Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, February 1, 2013

I Know I'm a Man So I'm Not Supposed to Have an Opinion, but I Don't See What's So Awful About Obama's Contraception Rule

Posted by on Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:53 PM

The ladies on the news team apparently think I'm some sort of misogynist monster for not being outraged at President Obama for "caving" on contraceptive coverage. As if the principle of the matter is more important than the end result.

Yes, it's irritating that we have to go through these political contortions at all. And yes, it's offensive that religious groups are even being taken seriously in their demand that they should have a say over how their female employees use their vaginas. But I just find it hard to get angry at the White House for implementing a rule that for the first time ever, assures that every woman with health care coverage receives access to free birth control with no co-pays, no matter where they work. And apparently, the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL agree:

“This policy delivers on the promise of women having access to birth control without co-pays no matter where they work,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, saying that “the principle is clear and consistent. This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control.”

“Today’s draft regulation affirms yet again the Obama administration’s commitment to fulfilling the full promise of its historic contraception policy,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Thanks to this commitment, most American women will get birth-control coverage without extra expense.”

Under the proposed rule, if religious not-for-profits choose to opt out of paying for birth control coverage, their insurance companies must provide it for free. No fees, no co-pays, no extra hoops for women to jump through. I just don't see what there is to be so angry about that.


Comments (30) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
I could be wrong, but I fail to see what's different about this rule than the one that was announced a year ago. At that time, it was said that employers wouldn't have to offer contraception coverage, but the insurance companies would. Is this simply being misreported as a new thing?
Posted by Bostonguy on February 1, 2013 at 1:59 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 2
Religious organizations get to pass off their financial obligations simply because they're religious. That's what is wrong.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings on February 1, 2013 at 2:03 PM · Report this
pfffter 3
Whatever lens through which the angry folks are viewing this news needs to be severely cleaned or maybe even thrown away. I read the news from Planned Parenthood and NARAL this morning via an email. Then I logged onto SLOG and saw "WHITE HOUSE CAVES." Completely myopic ridiculousness.

If Obama were to hand out birth control personally for free until the end of his life, they would still find something to gripe about. I swear, some people will never be happy about any progress.
Posted by pfffter on February 1, 2013 at 2:03 PM · Report this
You have to be angry because Vagina.
Posted by NotYourStrawMan on February 1, 2013 at 2:04 PM · Report this
BostonFontSnob 5
@1 I was thinking the same thing. Did that compromise never take root for some reason?
Posted by BostonFontSnob on February 1, 2013 at 2:08 PM · Report this
Why should religious organizations not have to pay for their employees health insurance? Churches are getting yet another undeserved subsidy from the public, that is worth getting pissed off about.
Posted by CapitolHiller on February 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM · Report this
chinaski 7
Let's take a moment to reflect back on Dan Savage's post on gay men having lower stress levels than straights...
Posted by chinaski on February 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM · Report this
This post would read as a much more legitimate argument if the title didn't make you sound like a butthurt "men's rights advocate."
Posted by OnceAndAgain on February 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM · Report this
when do we all get to dismantle the churches and their offshoot business fronts for being perverty weirdos. thats the question i wanna get to. fu goldy. and fu2 whoever. obama has no business pandering to the catholic church until they clean up their own house for once in forever. fuck those fucking weirdos.
Posted by tim koch on February 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 10
Goldy for the Misogynist win!

Who needs rights when old white men get to make the rules ...
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 1, 2013 at 2:20 PM · Report this
"By setting up separate insurance plans for birth control coverage, the federal government is officially endorsing the idea that reproductive health care is separate from, you know, health care. Which it isn't. Such a concession to the religious organizations further stigmatizes women and their oh-so-mysterious body parts and accepts the inaccurate premise that there's any validity to objections to basic health care on the grounds that Jesus wouldn't like it."…
Posted by shameless on February 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 12

Are you under the impression that they're getting a price break as a result?
Posted by keshmeshi on February 1, 2013 at 2:27 PM · Report this
Welcome to the rape culture. Please remember to check your privilege.
Posted by GermanSausage on February 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM · Report this
You're right to do a post about what commenters to the the earlier post pointed out.
Posted by gloomy gus on February 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM · Report this
pfffter 15
@9 Yeah, because THAT has a possibility of happening. Get real.
Posted by pfffter on February 1, 2013 at 2:32 PM · Report this
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Did you ever hear the one about how "you can't please all the people all of the time"?
Posted by tacomagirl on February 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM · Report this
edie murphy beverly hills have eyes cleary 17
It sounds like there was a compromise made in order to get things done and move forward.

Obviously people are being dramatic and extreme because they arn't getting everything they want. It's an emotional reaction because people had unreal expectations and disappointment hurts.

MTFO. You know who doesn't move the fuck on? Conservatives, and how does that work out for them? What's our next battle? Progress moves forward, it doesn't whine about yesterday, beezies.
Posted by edie murphy beverly hills have eyes cleary on February 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM · Report this
chinaski 18
oh, and how dare you speak about a women's rights you CUNTSUCKER!
Posted by chinaski on February 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM · Report this
We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.

