If you think that women’s groups and the Democrats in general are going to allow the kind of hairsplitting implied in the cite, I’ve got this bridge with a wonderful view of Brooklyn to sell you. The radical right would love to get the kind of foothold to allow them to say “We’ve outlawed one kind of birth control…” The fact that not only Santorum but also Gingrich, Paul and Romney have indeed hung their hats on this tells me that this has broad appeal within the GOP.
Oh, please. First of all, that cite is an opinion piece. Did you not notice the “opinion” label at the top?
And we have Romney’s own words from one of the debates:
Now, I’m happy to dis Romney for dodging the larger issue (whether he agrees with the decision in Griswold), but I think a direct quote from him outwieghs an opinion piece about his agreement with legislation that is clearly aimed at the abortion issue, and that the writer claims might apply elsewhere.
I understand you want to be fair to the Republicans, but you’re being a little obtuse here.
Romney has said he supports a personhood amendment. That would outlaw birth control that prevents implantation.
From: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/dems-attack-romney-on-abortion-personhood/
Now one problem with this is that Romney appears to actually be too stupid to understand how birthcontrol works. Given that he was brought up in a religion that promotes ignorance of things sexual, I suppose it might an honest mistake.
From: Iowa Woman Schools Romney On Anti-Abortion Amendment And Birth Control | Crooks and Liars
Now is that Romney being stupid, or trying to dodge the question in a way that a stupid audience won’t realize? I don’t know. Either way, he’s either a fucking fringe nut, or he’s so uneducated he shouldn’t be advocating positions on the issue.
The question I have, is would you be splitting hairs as fine, if a Republican had called someone anti-gun if that person had supported a total ban on handguns and shotguns, but leaving rifles okay for private ownership? You don’t think that person could be called pro-banning guns?
It seems your, “It only is outlawing most kinds of birth control, not all” defense of the Republican frontrunners is pretty lame.
In any case, you’re completely wrong on this overall issue, this was in no way an attack on Catholics. This was Catholic bishops realizing they could grab the headlines for a few weeks with a bullshit trumped up charge, so that people would see them as under attack. The Catholic church is living under this rule in 28 states and a more draconian rule in 8. They didn’t bitch about it when those laws were passed, because the sensible Catholics in charge weren’t hysterical twats.
OK, that’s a more reasoned approach. Romney is currently parading himself as a born again pro-lifer, and I can see why he would support the Personhood amendment in that case. There is a claim that that amendment might ban hormonal contraception, so we can at the most say that his message is muddled on the issue. But given his direct statement, I think saying he as anti-birth control based on the facts at hand is simply fallacious.
No, I don’t think that person could be accurately portrayed as being pro-banning guns. Frankly, I don’t think those types of soundbites are useful or accurate in most cases. That goes for “soft on crime” or “soft on terror” or claims by right wingers that Obama is “anti-religion”.
I don’t concede that Romney is in favor of outlawing any kind of birth control. I don’t accept the extrapolation of his support of personhood being defined as “at conception” is an endorsement of a banning of hormonal birth control.
Well, I never said it was an attack on Catholics, but it should be noted that at least two Catholics in Obama’s own cabinet, including his V-fucking-P opposed the original position put forth by Sebelius.
Well Catholics themselves probably feel attacked, somehow. Because they respect the church hugely. Even Chris Matthews was iffy on this, and he’s as liberal an Obama booster as you find on TV.
I don’t doubt that Catholics legitimately felt attacked. Or that the church was being attacked. But I don’t think that means they were right.
In any case, I like that there is this compromise and it makes both sides walk away with heads unbowed.
That’s it! Eureka, I’ve got it! Forget contraception, preventing people from being born. Prevent them from being born again!
Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals…
Which is one of the things that made me conclude that this was about tribalism, not religion per se. Group X goes “Wah, wah, wah, I’m being attacked,” and all its members go “Yeah, don’t pick on us,” even if they don’t agree with the actual Group X values that are being “attacked” themselves. Circling the wagons IRL–“gotta protect our kind,” “Our folks, right or wrong.” Totally sick mentality.
So you were just playing some childish game with your earlier requests for specifics. Good to know that I should just ignore you in the future.
I’ll assume that since this is a press release there’s no issue with posting the whole thing,
But clink on the link to enjoy the, seemingly random, bolding!
CMC fnord!
Well. “Accurately.”
What about “plausibly?”
Awesome! Cause that’s what I am! high fives
I know this has absolutely nothing to do with anything, but I have to say it anyway. I met E.J. Dione back in 2010 when I was in England. He was at a dinner with my father and a few other people in Oxford, and I came along. I drank two entire bottles of white wine at that dinner, then walked to a pub and had some ale, then staggered to a Chinese restaurant and ordered a gigantic platter of fried fish, then somehow made it back to the room at Oxford where we were staying. I remember I had an interesting conversation with him about Rhodesia.
What is this “sterilization” the Catholics keep talking about being forced to pay for? I wasn’t aware there are any sterilization programs going on right now
I think they mean vasectomy/tubal ligation. Technically correct, but it seems a little disingenuous to suddenly start referring to it as “sterilization”.
Wow, WTF, that is just flat out lying.
It is not sudden. Sterilization AFAIK has always been the general term for vasectomies and tubal ligation. It does not carry a negative connotation when these are entirely voluntary procedures. Many people choose sterilization as practical and permanent alternative to birth control. I have no idea whether these proposed rules have any impact on these procedures or not.
Catholic doctrine regards vasectomies & tubal ligations in the same light as any other form of birth control; i.e. forbidden. Full coverage insurance programs typically pay for these proceedures just as they do for chemical birth control. Hence the Church’s opposition to being “forced to pay for sterilization proceedures”. And by phrasing it the way they have, they are, in fact, attempting to put a negative connotation on it.
Is that a threat or a promise? I’m hoping it’s the latter.
Republicans in congress are rejecting Obama’s compromise position of having the women get their birth control directly from the insurerer. Senator Roy Blunt introduced legislation in the senate allowing employers from opting out of offering birth control coverage for moral objections. Mitch McConnell seems to think they’re going to get a vote on it. In the House, Paul Ryan - House Budget Committee chairman - wants to see something similar and seems to think he can get the legislation passed there.
Elsewhere, White House chief of staff Jacob Lew says the issue is settled and they’re going to move ahead on their compromise.
So yeah. The republicans in congress are actually going to try to legislate against birth control coverage! In an election year!! Good job, Mr. President!
And the few moderate GOP Senators (read: Snowe and Collins) are already jumping off that ship.
I really can’t believe that the GOP is allowing the Health Care fight to be on such fertile ground for Democrats. Fight the underlying bill, not the one component that seems very well supported. Now Obama can very easily paint the repeal efforts as an attack on contraception.
This is almost as dumb as attacking PPACA by railing against the pre-existing conditions clauses or the limits on rescission.