The contraception kerfluffle
I've been watching the debate over the contraception provisions in the ACA with a horrified fascination. Denys will attest to the fact that last week I got pretty livid watching liberal Lawrence O'Donnell and Mark Shields attack the administration for trying to make institutions that were affiliated with religions but were not strictly religious institutions themselves cover their employees' contraception. The very next day the President announced the new policy that would make insurance companies cover the cost of contraception when employers exempted themselves for religious reasons. The political blogs I read, like Balloon Juice and Booman Tribune, saw this as very fine political jujitsu, and most high level reproductive rights organizations, like Planned Parenthood and NARAL seemed to agree. The Seattle Times, however, ran a headline describing the President as backing down. The Catholic bishops and Republicans continue to scream bloody murder, which seemed to indicate they thought they could still make political hay from the issue.
One argument I've seen for why conservatives are still jumping up and down on this one is that they are trying to push Romney to the right on the issue. I still tend to agree with those who say that this will be a Pyrrhic victory if they succeed. But however it plays out in the general election, I'm still appalled at where some Catholic male liberals came down on this. I mean, et tu, E.J. Dionne? Joan Walsh, whom I typically find pretty uninteresting as an op-ed columnist, has a column up today about Catholic tribalism that's worth a look in which she points out that men dominated the debate on the cable shows.
I guess part of what's interesting about this is that the line of analysis that says this was a good move on the President's part is that women, and particularly single women, are an extremely important part of his coalition. Yet all these yapping men are sure that he's shot himself in the foot with this move. And others, like Charles Pierce, think he caved. How is it a cave when contraception will be covered for all women? Because he didn't kick the bishops in the teeth and say, no, you WILL pay?! I keep going back to mistermix's post at Balloon Juice: This Is How It Feels to Win. This is good policy and good politics. I am confounded that anybody who isn't an anti-contraception conservative fails to recognize it. Why are any liberals still yapping their trap on the topic? I really don't get it.
One argument I've seen for why conservatives are still jumping up and down on this one is that they are trying to push Romney to the right on the issue. I still tend to agree with those who say that this will be a Pyrrhic victory if they succeed. But however it plays out in the general election, I'm still appalled at where some Catholic male liberals came down on this. I mean, et tu, E.J. Dionne? Joan Walsh, whom I typically find pretty uninteresting as an op-ed columnist, has a column up today about Catholic tribalism that's worth a look in which she points out that men dominated the debate on the cable shows.
I guess part of what's interesting about this is that the line of analysis that says this was a good move on the President's part is that women, and particularly single women, are an extremely important part of his coalition. Yet all these yapping men are sure that he's shot himself in the foot with this move. And others, like Charles Pierce, think he caved. How is it a cave when contraception will be covered for all women? Because he didn't kick the bishops in the teeth and say, no, you WILL pay?! I keep going back to mistermix's post at Balloon Juice: This Is How It Feels to Win. This is good policy and good politics. I am confounded that anybody who isn't an anti-contraception conservative fails to recognize it. Why are any liberals still yapping their trap on the topic? I really don't get it.