If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected -- honestly, fairly and thoroughly -- to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American (free enterprise) system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.……
Posted by tim koch on February 1, 2013 at 2:48 PM · Report this
pfffter 20
@11 from the article you linked to:

That means all those lawsuits currently making their way through the court system, and potentially heading to the Supreme Court, aren't going anywhere. It means all those hysterical threats from, for example, the Catholic bishops aren't going to stop. Calls for civil disobedience, for hunger strikes, even for armed insurrection—those aren't going to end.

The author is correct that the lawsuits won't stop. But they also won't have a leg to stand on under these rules either. Many people are against birth control in this country. That is a reality. But the other reality is that their mere disapproval won't affect women's ability to access contraceptive care simply because they disagree with what someone else is doing. A big victory in my book.
Posted by pfffter on February 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM · Report this
brittannica 22
I realize the comments section is rarely the place to go for rational discussion but you have successfully framed your argument (via a trollish headline) in such a way that I cannot resist responding.

1) Your argument is not invalidated by your penis. Perhaps a few of the women you work with have given you a reason to believe this to be true but what I understand most feminists want from men are empathetic allies. We need the voices of both men and women to be present in this discussion. In far too many instances, it is the voices of women that are absent…
Or silenced.…
What we need is a healthy, open dialogue. If you don’t understand why women are upset- you might want to ask. Hopefully you’ll listen and come to better understand our anger.
2) We can celebrate the results of this victory while still being deeply frustrated by the means through which the end is achieved. Affordable access to reproductive health options is essential for the social and economic wellbeing of women and indeed all people. However, as @11 mentions, this compromise perpetuates ideas about women and their bodies that are part of a greater narrative that harm women. We need strong leadership to stand up to the religious right and deny them the discriminatory privileges they’ve been granted for far too long.
Posted by brittannica on February 1, 2013 at 3:06 PM · Report this
Sounds like @21 just got dumped by a vagina
Posted by maddogm13 on February 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM · Report this
@21: Uh, actually, they're more connected than you allow yourself to believe.
Posted by treehugger on February 1, 2013 at 3:12 PM · Report this
Your opinion is informed by your sex and the privilege that comes with it. Does ANY PART of your male specific healthcare get discussed and threatened regularly in the news, have policies made about it, or get publicly denied on a regular basis? Do you listen to prominent public figures that don't even HAVE penises OR MD PHDS discuss what you can and can't do to take care of your penis regardless of what your doctor and you decide?

The entire conversation is so wholly inappropriate. You should be offended WITH me, not against me. Why are we even still talking about this? There are drones killing babies, our president has a foreign policy that the far right L O V E S....why aren't we telling them to give everyone healthcare, fund it, let drs and patients make their medical decisions privately and move the fuck on so we can give some deserved time to something besides whether or not some religious BUSINESSS can or can't opt out of the cost of basic healthcare specifically for my lady business because the answer should be NO, separate your business from your religion, consider my lady business officially moved to "ALSO MY OWN PRIVATE GENERAL HEALTHCARE" not some sub-genre, or lose your tax breaks.

The answer should be: YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF YOUR EMPLOYEES HEALTHCARE REGARDLESS OF AGE, GENDER, RACE, ORIENTATION BECAUSE I SAID SO. SO STFU and GTFO so the adults can start talking about something that isn't as obvious.

Posted by standardheart on February 1, 2013 at 3:21 PM · Report this
I also just want to point out that because I have a vagina a HUGE part of my healthcare is ALWAYS seemingly on the chopping block, a huge part of my healthcare that, BY THE WAY, my grandma and my mom fought and voted REALLY HARD to even get for me at all. So while I'm glad for the minor victory of at least making sure everyone gets BC if they want it, I am not giving any props to supporting the idea that the care of my vagina is SEPARATE from the rest of my physical care, or that religious people should have the right to deny ANYONE full care of their WHOLE body just because they believe in some imaginary super being.
Posted by standardheart on February 1, 2013 at 3:33 PM · Report this
jnmend 28
Quite simply: because this is institutionalized sexism and purposeful exceptions for religious institutions who don't pay taxes in the first fucking place.

If that doesn't offend you, you may not be a liberal, but just a Democrat. Ouch.
Posted by jnmend on February 1, 2013 at 4:10 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 29
Conservatives are selfish, cruel fuckers who only care about themselves and their money. Religions exist soley to incite fear and hatred.

Obama did the only thing he could. Those fuckers can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 1, 2013 at 4:11 PM · Report this
brittannica 30
Jessica Valenti answers your question:…
Posted by brittannica on February 1, 2013 at 4:46 PM · Report this
malcolmxy 32
1st amendment preserved? - good
Vaginas covered - good?

Vaginas need to be uncovered for further scrutiny and a master debate team should get on this issue immediately.
Posted by malcolmxy on February 2, 2013 at 5:59 AM · Report this
Churches should pay taxes and be treated like a regular organization. The whole protection of religion from laws. However the Constitution gave more rights based on geography verses population size. Wyoming has the same amount of Senators as does New York.

All those red states do not swing the Presidential election but they do determine the Legislative direction of the country.
Posted by 2cents on February 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy