The “Republicans are against birth control” meme is as choreographed as any ballet

And the Democrats and the mainstream media are the choreographers. It is a pathetic ploy to shift attention from the disastrous state of the economy. Should we worry about our insanely high debt levels or whether people with jobs have to pay $10 per month for birth control?

They realize that people on average, and especially the youth, are increasingly pro-life but still want people to have access to birth control. You might be thinking, “So what? Who opposes access to birth control?” Even the Catholics aren’t trying to make it illegal.

Do we oppose funding of Planned Parenthood? Of course! But not because they give away condoms. We do it because they are the largest destroyer of innocent but unwanted human beings in the country, they hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they aggressively promote the sexualization of children and much, much more.

But that doesn’t mean we want there to be less access to birth control. If PP quit receiving tax funding then Liberals would be welcome to give to them directly, just as they are today. Hey, for $480 you can donate to a Kenyan charity that will give food, clothes and education to four children for a year or you can help PP give a free abortion to kill a child here. Your choice!

Read this and the first link above. Note how people like Stephanopoulos seem to be early adopters of the weird script they’ve been given. Don’t be fooled by the ploy by the Left, and be sure to point out these facts to others. The Leftists won’t be persuaded, but that doesn’t matter. They are voting for Obama no matter what. It is all about the independents.


I wrote last week about a theory put forth by Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that abortion proponents were shifting strategies to focus on contraceptives rather than abortion, the reason being their own polls show abortion is no longer a winning issue with young people and women, but contraception is.

This week Republican strategist Dick Morris pitched the same theory onHannity, adding some corroboration:
Morris:Obama did not make a mistake in this mandate. It’s a deliberately calculated move on his part. The Democrats realize that abortion is no longer a winner for them. It used to be ten points more pro-choice than pro-Life, now it’s ten points more pro-Life than pro-choice possibly because of the publicity of the anti-abortion people, possibly because of the aging of the population. But the point is that it’s a loser issue.

So what they’re trying to do now is replace it with contraception. So the first piece of evidence was after Santorum won Iowa, the first controversy was, “Do you think states should have the right to ban contraception?” Where did that come from?


Morris: Then you remember that ABC debate with that paid Democratic hitmanGeorge Stephanopoulos went after Romney trying to… pin him down on, on contraception? And Romney kept saying, “George, nobody wants to make contraception.” “No, but do they have the theoretical power to do it?” Remember, it was five minutes, people were laughing at him, booing him. Well that…

Hannity:You think he was doing this under direct orders?

Morris:Under orders. And I think, and now he comes out with this thing on contraception. They want to create the idea, and it’s no coincidence, that he came out with it after Minnesota and Colorado which was Santorum’s victories. They want to create the impression that the Republicans will ban contraception, which is totally insane, but they’re floating it out and they’re bringing it out there. And this move on Obama’s part was part of injecting that issue.

The good news about this is that it shows how desperate they are.

46 thoughts on “The “Republicans are against birth control” meme is as choreographed as any ballet

    • Actually the religious institutions were totally out of it. It’s hospitals, colleges, business’s owned by religious institutions that were included. Why should a Catholic employer tell a Baptist woman who works in the hospital that they may not include contraception in the health insurance that is part of their compensation package. You know the compensation package that is part of their wages. Of course this was already the case in 28 states in some form or another.
      Watch the Republicans in the state of New Hampshire, they want to take health insurance away from women who work in those institutions. I wouldn’t say that’s a war against women, just an attempt to control them.

      • Why should a Catholic employer tell a Baptist woman who works in the hospital that they may not include contraception in the health insurance that is part of their compensation package

        Why? Because they want to. It is sad that you assume that we need the gov’t to tell organizations exactly what they have to cover and how much of it to cover. How about letting the free market decide? If Ms. Baptist doesn’t like her compensation, she can leave! It is sad that I have to point that out. It is like we’re already steeped in socialism.

  1. I have recently been told how unreasonable I am to suggest that people use “free” contraception – abstinence. I was told it was stupid to expect people to choose not to have sex. My response is that I don’t care if people have sex – I just want THEM to take responsibility for it and not expect everyone else to pay for it. The claim that it is a health issue is as bogus as it gets.

