Well, this is great.
House Democrats have removed a provision from their stimulus bill that would exempt states from the need to get waivers for covering family planning under Medicaid. The family-planning aid has been the subject of repeated Republican attacks over the past few days, and health care advocates were dismayed by the Democrats' decision to give in on its removal.
The revision the Dems have caved on would have merely allowed states to continue doing what they already do. As I mentioned this morning and Ann mentioned in her column at Tapped,
Not only will this expand health care services and take some burden off states, it will eliminate the need for states to go to the federal government and obtain a waiver.
Apparently, caving on provisions that are commonsense and make the government more efficient is how we will win the support of the right, especially when it compromises reproductive services and health care access to poor women and women of color.
I agree with what Elana Schor says at TPM,
I'm certainly receptive to the argument, relayed by Matt Yglesias and others, that the family-planning provision wasn't genuinely stimulative, making its removal from the bill a minor decision. And I'm not accusing the Obama team of getting rolled by the Republicans on flaps like this one.But other aid provisions in the recovery bill, not directly targeted to women's reproductive freedom, do not create jobs or boost GDP -- yet are meeting with less agitation from Republicans and remaining intact.
So why was this provision rallied against so hard?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Breaking: Family Planning Revision Removed from Stimulus Bill.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11654
Some possible thoughts:
It was rallied against because Republicans have already seen some major assaults against anti-choice/anti-women measures in the past week and are bristling at the idea of losing more ground.
Obama's making concessions because he considers the plan extremely important to get moving and doesn't want to spend precious time arguing when we could be getting jobs in motion.
Obama's making concessions because he knows this is not the only avenue for pro-choice and pro-woman change, and that he will see his vision that was so wonderfully stated in the White House Roe v Wade anniversary statement born through other, more permanent legislation.
Agree? Disagree?
So why was this provision rallied against so hard?
Because it has to do with sex, and Republicans hate sex; because it primarily benefits poor women, and poor women don't have much power behind them in Washington, which makes them and their interests a target; because Democrats tend to approach every confrontation they have with the far right as an opportunity to give away the farm, and the first stuff that goes out the window is the stuff that matters to them, personally, the least. This was important; so was funding for mass transit. We've lost both so far because Democrats would rather play nice with Republicans than work for the people who elected them.
"Apparently, caving on provisions that are commonsense and make the government more efficient is how we will win the support of the right, especially when it compromises reproductive services and health care access to poor women and women of color."
Was there ever any doubt about this?
It seems to me clogging the government and screwing over women and minorities has always been the way to win over the right.
All true, except, of course, that the right never gets won over. The Democrats can give away the sun and the Kennedys' first born children from here to eternity and the right will never be won over. Yes, the right has its crazy substantive ideas about sex, race, the economy, and everything else you can imagine, but to the right Government is first and foremost a game that their side has to try to win. The politicians on the right care far more about power for the right than about policy, and you don't accumulate power for yourself by letting yourself be won over.
No matter how many times the Democrats cave to the right they'll never get any bipartisan support beyond a nominal handful for any measure that can be framed as a compromise. Only if they give away power to critical right wing interests and prove that they'd been won over by the far right, such as by privatizing Social Security or passing an outright ban on abortion, will Democrats ever get more than nominal bipartisan support from Republicans on anything of substance.
This is the kind of disappointment I've grown to expect from the Democrats. They do not understand the concepts of bargaining from strength, of refusing to compromise with people who negotiate only in bad faith, of protecting the interests of their constituency, or of the bipartisanship fetish being a mythological creation of the political and media elites.
There is no reason for Democrats to compromise with Republicans on anything right now, much less to compromise away a measure that's so important. This is sad on the substance of the compromise itself, but it's scary for what it says about Obama's and Democrats' abilities to actually lead and do what needs to be done for the next few years. If this is how Obama negotiates, our economy will stay in the toilet a long, long time.
While I agree that this is bad news, I think the 'sexism' tag is unfair. There are plenty of religious and philosophical arguments against some or all of the items that fall under 'family planning,' and while they negatively impact women, most of them are not a direct result of sexism. Rather, it's poor logic or faith, neither of which can really be argued with.
