dagblog - Comments for "Distorting Reproductive Health: The Anti-Woman Beltway Media"

I realize I'm coming in a

MrSmith1 — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:45:26 +0000

In reply to Distorting Reproductive Health: The Anti-Woman Beltway Media

I realize I'm coming in a little late to this thread, but I need some clarity. A friend just recommended I read an article by Michael Novak in the National Review, which was so over-the-top insane, I could barely get through it. It was a rant about the Obama administration and their conspiracy to destroy the separation of church and state, blah, blah, blah.

Now, to me, the issue seems simple; if a religious organization chooses to work in the public sector, why should they be allowed to make adherence to their religious beliefs, a condition of receiving that service? If you provide non-religious services, and receive grants and other support from the government, don't you have to perform services in a manner which is consistent with the laws of the land, as opposed to the laws of your church?

Or am I missing something here?

FREE SEX for SALE, an

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:17:24 +0000

In reply to Appreciate the factual data.

FREE SEX for SALE, an oxymoron, no? Though actually more like truth in advertising.

Appreciate the factual data.

Aunt Sam — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:49:58 +0000

In reply to I'm simply giving perspective

Appreciate the factual data.

While contraception obviously affects women (and men), so does mortgage fraud and war in Afghanistan - why does our concern about equal representation on TV only rise for sexual issues?

Couldn't agree more. Interesting isn't it?!?

They say that the three words in marketing and headlines that garner the most response is FREE, SEX and SALE. Ironic that put together or separate, they get the most attention. Says quite a bit about our society's priorities and interests. sigh.

I'm simply giving perspective

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:28:21 +0000

In reply to 55 out of 146 guests were

I'm simply giving perspective - never said "be satisfied".

It used to be that to get a female opinion you had to watch The View. My guess is that when they debated Sen. Nelson removing abortion coverage in Obamacare 2 years ago, there was little female representation on Sunday morning TV.

Nevertheless, women are only 30% of Obama's cabinet, 17% of both houses, 12% of governors.

Women only filled 25% of the media jobs created 1990-2005. Women make up 28% of news directors and 16% of general managers.

A quarter of news stories are reported by women, about 25% of cable news hosts are women (all white), and fewer than 20% of Sunday talk show guests are women.

Blasting TV for putting on 38% female guests, 2-3 times better than 2 years ago, and better than its industry average seems a bit iffy without explanation.

Where will these female opinions come from - political & media professionals, or just anyone off the street?

While contraception obviously affects women (and men), so does mortgage fraud and war in Afghanistan - why does our concern about equal representation on TV only rise for sexual issues?

Women are still under-represented at all levels of government.

Women hold only 17% of the seats in Congress. (Source)
Only 22% of all statewide elective executive office positions are currently held by women. (Source)
State Legislatures are only 24% women. (Source)
Only 6 out of 50 states have a female governor. (Source)
The United States trails behind much of the world—ranking 90th in the number of women in our national legislature. (*Note: The U.S. is listed as 73rd, but after accounting for tied rankings of other countries, the ranking for the U.S. is 90th. Source)
On average, male cabinet appointees outnumber women cabinet appointees in our states by a ratio of 2 to 1. (Source)
50% less women than men consider of running for office. Of those, 30% less actually run, with only a fraction seeking higher office. (Lawless, Jennifer and Richard L Fox. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge UP, 2005.)
Women constituted 54% of voters in the 2008 elections, but only 24% of state legislators. (Source)
Women of color represent only 4% of Congress and 23% of women Members of Congress. (Source)

I see what you mean. I'm not

Oxy Mora — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:32:50 +0000

In reply to Most probably. At the same

I see what you mean. I'm not sure if it's a barricade issue in and of itself. But if Santorum were nominated, for example, it would be part of a package which would be untenable for many of what I would call business Republicans. The new PEW poll which gives O a 10 point lead over Santorum has an interesting part. On the question of the party uniting behind the eventual Republican nominee, 70% said they would do so if it was Romney and 54% said that for Santorum. This is a poll that has R & S essentially even. I'm thinking the lower number for Santorum reflects business Republicans, but that's a wild guess in line with my opinions.