  2. The “war on women” thing enrages me. Any woman with half a brain knows that she can buy her own birth control, and that a lack of “free” birth control is not a ban, but the Democrats are acting like lack of super-special treatment is somehow wrong.

    Let’s use the same logic and fight for “free” Viagra for men, under the theory that to do otherwise is age discrimination. Then we can sit back and watch the femisogynists tie themselves into knots trying to explain how “free” Viagra is bad but “free” birth control is a fundamental human right.

    • I didn’t think getting insurance coverage made birth control “free”, just more affordable (at the very least there’s usually still a copay). Also, Catholic-approved and -sponsored health insurance plans DO cover Viagra, but they are opposed to covering any form of BC for women. I don’t see anyone – femisogynists included – campaigning so avidly against Viagra coverage. If they truly are two sides of the same coin, then why the disconnect?

      • Jill, the Obama mandate is that there be NO copay for contraceptives. My question still is, why don’t men then get condoms covered under insurance with no co-pay? This is strictly a feminist-demanded entitlement. Viagra is ostensibly to correct a medical condition while contraception is not. Contraception is just to allow sex without responsibility of the possibility of children being conceived. Abstinence is free.

        (For the record, I don’t believe viagra should be covered either)

      • I am not going to get into the abstinence debate. However, I think the substantial numbers of women – married, single, minors, Christian or otherwise – on birth control pills for medical conditions might disagree with you that contraception (aka birth control pills aka estrogen/progesterone hormones) is “just to allow sex without responsibility of the possibility of children being conceived.” Polycystic ovary syndrome, ovarian dysgenesis, not to mention extremely painful cramps (the kind that keep you home from work for two days) and excessively heavy menses are all medical conditions that are treated with birth control pills. Two of the most chaste women I have ever known have been on those very pills for two of those very reasons. Aren’t you looking at someone else’s medical necessity and putting your values in place of their doctor’s medical expertise and judgment?

      • Hi Jill — just to clarify, I assume you know that we don’t oppose access to birth control, just that religious organizations shouldn’t have to provide them for free to their employees?

      • I guess it just strikes me as disingenuous that Viagra -which serves a medical purpose- is covered if birth control -which serves a medical purpose- is not.

      • What is disingenuous about religious organizations — or anyone else for that matter — covering the medications for their employees they desire at the rates they desire?

      • The…..fact that a pill for men is covered and a pill for women isn’t because a religious organization “desires” it so? And there’s no other basis for the gender differentiation? Sorry yeah, that still strikes me as disingenuous.

      • I’m aware of your personal opinion. I am wondering if that extends to thinking it is appropriate for the Federal government to require employers to do what they find objectionable — whether you find their religious views to be consistent or not. Do you wish to impose your religious views on others, and do you think it would be in line with the Constitution if the gov’t did that?

      • My religious beliefs do tend to gravitate towards fairness regardless of age race creed or sex, so yeah I guess I do wish to impose my “religious” views on others. :) In all seriousness though, aren’t there plenty of things employers might find objectionable? Like workplace safety measures? Is OSHA next? Please help me understand why this is different? Both seem to be a cost to the employer that directly benefits their employees but might go against their own deeply held – economic or moral – convictions. I’m not anti-business or even anti-Catholic, just pro….not the 15th century.
        Ok, now trying my hand at some Constitution here: it is my understanding that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment precludes intentional discrimination on the basis of race or sex (or whatever else) unless there is a reasonable justification based on “business necessity”. A religious organization refusing to provide the same health care coverage to female employees as it does to males does not seem like a decision based on business necessity nor entirely free of intentional discrimination. It was my understanding that where the Constitution was concerned, it trumped religion. However, I realize that it isn’t the President’s place to mandate this, but if Congress had done the exact same thing, wouldn’t it have been entirely legal and not (as much of) a government overreach? Sorry for the quick and dirty interpretation of a complicated issue. Comment board limitations and such. :)

      • Jill,
        The whole issue is whether or not under the Constitution the gov’t has the right to mandate what insurance companies cover. The fact is that it is an un-Constitutional abuse of power.

