Conservatives' Contraception Obsession

It is difficult not to sound full of righteous indignation when addressing conservatives’ fevered obsession with contraception. Birth control had been settled political ground for decades; now a nasty strain of political misogyny masquerading as religious freedom has reopened the subject.

Legislation such as the defeated Blunt Amendment and Arizona’s House Bill 2625 would allow employers to refuse insurance coverage for birth control medication on religious grounds. The Arizona bill would further allow employers to require women to certify their use of contraceptive medication to be for non-contraceptive purposes or be fired. This should go without saying, but what business is this of employers? It is utterly offensive to give a boss the right to pass some arcane moral judgment on female employees.

Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” for attempting to testify before Congress in favor of requiring insurance coverage of contraceptive medication. Fluke, who was not allowed to testify, publicly talked of a fellow student who took contraceptives for polycystic ovary syndrome and was denied coverage. Limbaugh made the recklessly false characterization that Fluke actually went before the committee and “essentially says that she [Fluke] must be paid to have sex.”

These egregious assaults on women’s access to contraceptives raise the question of the true motive behind the assaults. When you bully and coerce in legislation and in the public square, you forfeit the right to call your motives religious freedom.

Calling Radicalism by Its Name - NYTimes.com

The New York Times editorial linked below underscores the points made by President Obama's speech April 3 at the AP Luncheon in Washington.  The Times highlighted Obama's emphasis on what I've believed for awhile now, that the Republican Party is uninterested in consensus or compromise in pursuit of an extreme agenda.  To quote the editorial, 'But, in this speech, he finally conceded that the party has demonstrated no interest in the values of compromise and realism. Even Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes in multiple budget deals, “could not get through a Republican primary today.”'

Another telling part of the editorial dealt with the disingenuous criticism by House Speaker John Boehner.  'The speech was immediately attacked by the House speaker, John Boehner, for failing to deal with the debt crisis, but Mr. Obama pointed out how hollow that charge has become. “That argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates,” he said.'

In my view,  the contemporary GOP -- so far removed from the days when I was a Reagan Republican -- serves only its donors and their corporate interests.  All else is a fig-leaf covering to justify what the Wall Street set wants: regulatory gutting, Citizens United judicial decisions, reduced workplace rights from insurance coverage to internet passwords, and the like.  Baldface flow of benefits toward the upper class squeezes the middle class toward the vanishing point, and it is somewhat reassuring that President Obama is mounting a more forceful defense of equity and of the middle class ... and finally abandoning his three-year effort to compromise with what has become an intransigent political party.

Calling Radicalism by Its Name - NYTimes.com