Could Republicans “lose” women in 2012?
A top Rick Santorum donor argues that women who want cheap contraception should pinch an aspirin between their knees.
The country’s most prominent conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh, argues that women who want their contraception covered by health insurance should offer payback to men.
“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something,” Limbaugh said, on his syndicated radio show. “We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
While those salvos are being fired in the media-sphere, Republican leaders in Congress are pushing a bill that would allow bosses across the country to decide whether or not to cover contraception and other types of healthcare that clash with their moral beliefs.
According to the widely respected Guttmacher Institute, research indicates that roughly 90% of sexually active, fertile women use contraception.
So while contraception isn’t a top-tier issue for most Americans, this is an issue that cuts broadly. It’s also apeculiar fight for the GOP to pick in an already fragile election year.
Women make up 53% of all voters. In 2008, Mr. Obama won 56% of the women’s vote — that’s a whopping 7% better than his level support among male voters.
Democrats are clearly convinced that they can boost their gender advantage, leveraging recent controversies over Planned Parenthood, contraception, and prenatal testing.
And there are signs that they could find a real opening here.
A recent 2012 poll shows women registered to vote favoring the Democratic Party by a 47-40% margin — and among working women the gap was even bigger, a whopping 50-37% split.
If these controversies tilt women more toward Democrats, it would reshape this year’s elections. It’s one thing to win strong African American or Hispanic support. Those are still minorities. But in voting terms, women are the majority.
So what do you think? I’m particularly interested to hear from Republicans. Is this a good issue to be pushing in a campaign year?
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
Walker: Thanks.
“40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.”
Are you and PNElba saying that 40% of the Georgetown law students need medical contraception?
No. This is not only about medically necessary contraception. It is also about contraception for family planning for married women who have had all of the children they wish to have, or are not yet ready to start a family.
In fact, of course, it is for ALL women. But I am guessing that conservatives would be less comfortable throwing the married-with-children ones under the bus along with those wicked single, sexually active ones.
My heart goes out to Fluke’s friend.
But..
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription.”
What about the other 80%?
No. I said that Fluke was set to testify at Issa’s committee about a friend who needed contraception for medical reasons.
“Rush Limbaugh’s comments are reprehensible, He should apologize.” Scott Brown.
Fluke says, “We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.”
Are you kidding me?
The whole transcript is dripping with a poor me mentality that fits very nicely in the Liberal mentality. We gotta make everything fair.
Try raising a family without health insurance. You don’t hear me crying about it. That’s because I don’t think the government or employer owes me anything.
Ah, Kathy, a while back, I thought that you believed in the teachings of Jesus. Guess not.
I’ve noticed that many of the self-proclaimed Christians that comment here don’t seem to follow the teachings of Christ. One of the reasons I left the church, too many hypocrits. But as Jimmy Buffet says, there’s a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning (Fruitcakes – one of my favorites).
Hi folks – Some good discussion here, but remember to keep it civil. We want everyone to feel welcome here and to feel comfortable sharing opinions. But not ad hominem attacks.
–Brian, NCPR
If my previous post was a personal attack it should be deleted. But I don’t see a personal attack. I see an observation which can be backed up by previous statements of those defending Rush Limbaugh’s slanderous statement by persons professing to be Christians.
Did she not know what the Catholic Church teaches about artificial birth control when she accepted scholarships, grants and aid from a Catholic School to go to a Catholic School?
There are many non-Catholic Law schools better than Georgetown, she should have chosen one of those. Georgetown is NOT a public university, it is a private Catholic school. Once again we see that this is limiting choice not increasing choice.
Now in her defense, I think it is likely that she has no idea what the Catholic Church teaches about much of anything and likely is surprised to realize that Georgetown is a Catholic school, this is as much the fault of Georgetown as it is her.
It should not matter that it is a Catholic University as long as it is accepting non Catholic students and Federal funds it cannot shelter itself under the Catholic umbrella from federal mandates to health care.
Is it not okay to use contraception because you enjoy sex?
PNElba:
I guess we will never be able to attend with church full of perfect people.
Even if we found one, the minute we show up, well, it’s not full of perfect people anymore.
Of course it matters if it is a Catholic religious institution, that is the whole point. But the bizarre thing is if Georgetown did admit only Catholics; they would get lambasted for that.
You make the choice to be under the guidance and oversight of the Catholic Church when you enter their institutions. If you don’t like Catholic teachings stay away from private Catholic institutions, NO one forces anyone to choose to go to a Catholic Church or College.
~attend a church full of perfect people.
You know what I stand corrected.
I just went to their website, which I am ashamed to say I had not done before running my mouth.
They are not Catholic, they should not be able to use the religious exemption.
Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university.
Mervel, I guess you never saw the “Exorcist”.
I’ve been hanging about this blog for some time now until recently there has never been a thread that elicited 120 or so comments, at least that I can remember. Both of the threads in the 120 range were about women’s rights/contraception/abortion/politics.
Obviously there is a profound disagreement on some core beliefs here.
One thing I am very happy about the current thread is that there are more women involved.
Fluke responds to Limbaugh:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-rush-limbaugh_n_1316304.html
To answer Brian’s question, yes.
“We have to give everyone the chance to make that personal choice. ”
There is little that is legally off limits. So I interpret that statement to mean people can’t make a choice because they can’t afford something. Therefore it must be supplied so if desired it can be selected or declined. I can’t afford $5000 braces for my teeth. I have no freedom of choice.
Not that the birth control is so much an issue to wrestle with as much as is the purpose and expanse of government provision. One side is holding the reins tighter than the other.
My favorite part is how one side accuses the other of this being a distraction away from the real issues, and both claim that as a disadvantage.
If we talk about birth control the Dems win.
If we talk about birth control the GOP wins.
“At issue is a girl who publicly admitted to be sexually active enough so as not to be able to afford her own contraception.”
What on earth?
How does how much sex you are having, have anything to do with your ability to afford birth control?
JDM, do you know how birth control works? Or for that matter, how sex works?
You do not take more birth control when you have more sex… it does not cost you more.
Prescription birth control, which is what we are talking about here, is not a per use cost.
If you have sex once a year, or 5,000 times a day, you take the same amount of birth control and it costs you the same amount.
I think we have exposed the bigger issue here. JDM and those like him do not understand how birth control works.
My suggestion: before you dictate what women can and can not do with their bodies, first try to understand how those bodies work
Well, Rush Limbaugh issued an apology to Ms. Fluke:
“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”
I am not citing this apology because I am a Limbaugh fan. I think it supports a comment I made earlier that he was not personally attacking her but what he attacks everyday…the liberal ideology and all that entails.
Again, addressing the question initially presented in this forum, I, as a registered Republican woman, do not have my feminine feathers rustled that easily by either party, and will vote for the one who I believe will preserve the foundation this nation was built upon.
Dave, take “enough” out of JDM’s statement. It’s that simple. To build a whole argument on that distracts from the real issue.
Someone should tell dave that there is more than one type of birth control.
Kathy,
JDM’s ignorance on this subject is not the exception… the argument he is making, and the wording of it, is the exact argument being made by others.
So no, I will not start removing words from his statements for him… because he (and people like Rush) mean exactly what they say.
Here is Rush’s quote in case you think otherwise:
“she can’t afford it. And not one person says, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?”
He then went on to say that Ms. Fluke and her friends were going broke because the amount of sex they were having was costing them so much in pills.
It appears that Rush, JDM, and people like them… hopefully not you… have no idea how prescription birth control works. As best as I can tell, they seem to think the cost of your birth control is based on how much sex you have. That each time you have sex, you need to take a pill.
Their entire argument about this issue is based on completely, utterly, hilariously, embarrassingly wrong information about the subject matter.
JDM, people often use multiple forms of birth control. A woman who is on the Pill will often have a partner who uses a condom, for example. It’s been quite a while since my high school health class and things have changed a lot since then in terms of communicable diseases and medical technology, so I’m not well versed on the current recommendations of health professionals. ( I had some difficulty editing that sentence to avoid using the phrase “ins and outs of current thinking” )
There are reasons to use, or not use various methods or multiple methods in combination.
Kathy,
Yeah, Rush didn’t mean it as a personal attack when he called Sandra Fluke a slut.
Right.
Is it possible that Rush only issued an apology because he left himself open to a defamation suit, (mental note, be careful of slandering a law student), and because several of his underwriters (or whatever they call them on for-profit radio) dumped him?
“Again, addressing the question initially presented in this forum, I, as a registered Republican woman, do not have my feminine feathers rustled that easily by either party, and will vote for the one who I believe will preserve the foundation this nation was built upon.”
Do you believe that liberals are trying to destroy the foundation the nation was built on? Or is it possible the foundation was well laid, solid enough and broad enough for a diversity of ideas?
Kathy wrote: “Dave, take “enough” out of JDM’s statement. It’s that simple. To build a whole argument on that distracts from the real issue.”
No Kathy, that won’t cut it. Because at 5:52 pm yesterday, JDM also wrote “Or better yet, how about doing a little less of the thing you can’t afford to do?”
He clearly thinks that somehow contraception costs more the more sex you have.
As for Limbaugh’s apology, he did it because his sponsors have been pulling out of his show as a result of the backlash. I should go back and pull up that quote of yours where you said we need more real men like Limbaugh who weren’t afraid to call women sluts. Jeez!
Instead, let’s look at your “I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.”
It’s not “social activities.” It’s health care. And again, what’s your position on contraception for married women with children who don’t want to have any more?
Dave,
“she can’t afford it. And not one person says, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?”
The ease of being on “the pill” allows for sex anytime. Perhaps that was what Rush meant. If one wasn’t having sex regularly, perhaps one would not have the need to purchase “the pill”. The guy would use a condom. Less expensive for the woman.
And hopefully, these gals aren’t taking the Morning After Pill each time.