Most probably. At the same

artappraiser — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:24:00 +0000

In reply to Maybe this gets back to the

Most probably. At the same time, there seems to be little fear that it will hurt them much to go this route to do that. Because, like I was trying to imply, it's possible that there's a lot more women (& men) out there who aren't ready to go to the barricades over birth control not being covered by health insurance. Now if you implied (like Santorum types) that you 'd like to see birth control illegal, that's barricade stuff.

This is where I am seeing some faults in left-o-center pundit arguments--those that are sayin'-that this was a trap Obama set, women are not going to like this, they are gonna be outraged, women are going to run away from the GOP, etc. I think--naw, not if all it's about is health insurance policies not paying for birth control. All that's really doing is bringing up the "should the poor and lower income people get these or these or these free benefits?" subject, and that one is not a topic where the non-left population (the population that is a realistic target of the GOP) always agrees with the left population. Birth control is not as expensive as cancer treatment or heart bypass surgery, it's really that simple. Yeah, having an unplanned kid that you have to raise to adulthood can certainly be equally expensive or more, but most people don't think of that as uncontrollable fate.

P.S. Most people know how inexpensive condoms are. One can easily rationalize things like: pay for all women to have more expensive forms of birth control, men quit taking any responsibility at all.

Richard, that scene from

artappraiser — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:50:59 +0000

In reply to That frickin Barnacle was

Richard, that scene from Cheaper by the Dozen is a fav of mine. It really does a good job of getting across a historical societal picture. Where family planning was really a WASP thing, the way to distinguish oneself as not one of those Catholic immigrant breeder hordes threatening to take over the country with teeming poor. Where family planning is Enlightenment science and morality vs the papist evil. And where women are put on a pedestal and not treated like breeding rabbits and you only have enough children that you can support in a classy manner and raise to be upright disciplined contributing members of society. (Like the British upper class, and not running around on the street juvvies like all those immigrant kids born of vile uncontrolled sexuality!) Mr. & Mrs.Gilbreth were being traitors to their class, showing that the stereotype was not necessarily true.

Another good "control of sex" theme in the movie is the one with the older girls not being allowed to wear modern bathing suits or bob their hair, that they should stop being desirous of being popular and accepted by the hordes at school, but wait for a man that respects them for their modesty.

Maybe this gets back to the

Oxy Mora — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:02:21 +0000

In reply to Also, I should say that I

Maybe this gets back to the fact that many continue to fear challenges from the further right in their own primaries.

Also, I should say that I

artappraiser — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:47:14 +0000

In reply to I think you're onto the

Also, I should say that I suspect more than just Catholic women think this way

I was struck that the current Congressional GOP doesn't see a down side politically on pushing on this:

GOP GOES ALL IN
Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Birth Control
TPMC, Feb 12

Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation that permits any employer to deny contraception coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says.

I mean, it's not like they don't have access to polls. They're willing to give up the voters who feel strongly about this if they ever thought they might get some of those. There's probably plenty of non-right-wing people who won't be all outraged if nearly everyone has to pay for their own birth control, where birth control (or Viagara for that matter) isn't considered a standard part of health insurance.

I think you're onto the

artappraiser — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:01 +0000

In reply to Birth control is a sin,

I think you're onto the thought process erica. I think of some Catholic women I know and it fits. And goes beyond what you say, like this:

If they give out contraception like candy, free to anyone that wants it, that gives men the license to sleep around without guilt, which most of them really want to do. That there's nothing wrong with family planning within monogamy, but something dangerous (for women especially) about a society that doesn't put pressure everyone to be monogamous

Betcha if the rules said "free for married women" a lot of such qualms would vanish.