Obama's War For Women
We learned yesterday that President Obama has bumped Jill Abramson, executive editor of The New York Times, to deliver the 2012 commencement address at Barnard College, a liberal women's college based in Manhattan. Anyone care to guess what the president will be talking about?
The New York Times, apparently happy to take one for the team, clears up the mystery:
Word of Mr. Obama’s appearance at Barnard, a 123-year-old women’s college in New York City, comes as the White House and Democrats have seized on Republican attempts to block a requirement for contraception coverage in the new health care law, saying it amounts to a “war on women.”
Democrats believe the issue could be an effective rallying point with women voters in a presidential election year, and the decision to appear at the prestigious women’s school could provide a high-profile forum for the president on that front.
Got that? Blocking a violation of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution and thereby maintaining the status quo with respect to contraception is a "war on women."
Now the Alinskyites and their media chorus are attempting to personalize the issue by opening another front in their never-ending war on Limbaugh.
As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, this diversion by the president is a try for an electorally critical twofer: 1) diverting attention from the still-dismal economy and skyrocketing national debt, while 2) reigniting enthusiasm for Hope and Change among disillusioned unmarried women, a critical Obama voting bloc that has lately gone wobbly.
Will the president succeed?
- Comment (66)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
"Will the president succeed?"
Only if Americans on the whole believe that the Constitution is mainly a document designed to guarantee comfortable outcomes for individuals with little or no effort on their part.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
From the simple stadpoint of electoral politics, Obama is in the driver's seat.
A recent poll showed that a slim majority of both Americans and Catholics support the contraception mandate. Even if the right can successfully convince some of those skeptics that this regulation violates the 1st amendment (and Limbaugh's comments certainly do not help that cause), Obama as president can simply find another alternative, or back down all together, both of which effectively neutralize the issue by November. I doubt there are many, if any, swing voters for whom this is hot-button issue.
While this opinion won't be popular here, the smartest move for the church would probably be to lodge its official disapproval but let the regulation go through; then, once it is enacted, refuse to obey it and let the courts decide. If the 9-0 decision in Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC is any guide, the contraception mandate will be DOA.
Aug '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
With this particular demographic (college-age women)? Yes.
Enough of them are scared of getting pregnant that they forget to reason about these things.
Jan '12
Re: Obama's War For Women
All Americans who want to see a change in Washington must uniteIt will take more than social mediaAll of us need to work for the candidate of the Republican Party-----Even if you have to hold your noseThis is the one----Will we have the America we grew up with orA European style country like the EU All of us have free will------Where will YOU stand?
Dec '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
Is it politically-incorrect of me to observe that a very low percentage of Barnard College students are likely to have any use for birth control?
Jul '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
That the president has gotten as far as he has already with this sleight-of-hand does not augur well, nor does it flatter the intelligence of the American public. Requiring employers -- above all objections, including religious ones -- to provide contraceptives to their employees? When did contraception get so expensive and hard to come by that people can't buy it for themselves? And pretending that this will happen "free of charge"? That's an assertion so laughable I can't believe that even this president can say it with a straight face.
He is getting away with it, however. If he continues to do so, the American public will have shown that it richly deserves the enormous loss of liberty this power grab entails.
Re: Obama's War For Women
This is a great example of what happens when health care is "rationalized" into the "more efficient" centralized approach of liberal dreams. Why is it that contraception, abortion and sterilization must be universal free-of-charge benefits, while chemotherapy, physical therapy, high-blood pressure pills--you name it--these are subject to the usual co-pays? Politics, pure politics. President Obama is using the law and your money to win himself reelection by picking off votes critical to his victory in a close contest.
May '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
When even Rush Limbaugh is reeled into the diversion of contraception, and then apologizes for one moment of cruelty amidst hours of fair-minded argument, it seems clear to me that Republicans have fallen on the defense as usual and so lost the debate.
Republicans are still letting liberal media and politicians shape public perception of what all the fuss is about.
Mendel:
A recent poll showed that a slim majority of both Americans and Catholics support the contraception mandate.
A majority of Americans believe they are already paying enough taxes, yet taxes are raised over and over and over again. It doesn't matter what voters want or don't want. It matters what they have the drive and the power to prevent.
Politicians will pass unpopular legislation and regulations all year long because they know elections are only referendums on a few issues.
May '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
My question is this: If this is purely an election year strategy decision, why are they making this play now? In the late winter/early spring? Are their internal polls showing them so far behind that they are trying to rally this constituency seven months out?
Mar '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
Actually, in Germany - which has the largest state-controlled healthcare sytem in Europe - the birth control pill is not mandated for any insurance providers.
Careful with the Euro-bashing, because pretty soon the joke is going to be on us.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
Mendel
Actually, in Germany - which has the largest state-controlled healthcare sytem in Europe - the birth control pill is not mandated foranyinsurance providers.
Careful with the Euro-bashing, because pretty soon the joke is going to be on us. · 1 minute ago
This goes hand in hand with the fact that European governments go out of their way to subsidize and financially encourage having children because of their demographic spiral.
Edited on March 4, 2012 at 11:31pmMar '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
Aaron Miller:
A majority of Americans believe they are already paying enough taxes, yet taxes are raised over and over and over again. It doesn't matter what voters want or don't want. It matters what they have the drive and the power to prevent.
Politicians will pass unpopular legislation and regulations all year long because they know elections are only referendums on a few issues.
I agree completely. However, many on the right seem to think this issue will awaken a slumbering giant with the potential to crush Obama in November. I find that scenario highly unlikely.
The people who can be persuaded that the contraceptive mandate is immoral and/or unconstitutional are likely either a) already solid Republican voters or b) don't care enough about the issue to make it a priority when voting.
The only way continuing this fight works to the Republicans' electoral advantage is if Obama makes a tactical blunder, like openly criticizing the principle of Free Exercise. Which is not outside the realm of the possible.
Aug '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
George Savage
This is a great example of what happens when health care is "rationalized" into the "more efficient" centralized approach of liberal dreams. Why is it that contraception, abortion and sterilization must be universal free-of-charge benefits, while chemotherapy, physical therapy, high-blood pressure pills--you name it--these are subject to the usual co-pays? Politics, pure politics. President Obama is using the law and your money to win himself reelection by picking off votes critical to his victory in a close contest. · 6 minutes ago
Brilliant! I hope you don't mind me slightly borrowing this thought as I wage war against my liberal friends. Unfortunately, if I used this thought against my family, they would say "Exactly! We want it all for free!" It's not free, it never was free, and it never will be free!
Jan '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
Tom Wolfe wrote (Radical Chic) about a famous party at Leonard Bernstein's house where the celebrity guests were expected to contribute to the Black Panthers. As each one bragged about the amount they pledged, it ratcheted up the stakes, until finally they agreed to all give blank checks.
Proving, of course, that stupidity is utterly virulent.
The Alinsky strategy depends on virulent stupidity. The strategy puts out shallow slogans that sound kinda like reasonable to people who aren't paying attention ... like ya know? It doesn't matter what you throw out there, throw everything. If you throw enough against the wall, something is bound to stick. But when something does stick, pump all your efforts into it, trying to create a bandwagon. Once you get a bandwagon of assumptions, it'll sweep up along enough people who (like the Radical Chic guests at the Bernsteins) just assume that it must be right because so many people are repeating it.
I don't think they knew ahead of time that "contraception" was going to stick, but when it did, they've pumped everything they had into it.
Now they're asking how could anyone vote for the GOP?
Jul '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
Peter Christofferson:
He isgetting away with it, however. If he continues to do so, the American public will have shown that it richly deserves the enormous loss of liberty this power grab entails. · 13 minutes ago
That's true, but I think it is also beside the point. Opponents are doing a poor job of pitching a counter-narrative. It's entirely worthwhile to note the unconstitutional nature and phony economic claims underlying the mandate. But it is ridiculous to carry on the entire fight either at 40,000 feet or in the gutter.
We should be calling this "socialized sterilization" (bet that won't poll so well) and constantly pointing out that under the new regs the pill will be "free" while heart meds will cost X per month, tubal ligation will be "free" while getting your appendix out will cost Y.
This is entirely winnable, if the Right would only speak voters' language.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
I also don't know why they chose this moment to roll out the decision, but the doubling-down and the "war on women" rhetoric might be an opportunistic response to Rick Santorum's surge in the primary. He's made enough statements that can be cut and pasted to scare moderates into thinking that he (and by extension all Republicans) want to actually bar access to contraception, and Obama can hide behind that boogeyman to cloak his own overreach.
Aug '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
Actually, it's not just politically incorrect, but somewhat factually incorrect as well.
All else being equal, the uglier and more socially-awkward young women feel about themselves, the more likely they are to offer easy sex as a way of feeling accepted. Or at least this is what I've observed. And men aren't too picky. A lot of 'em will gladly choose sex with an ugly woman over no sex.
Sep '11
Re: Obama's War For Women
Yes, Palaeologus has it right. Why should contraception be free when the rest of us have to pay for medication we actually need?
May '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
The regime is just cranking up. This is going to be a long, vicious hard -fought battle.
May '10
Re: Obama's War For Women
I think Mendel is right: better to go ahead and have it out with the regulation "on the books." How might that be done so as to maximize the sympathies SCOTUS would have with the cause of religious liberty?