Just because an argument is religious that doesn't mean its not sexist.
It is sexist. Women's reproductive issues are wrongly considered to be an easy target by conservatives and too controversial to defend by liberals.
And yes, just because there are ethical and religious arguments involved doesn't by any means remove sexism from the equation. There is religious justification of marital rape because of the many Bible verses about women subjugating themselves to their husbands. Please don't tell me that there is no sexism involved there.
You claim that the Bible advocates marital rape because it speaks of women "subjugating themselves" to their husbands? First off, you're speaking of Ephesians chapter 5 and those verses are not speaking of the sexual relationship between a husband and wife. Only if you twist the words and take it out of context might you convince somebody of that (or perhaps you yourself were convinced with that simple example of an argument).
Read all of Ephesians chapter 5. It includes a call for us all to walk in love as Christ loves and gave himself up for us. It also speaks of us being subject to one another out of reverence (love & respect) for Christ. Furthermore, let's not forget what it calls for men to do... to love their wives as Christ loves the church and gave himself up for her. And to what extent did Christ show that love?!?!? He was willing to die. So shall it be that husbands are called to be willing to sacrifice everything, including their lives, out of love for their wives and children.
Rape is not an act of love. Men being suppressive of their wives goes against charity and the call to be subject to one another. Likewise, the feminism displayed on this blog is also an extreme (of the opposite kind you suggest the Bible supports) that goes against charity and the call to be subject to one another. No one side of the relationship is to have dominion over the other. True feminism supports the feminine genius, highlights all of the wonderful contributions women make, and their role in families and society. The feminism spoken of here is hedonistic (self-centered) and power-seeking.
In short, know what you're speaking about when throwing out such outrageous accusations about the Bible and be mindful that the position you (rightfully) abhor in immoral men is the same position you seek from a female point of view. Both sides of those extremes are incorrect, unhealthy, and immoral. But there is a balance... read Ephesians chapter 5 and come to understand the true meaning of this divine writing. If you'd like some help, consider listening to the very relevant audio available at http://homebuiltupontherock.blogspot.com/2008/09/let-wives-be-subject-to-their-husbands.html.
Even if you don't interpret Ephesians chapter 5 as allowing or endorsing what many here would call marital rape there are others who do, and it only takes a quick Google search to find them. There are many ways of interpreting the Bible.
Yes, there are many interpretations of the Bible, yet only one is correct. We have the responsibility to seek out the authors true message irregardless of how one person or another reads it.
Example: If you were to write "It's raining cats and dogs today", it's a correct interpretation that the message is that it's raining very long and hard. An incorrect interpretation would be that felines and canines are falling from the sky.
Just because Google helps you find people with an incorrect interpretation of the Bible, that doesn't change the true message of Saint Paul (author of the letter to the Ephesians). And that is why I encouraged you and others to look at those statements in context with the rest of the passage.
He's not advocating that men rape their wives in the middle of a passage that first speaks of love and concludes with a call for husbands to cherish their wives.
Google a lookup of the passage and read it for yourself. Follow it up with this article -- "Feminism and Marriage: a Reflection on Ephesians 5: 21-33".
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0017.html
um, no....interpretations of the bible have changed and multiplied throughout history. that doesn't mean only one is correct. it means only one is correct TO YOU.
wow....a good friend of mine went to harvard divinity school, and we spent hours discussing different translations and interpretations of various passages (including some of the apocrypha), looking at the different shades of meaning wrought by translations from different languages, and interpretations from various biblical scholars. see....that's what all that school that pastors and priests and scholars go to is for!
ahhhh. the christian right is neither christian, nor right.
When it comes to the Bible, there can be many TRANSLATIONS (i.e., languages - English, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.) and, as you pointed out, some languages may not be able to fully capture the intent of the author. There are also many SENSES (i.e., the multiple meanings behind the visions John had in Revelation), but there's still only one correct INTERPRETATION. That one interpretation is brought forward by Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
For you to claim that truth is relative means that our entire world is running around in chaos. Somebody over here says 2+2=4, but over there 2+2=5. Academically, we're all called to pursue the truth... there can be only one truth. 2+2 can not equal 4 and non-4 simultaneously.
But putting principle aside for a moment, I'm curious if you and your Harvard Divitity school friend can find a reputable, authoritative source that explains how Ephesians 5 is advocating husbands to rape their wives. Is THAT what they're teaching at the Harvard Divinity School!?!? I surely hope not, and if it were so, I would hope you would speak out against such an outrageous statement for the very reasons I stated earlier.
I'm really puzzled by your side of this discussion. Instead of saying something along the lines of "sure, I've read that Bible passage and I can see how we're all called to love and when viewed in context, it's not possible that St. Paul is advocating rape", you continue to insist that some guy with cultish-views can claim his "interpretation" of the Bible is correct (you're words - that people can indiscriminately choose an interpretation that's correct to them) and then subsequently oppress the women under his influence and do to them, in horrific ways, as he pleases.
I'm supporting the side that says women have an honorable role in life and that husband and wives should mutually give of themselves (in love, service, sacrifice, and respect, not just sexually). You're supporting the side that says "I'll think and do whatever I want, even if it makes no sense and means being self-centered, selfish and harming those around me.
If you're worried about people (both men and women) getting the wrong message about the true message of the Bible so that they don't actually commit sexist behaviour, why not adopt my side of the discussion and convince those loons that they're wrong?
there's still only one correct INTERPRETATION. That one interpretation is brought forward by Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
"you continue to insist that some guy with cultish-views can claim his "interpretation" of the Bible is correct (you're words - that people can indiscriminately choose an interpretation that's correct to them)"
You see what you did there? I may *like* your interpretation of Ephesians more, but from my perspective you're just one of so many people who's chosen an interpretation of the Bible that appeals to them and are now claiming to have a lock on the truth. The Bible isn't like math. The Bible is more like interpretive poetry.
I agree with ya. I don't see this as being directly sexist. After all family planning services cover men, women and teens, but predominately women.
I don't think that the Republican elected officials care at all about it. They are going after the "noisy" things to force larger tax cuts and fewer new jobs and less development to keep the stimulus away from working people. It is sexist in an unexpected way-- it punishes poor, single moms. Way to encourage women to have kids, Republicans.
I wish my comments were as smart and thoughtful as the other women's here. I'm impressed with the earlier comments on this topic.
Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC this morning that if this was taken out of the stimulus bill, it would just be passed it future legislation.
I think this was done to make the stimulus bill more straight-forward. I'm pretty confident the Republicans won't get their way on this one much longer.
I agree with ikkin. Of course I support the measure but I don't believe it has any business as a rider on the stimulus bill. I much prefer the legislation being debated openly and standing on its own merits. Controversial measures shouldn't be handled this way and it's very unfortunate.
Riders suck and are undemocratic no matter who's using them.
Did Republicans ever compromise for the Democrats on women's issues during Bush's administration? (not rhetorical)
Is there a practical impact here? So in this scenario the states seek a waiver from Obama to fund family planning & he grants it. What's the problem? To borrow a footbal analogy (I know, I know) why run up the middle when you can run around it?
As far as why the Republicans harp on this, well in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression its rather easy to poke fun @ funding condoms. Rightly or wrongly, its easy for Republicans to sell this as pork. (I do agree w/ the fact that they hate sex, hate family planning, don't care about poor women, etc...but the optics & politics of this make this particular provision a slam dunk).
Its time for congress and people in this country to recognize that the work done by family planning providers is directly related to the economy. They are providing the"health care safety net" to the working poor. Walmart and corps like them are subsidized through family planning. What happens if a single working mom can't afford birth control? What happens when a married woman's husband loses his job and they lose their health insurance? Can they afford birth control or annual pap smears? Can they afford another child? Can our economy afford to support the children born to women who can't afford their care? I live in the poorest congressional district in the country where the median income for a family of 4 is about $16,000/year and most employers don't provide health insurance. We all need to email our representatives and the White House. Publicly funded family planning saves money and boosts local economies.
Yes yes yes!