        It is not about discrimination against women; in fact, if they do this ONLY for women then it is discrimination against men. How hypocritical for them to mandate contraceptive coverage for women but not for men!!!

        The “pill” for men is for a medical condition. There is no medical condition which requires contraception, since abstinence or natural family planning provides the same function for free.

        You are comparing apples to oranges.

      • Well, then, Jilly, why don’t we just treat contraception-for-medical-purposes like everything else, i.e. have it with a copay, and then contraception-qua-contraception is like condoms (pay for it yourself)?

        Your own argument undermines itself.

      • Ok, so the way I interpreted your comment was that if a woman uses birth control for the sole purposes of birth control, she should pay out of pocket, but if she uses it for another medical condition, it’s covered. Am I correct in this interpretation? How in the WORLD is any employer going to be able to legally access that information to determine which employees get that pill covered and which don’t?
        Also Viagra – as part of “everything else” – has a copay? Great! It was simply my understanding that birth control and Viagra were not covered equally under health care plans – i.e., birth control was not covered at all while Viagra was (with or without a copay). I was simply hoping for equality in that realm. (PS I realize the mandate is that BC be free, but I don’t care one way or another about this, I simply am for men and women having equal (financial) opportunity to access the treatments to their medical conditions.)

      • Dead wrong, Jilly baby.

        First, an employer doesn’t have to access that medical information, any more than it has to access medical information about which ultrasounds are recommended by a doctor and which the patient wants for his own good. If the Pill is prescribed off-label (technical term there), it would be covered. If it’s prescribed on-label, it wouldn’t be.

        Second, Viagra treats a medical condition. Birth control does not, unless you are a total misogynist who hates her body, wants back to the Red Tent era, and thinks that ovulation is a disease of her woman-parts.

        Third: why should the federal government be mandating what people’s health insurance plans look like anyway? Shouldn’t that be a state-level job? Believe it or not, some of us don’t want plans that cover prescriptions, because no prescription we take is worth the extra cost. All this does it make gay people, old people, and chaste people pay for your good time in bed. How unfair is that?

      • A) Please stop talking down to me. It’s impolite. I have not called you “Roxy” or “Roxy baby”, so please do not take that liberty with me when I haven’t invited you to.

        B) Did you know that compared to Red Tent times, women today ovulate WAY more? We hit puberty earlier, have fewer children, menstruate longer (because we live longer), and all that jazz. So no, ovulation is not a disease of my woman-parts (I love my cycle thank you very much), but it’s a heck of a lot more prevalent today than in Biblical times, with the health effects to match. Also, as far as I know, Viagra treats *one* medical condition. Researchers have found that birth control pill use – whether by suppressing ovulation or through other mechanisms – seems to be associated with longer life and a decreased incidence of ovarian cancer (decreased by up to 50% after five years of use), bowel cancer (decreased by 39%), and endometrial cancer (decreased by 50%, lasting up to 20 years after discontinuing the pill). Some BCPs are also FDA-approved for acne treatment and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (those are on-label uses, right?). Studies on the relation of BCPs to breast cancer incidence have returned conflicting results, so it’s really not good science to say one way or the other there yet. To be fair, BCPs have been linked to an increased incidence of cervical and liver cancers (up to a fourfold increased risk of cervical cancer in women with HPV). However, if a woman with a family history of aggressive bowel cancer decides that this is a risk she wants to take, isn’t that her choice? Women may choose to use BCP as a means of living longer and healthier (to be around for the children they do have), and this is not considered preventive health care on their part? The push to categorize BCPs as “not preventive health care” seems to lack evidence (for whatever their other effects, they DO help prevent some cancers). I leave to the insurance experts whether this means it should be covered by health insurance or not.

        C) I believe the Catholic church’s teaching on contraceptives is that if they’re used for medical purposes, and not for contraceptive purposes at all, it’s not a mortal sin, right? The same as if a woman gets a medical procedure done to save her life, and the *unintended* consequence is that she loses the embryo/fetus she is carrying, neither she nor the doctor is eternally damned? From Humanae Vitae: “15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)” Would the use of BCPs as a cancer preventative or endometriosis treatment (to prevent total hysterectomy and total procreative frustration) fall under this medical purposes caveat?

