math, and scientific advancements achieved since. In the era where Republicans overwhelmingly bemoan the overreach of government in our daily lives, Santorum seeks to effectively control you to your very bedroom.
And did you notice that bit in the video right at the outset there too? He says, in Islam the civil law and the higher law are the same, what one Newt Gingrich might call 'Sharia Law,' but the United States is different because we have civil laws unrelated to higher laws but they ought to comport with the higher law... Um, what? So, basically, Rick Santorum is promoting that we should have 'Christian Sharia Law'? How is that any better than 'Islamic Sharia Law'? How would that be better than 'Jewish Sharia Law'? A theocracy is a theocracy. Maybe Rick Santorum doesn't exactly know his world history and that thousands of our American ancestors fled Europe to escape theocracies (and still found themselves plenty of theocratic colonies in the New World). But I doubt it. I think he knows full well what he's doing. And that scares me the most.
Friday, February 17, 2012
AmericanLP Daily News Brief 2/17/12
AmericanLP covers all the top headlines in politics on both sides of the aisle in this morning’s news brief. Major headlines yesterday once again pointed to a rebounding economy. New applications for unemployment hit a 4-year low. Also, the DNC released a new ad, which you can view at the 1:15 mark, highlighting the diverging ideologies between the Obama administration’s decision to save the auto industry and Mitt Romney’s 2008 Op-Ed “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. The bailout was unequivocally a successful administrative decision for President Obama, and coupling this with the rate for unemployment applications falling, and last week’s news that the overall unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent, we have public opinion of the President quickly on the rise. 44% of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll believe economic conditions will be better in 2013 than this year. This coincides with a CNN poll yesterday showing the President’s approval rating is back to 50% for the first time in 8 months. The administration, and the Obama re-election campaign, have really begun hammering home the jobs numbers, focusing not on the unemployment rate so much, as that number is still unfortunately high, but rightly talking about how bad things were when Obama came into office (750,000 jobs hemorrhaging from the economy per month) to how his policies have vastly turned this country around (250,000 jobs added in January; a 1 million point swing) and have created the most manufacturing jobs since the 1990’s.
Switching over, AmericanLP discusses the latest from the GOP presidential campaign. Mitt Romney, on the verge of losing his front runner status in some polls, gave a speech Thursday in which he addressed the concerns of entrepreneurs looking for funding to start their own business. In a swipe at the Solyndra controversy, Romney excoriated the benefits of government funding a start-up business and instead suggested entrepreneurs should apply to venture capitalists, angels, or their parents for funding. A statement such as this is on par with Romney’s “$10,000 bet” and once again reinforces the notion that Romney is so fiscally out-of-touch with the general American public (the average salary for Americans is $26,000/year; Romney makes $57,000/day) that it’s hard to fathom how he’ll win the nomination. Romney was born to the kind of wealth where if he wanted to start his own company, he could go to his parents for the capital to get the project off the ground. However, most Americans cannot. Most Americans struggle to pay their own bills, and many are helping their parents through retirement after the recession. It seems every time Romney opens his mouth, he further ostracizes himself from the general American public. Maybe that’s why he chose to drop out of the CNN Georgia debate scheduled in a couple weeks. Rick Santorum also declined the invitation; his motivations for doing so are less clear. With less money and generally one of the candidates who performs well in these debates, it doesn’t really play to Santorum’s strengths not to participate. But Santorum was not immune to the ‘tax return release’ scrutiny either. Santorum released 4 years of his tax returns and they paint a startling contrast to much of what Santorum has been saying on the campaign trail. Posturing himself as a threat to big government, Santorum has actually made $3.6M in lobbying fees since losing his re-election bid for the U.S. Senate. Try as he might, Santorum seems just as much a “Washington Insider” as Newt Gingrich.
A new segment on AmericanLP, “News From The 14th Century,” highlights the ridiculous spectacle yesterday from Congress where Darrell Issa barred a woman from testifying on a birth control hearing in response to the contraception controversy. Republicans, for all their talk of individual freedom, want to deny women access to birth control, even though 98% of Catholic women say they have used some form of contraceptive in their life. Issa, instead of allowing one woman to testify, decided to fill the panel with men and priests. Clearly, they’ll have a deeper understanding of contraception than any woman might…
These are just a few of the highlights from this morning’s briefing. Watch the whole video for more news in politics from around the country. ~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker
Switching over, AmericanLP discusses the latest from the GOP presidential campaign. Mitt Romney, on the verge of losing his front runner status in some polls, gave a speech Thursday in which he addressed the concerns of entrepreneurs looking for funding to start their own business. In a swipe at the Solyndra controversy, Romney excoriated the benefits of government funding a start-up business and instead suggested entrepreneurs should apply to venture capitalists, angels, or their parents for funding. A statement such as this is on par with Romney’s “$10,000 bet” and once again reinforces the notion that Romney is so fiscally out-of-touch with the general American public (the average salary for Americans is $26,000/year; Romney makes $57,000/day) that it’s hard to fathom how he’ll win the nomination. Romney was born to the kind of wealth where if he wanted to start his own company, he could go to his parents for the capital to get the project off the ground. However, most Americans cannot. Most Americans struggle to pay their own bills, and many are helping their parents through retirement after the recession. It seems every time Romney opens his mouth, he further ostracizes himself from the general American public. Maybe that’s why he chose to drop out of the CNN Georgia debate scheduled in a couple weeks. Rick Santorum also declined the invitation; his motivations for doing so are less clear. With less money and generally one of the candidates who performs well in these debates, it doesn’t really play to Santorum’s strengths not to participate. But Santorum was not immune to the ‘tax return release’ scrutiny either. Santorum released 4 years of his tax returns and they paint a startling contrast to much of what Santorum has been saying on the campaign trail. Posturing himself as a threat to big government, Santorum has actually made $3.6M in lobbying fees since losing his re-election bid for the U.S. Senate. Try as he might, Santorum seems just as much a “Washington Insider” as Newt Gingrich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)