This IS relevant to the economy and saves money in the long run. I tried writing a comment similar to yours earlier but got all worked up and upset that it was illegible.
It's great that this can be taken care of in another way but what is upsetting about this, as many others have stated, is that THIS is what the republicans zero in on for no other reason than to make noise about an issue that affects poor women and poor families and people's HEALTH!
One thinks that even if the Democrats had 99 votes in the Senate and 434 votes in the House, they would still cave in to the GOP...
The stimulus package is not a clearinghouse to right all the wrongs that have built up over the years; nor is it a program to better the lives of the downtrodden. The purpose is to jump-start the economy, and Obama and his economic advisors say the removed item doesn't belong in the stimulus package. Ms. Schor seems to agree with that, but then asserts that other things don't belong there, either.
If other things don't belong, let's hope the Dems take the initiative and remove them. But for goodness sakes, let's not add a trillion dollars to our debt by playing the same old pork-games that Congress has always played.
With millions of Americans suddenly out of jobs, anyone who tries to sneak items into the stimulus package that don't belong there hurts their cause -- whether it be this item or funding for the arts or bailing out failed businesses as a "thank you" to a valued contributor. There are ways to give the economy a shot in the arm, and even the nebulous economists agree those aren't it. The idea is to free up credit so that businesses can invest and hire people.
I kind of agree with you. It's obama's first week in office, and this stimulus plan has a specific goal. I want women to have easier access to reproductive health as much as the next person, but I think the stimulus package should be as small as it can be with the maximum effect. I agree with others that reproductive healthcare positively impacts the economy, but as a taxpayer, what I would like to see is Obama carry out his promise to first CUT spending on dysfunctional programs (like those sending abstinence only education speakers into public schools)and then divert funds into more effective programs and orgs like planned parenthood.
It was done because the GOP talking points on the stimulus package are that it is a collection of standard liberal programs, not actually a stimulus and the birth control provisions were the highlight of that. This was the poster child for that notion and honestly, it was an awful good poster child as birth control is unlikely to stimulate the creation of any new jobs. (Though delaying childbirth until one can afford it, will bring huge economic benefits in the long term.)
The Republicans are going to vote against this bill and the aim is to make them look as bad as possible for doing so. That builds credibility for the administration and reduces the GOP's credibility. You then pass this kind of thing as a separate item using the political capital gained by embarrassing the Republihaters.
Hello, I stumbled across this webpage when searching for information on family planning being included in the stimulus, and I am very confused by the comments and discussions. First since this does not create jobs, nor does it stimulate growth, why are people surprised that it was removed?
My wife is currently pregnant with our first child, and I was so blown away by the baby's heartbeat that I heard in the ultrasound at just 7 1/2 weeks! Life is so incredible and I can't wait to be a father! I respect my wife and I could never force her to take anything that would cause nausea, weight gain, moodiness or even other more serious things like infertility, blood clots, cancer and others which are caused by the pill. We use natural family planning. problem solved :) She deserves my utmost respect and knows that I will never use her for my selfish desires. We get the freedom of our sexuality placed in our hands, and we communicate our thoughts and our needs to each other because we use natural family planning. This means dying to myself every day, and of course I love sex, but i love my wife even more than to use her just for sex. I know that if we are going to have sex I need to engage and respect all of her including her fertility. :) If you have been hurt by men I hope you can find healing and seeking some true family planning alternatives!
Bravo! Another witness for Natural Family Planning!!! We have used NFP throughout our marriage and it works great!
For those that think that it's some sort of "religious contraception", the NFP method is truly scientific. It's based on predictable signs and measurements that, when performed correctly, can be even more effective than any artificial contraception method.
And unlike artificial contraception, with all of their unwanted side effects, NFP can actually help couples to conceive, especially those that have had difficulty conceiving in the past. Only NFP can help postpone or achieve pregnancy, depending on the 'choice' you and your spouse make.
Now that's a 'choice' worth celebrating!
Find more information here: http://www.ccli.org/
Yup, We were looking forward to getting pregnant, and the fun thing about NFP is you are never surprised with a pregnancy. I was certain my wife was pregnant before she was, and before the test verified it. :)