        D) I actually don’t have any more time to spend on this discussion board (grad school and all, you know us godless health care workers going into massive debt to make pennies on our dollar to take care of the rest of the population ;-) ), but for the most part I’d like to thank everyone for my first discussion board experience. As a Catholic woman incredibly interested in the intersection of science and Church teaching, It’s been educational and fun. :)

        E) Hope you all stay healthy and happy! Take care! :)

      • Jill,
        The issue is NOT what other medical problems the BC hormones can be used for – that has never even been discussed. The issue is BIRTH CONTROL – CONTRACEPTION. Doctors can prescribe these pills for other than contraception and I’m sure no one would have a problem. But that is not the subject or the context of the law. The subject/context is contraception only.

        If women demand no co-pay contraception, then why can’t men demand the same thing for purchasing condoms?

        It is a red herring to bring in the subject of other medical necessities.

      • I’m still confused about how the employers are going to know which of their female employees are using birth control pills for contraception and which are using them for medical conditions when HIPAA prohibits employers from accessing employees’ medical records without express consent from that employee? If the employers can’t tell who’s using it for what, how is the issue of medical conditions divorced from that of contraception? The ‘treatment’ for both is still not being covered. (PS, I’m not considering birth control here to include any kind of emergency contraception – that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.)
        Also, I enumerated several medical conditions above where the treatment of choice *is* birth control pills. If you think abstinence or natural family planning is going to treat polycystic ovary syndrome or ovarian dysgenesis, please submit your medical opinion to a peer-reviewed journal and catch the rest of the medical establishment up. Regarding the Constitution, I’ve enumerated my best understanding of the Constitution’s applicability to this current issue in my response to ematters above (the reeeaaallly long skinny post). I’d rather not copy and paste it here; if you can address the specific erroneous parts of my conclusion I’d be happy to gain new insight!

      • Just as a fyi/fwiw, many of the medical conditions (i.e., not preventing pregnancy) that birth control is prescribed for, have a reason for existing, and very likely represent some imbalance or problem in the body. Sure, BCPs may mask the symptoms or give symptom relief and make the woman feel better, and it’s a lot easier to prescribe pills than to see if there are underlying health issues, but that doesn’t mean even then that BCPs are the only choice, nor that they are truly even the best choice. [And I can’t get into particulars; this is something I’ve gleaned over the years, and haven’t had a personal need to look into it more in depth, so only know *about* it, rather than truly knowing it. I only put this out in case you or somebody you know may want to look into alternative cures, for instance, changing diet, getting on supplements, or otherwise fixing hormones w/o resorting to a constant and daily barrage of BCPs.]

      • Thank you for your concern! Thankfully neither I nor anyone in my life currently needs BCPs for a medical condition. And I am with you 100% that doctors ought to get to the root of any medical problem, not simply treat the symptoms at the expense of finding and treating the cause. The use of BCPs as a catch-all is poor medicine. But where a doctor and patient agree that the best treatment for a condition is BCPs (short-term, long-term, transitionally, in tandem with other measures, etc.), I think it makes it infinitely easier on the patient if she doesn’t have to fight her health insurance provider to get that treatment at a reasonable cost.
        But again, thank you for your kind concern! :)

      • To add to Glenn’s comments, Viagra does lead to the birth of more children, which is actually a GOOD thing. Remember, children are a blessing from the LORD, not a curse. Each one is made in the image of God, just as we are. That image is fallen, but not erased. In other words, we are all still in need of a Savior, but even without that Savior, there is inherent worth in each child conceived, and therefore they should be preserved, allowed to live, nurtured, loved, taught, etc.

      • Even if children aren’t a blessing, we need more of them to pay down the national debt and keep Social Security solvent. Double the number of children that each woman has, and you’ve halved the per-capita national debt. Increase the number of babies, and Social Security will remain solvent until our old age.

        Of course, that’s just my “annoy a liberal by being logically consistent with their alleged values” way of thinking. :D

      • Pastor, you do realize that many, if not most, Viagra users are seniors usually having sex with their wives who are also seniors and thus unable to conceive?

    • Once question people ought to ask is, “why should any medication be free?” Then if that question can be answered satisfactorily, the next question is, “Why should birth control be free?” I’ve seen some people talk like and act like BCPs are quite expensive on a per-month basis (one doctor said not only that a majority of his clients on BCPs were on them for non-birth control reasons, which I am skeptical of, but that they cost $75 a month). I challenge that.

      When I was a pharmacy tech (for nearly 7 years, ending about 8 years ago), most BCPs were brand-only, and cost about $20-30; there were some generics and they were in the range of $10-15 a month. Either way, hardly breaking the bank, especially when you consider that many women on birth control smoke, drink alcohol, drink coffee, have more than basic cable, have more than a basic cell phone plan, eat out more than strictly necessary, and/or any number of things that singly or in aggregate cost much more than $30 a month. I briefly worked at the pharmacy again last year, and the average cost of birth control seemed to be cheaper, with most BCPs being generic and in the $10-15 range (paying cash; usually the same cost or less if on insurance, depending on the insurance company and coverage).

      Do you know how many medications that treat far more dangerous and life-threatening conditions, or life-altering conditions, cost the consumer much more than BCPs? Why should not a person’s blood pressure medication or cholesterol medication (which ostensibly keep him from having a heart attack or stroke), or depression medication (which may keep him from suicide), or medicine to quit smoking, or to heal from a potentially lethal infection, be completely free? Why only BCPs? And as others have asked, why not condoms? And I might add, why not supplements and vitamins, that may keep the person healthier so he doesn’t need medication in the first place?

      ~

      Somewhere in one of the threads below, people were questioning if it was possible for a company to cover BCPs only for medical indication (i.e., not solely or primarily for pregnancy prevention), and I think it is possible. The insurance company could construct a formulary in which BCPs are covered only if the doctor indicates that the BCPs are for X condition (dysmenorrhea, acne, etc.); so when the doctor fills out the Rx, or the pharmacy processes the claim, there can be an override code entered, allowing the claim to go through under the medical indication, which would cover the BCPs as medically necessary, and without the code, it wouldn’t be covered. Obviously, such a scheme, while plausible, is also ripe for abuse, with it easy for doctors (or even pharmacies) to claim all BCPs are “medically necessary”; but this is where fraud investigation would come in, and any doctor or pharmacy that processes too many (either # or %) of BCPs as “medical necessity”, would trigger an alert and an investigation.

      But again, why should birth control, whether used for pregnancy prevention or for other health conditions, be completely covered, with no patient copay, and not other medications? Makes no sense to me. However, it also makes no sense to me why an insurance company would *not* cover BCPs voluntarily, since maternity care is a *lot* more expensive than a year’s supply of BCPs. Nor why they would cover Viagra at all, which I consider to be *ahem* a recreational drug.

      • $9 a month at Wal-Mart. I dare say that if you’re a woman struggling with the $9/month, then maybe your boyfriend ought to shell out the equivalent of a quarter a day to keep from having to pay child support for the rest of his life. If he’s not willing to pay $9 a month for the privilege of sleeping with you, maybe you should kick him to the curb.

        Furthermore, it costs a half-million dollars to treat a SINGLE case of AIDS. Yet condoms aren’t free, no gay man is worried about getting his lover pregnant, and gays are over forty times as likely as their straight counterparts to have AIDS… but condoms aren’t covered. Homophobia!

      • The $9/month figure applies to women with health insurance. Those without health insurance undoubtedly pay more. I do agree with your point that men should help pay for their girlfriends’ pills. Both partners should contribute to the cost of contraception, whether it’s pills, condoms, or something else.

      • Just last year I briefly worked for my old pharmacy again as a pharmacy tech (emergency fill-in for a worker on maternity leave, when the hired replacement didn’t work out). While “the cost of birth control for women with health insurance” varies greatly depending on the plan — some women paid as little $1.50 while others paid the full cost — “the cost of birth control for women with no health insurance” also varies greatly. If you don’t count Medicaid as a form of insurance, then many “uninsured” women get free birth control, because the govt sees that it is much cheaper to give pills away than to pay for repeated pregnancy, childbirth, WIC, welfare, etc. But for the truly uninsured — that is, those that have to pay entirely out of pocket — the monthly cost of birth control was as low as about $10, and I think, though wouldn’t swear to it for sure, that some women were able to get BCPs for as low as $7. The “$9 Birth Control” is a marketing ploy by Walmart, Target, and others, to get women into their stores, much like the $4 generic prescriptions that Walmart boasts. It likewise is a cash price, not insurance, from what I can tell of it. Though, honestly, I don’t take any prescription medication, so I haven’t looked into this, and only noticed it as an idle curiosity.

        When I worked at the pharmacy 9+ years ago, generic birth control averaged around $12-15 a month, while Brand Name was more like $20-30. Many women with health insurance ended up paying about the same with or without using their insurance card, because birth control was so cheap even then, that it came in about the same as, or less than, their copay (many copays were $5 or $10 for generic or $20 or so for brand-name if the particular drug was on the insurance company’s formulary, and up to $30 or $40, perhaps more, if it wasn’t). Now, with so many of the popular birth controls of the previous decade now out of patent and available in generic, the cost of birth control has gone down, it seemed to me, from $20-30 being the most common price 10 years ago, to $10-15 now.

        But the point is not really how much birth control costs then or now. The point is, why should the government mandate the insurance cover *anything*, especially to make it free to the consumer? There are a lot more drugs on the market that supposedly save people’s lives (avoiding heart attacks and strokes, for example), yet those are not mandated to be covered for free! Are Democrats waging a war on the middle-aged and elderly by not campaigning to require insurance companies to give away medication for cholesterol, blood pressure, blood thinner, etc.?

      • As a P.S., almost all insurance plans cover reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy. Yet no insurance plan covers surgery just ‘cuz a woman wants to look like Christina Hendricks. Somehow – somehow! – we manage that without the femisogynist freak-out, so why not the Pill?

  3. Jill,
    The string above is getting skinny and difficult to follow.

    The issue you keep wanting to address is other uses for the BCP. The mandate is not about that, which is the problem. The problem is contraception and contraception only – it is stated that way. Whether any insurance company allows or denies the use of BCP for other conditions is irrelevant to the topic. The subject is only contraception. It is not about viagra for men. It is about contraception.

    There is no Constitutional authority for the government to mandate ANY medical coverage by any employer – there is not authorization for Congress to mandate anyone sell any product. The issue is Constitutionality.

    As for contraception, again, if you demand that women have no co-pay contraception (let alone covered by insurance at all), then you can’t discriminate against men – which the mandate does. Men must also be allowed to have no co-pay access to condoms. Contraception mandates must include men or else they are discriminatory!

    • Sea men = military/navy.

      Gun ownership = military/state militia.

      Constitution, Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power… to raise and support armies… to provide and maintain a navy.”

      Not seeing anything in Art. I about sex. Perhaps you could point us there?

      • Can’t point you towards Constitutional views on sex. Probably the Founding Fathers figured we wouldn’t need hand-holding on every issue, and they didn’t need something else to get in the way of ratification.
        To clarify why I posted the link: merchant mariners (whose ranks I used to belong to) are not, nor have ever been, considered a navy. Many, many, many *merchant* vessels are (and were) not in the Navy, but they wouldn’t have been exempted under that Congressional mandate. Congress mandated that ALL ships (of a particular tonnage/crew size) provide for their employees health needs, not simply those shipowners who belonged to America’s navy (check the wording, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257, section 8, down at the bottom then onto the next page). (And are you seriously suggesting that sailors didn’t have VD back then? I think that has something to do with sex, and their employers had to cover these costs regardless of their beliefs.) Going into the gun purchase thing would get complicated quickly (there were two Militia Acts of 1792, no religious exemptions to militia conscription/gun purchase, would the mandatory-militia-conscription-as-cause-for-private-purchase argument hold up to scrutiny today?, etc.). Basically, I submitted this because I think it’s interesting that Congress HAS mandated purchases of its citizens before. Sex is a secondary issue to the Constitutionality of mandated purchases.
        Ok, now for serious back to grad school…curse the siren call of discussion boards!! :)

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s