Knuckleheadedliberal,
Is it possible that your judgment of Rush’s intentions are just as wrong? His whole agenda for 20 years has been to attack the liberal ideology. It’s not difficult to believe his comments were not personal. There is just something that rises up in a man sometimes when dealing with certain things and I don’t have a problem with his passion on the subject. It is doubtful that he is backing down because retailers are pulling their support. He’s never been one to run away with his tail between his legs.
Also, I do not believe most liberals wish to intentionally destroy our nation’s foundation. I just believe they are swept up in ideas that are not conducive to what America has stood for (e.g. national defense). We can have diversity, as long as the foundation isn’t manipulated. But..that takes knowing American History. Not the re-writing of it that is taught today.
Walker,
Please see comment above to Dave re: contraception.
Please see comment above to Knuckleheadedliberal re: ads pulled from Rush’s show.
Walker, Fluke said: “For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription…”
What about the other 80%?
It’s healthcare when someone is on the pill to help with reproductive problems. It’s not when women jump on the bandwagon for birth control.
You think taxpayers should be paying for the latter?
Married women who do not want children should pay for their contraception.
Fluke testifying contributes to the entitlement mentality that is so prevalent today. The government owes me. This is NOT what the Founders had in mind when laying the foundation of our nation. No room for diversity here, my friend.
Kathy said, in regard to Rush: “There is just something that rises up in a man sometimes when dealing with certain things and I don’t have a problem with his passion on the subject.”
Eeeewwww.
how much or how little any one is having sex isn’t anyones business
“….they seem to think the cost of your birth control is based on how much sex you have. That each time you have sex, you need to take a pill.”
It could be that this IS Rush’s exact behavior.
Kathy, this country’s foundation is not National Defense, it was in fact rebellion, both political and religious.
Re: Limbaugh, he has stepped over the line many times in his career, and fell back on “I was only trying to be funny” , “I chose the wrong words”
Personally his appology means squat, and feels patronizing, at best.
I view his behavior like a cat and nine lives, one day he won’t be able to retract his “poor choice”…
Ugh!
Rush’s intention for the last 20 years has been to make himself very rich and he’s been very successful at it. To say that his statements weren’t meant to be personal implies that you believe him to be unprofessional or stupid.
I don’t believe Rush is stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing. He is one of the highest paid broadcasters, ever. Is it possible my judgement of him is wrong? Sure. Is it likely that I’m wrong? I don’t believe so.
Rush gets plenty of leeway to say all kinds of controversial things. He can blather on and on for hours on end about politics, celebrities, whatever, and nobody outside his audience cares very much. But he decided it would be fun to pick on one individual woman (who he may have intended to be a symbol of many other women as well) in a sophomoric rant and became a symbol of what many believe the Conservative movement has become.
Lots of people say stupid things all the time. I do it too. But nobody has ever paid me a dime for my opinions.
It is also ironic that there is the right-wing meme about Obama talking too much.
Rush’s “apology” is an insincere farce. Furthermore it only exposes the big bully’s continued ignorance of almost every aspect of the issue. But that’s not unexpected from this pompous bloviator since his main goal is gratuitous titillation of his audience by creating liberal strawmen and spinning yarns of their supposed outrageous behaviors and beliefs and how it is destroying this country. Truth and reality are as foreign to Rush as subtlety and nuance. In fact, it is the negative, untruthful and hateful tone that Rush and similar conservative talking heads spout 24/7 that is tearing apart the social fabric of this country. The constant derision and exaggerated falsehoods of other people and their positions has a corrosive effect on civil discourse and is a toxic mix that promotes ignorance, fear and hatred. Not that Rush cares since he is not interested in compromise or consensus. His goal is domination – winner takes all. And if he can harden the attitudes of his followers he thinks he is succeeding. But in reality, by increasing the level of political and social polarization, he is destroying our democratic traditions of working together to solve problems, finding common ground, respecting others and allowing individuals to maximize their potential.
Oh, and there are many very good historians working and writing today. I don’t know what they teach in schools but I hope they never even mention things like George Washington and the cherry tree that was taught when I was a kid.
I became a liberal when I started finding out many of the things I was taught in school simply weren’t true. Nobody forced ideas on me, I found out for myself.
I voted for Reagan once! Mea Culpa!
Oh and by the way, “entitlements” is not just a derogatory implication of poor people getting freebies from the government. It also applies to the tax breaks enjoyed by the upper class and subsidies to big business. To say nothing of the too big to fail (or jail) policy that we provide to banks, wall street, nuclear power, etc, in which during good times all the profits are privatized and when the crap hits the fan all the losses are socialized and paid by government (taxpayers).
‘…“entitlements” is not just a derogatory implication of poor people getting freebies from the government.’
Which is all the more appalling coming from the mouths of people who make a big deal out of their Christianity. If Jesus had one consistent earthly care, it was for the poor. If the churches of the world were doing an adequate job of taking care of the poor, governments wouldn’t need to get involved in health care. But churches are not doing an adequate job.
Kathy, I got to say that now I am embarrassed to be a woman as well as a Catholic Republican. All the reasons you have spouted above is why women are leaving the church as well as the Republican Party. It is fine to be outspoken against so called entitlements such as public health care in general but it is not fine to use religion as the means to do it. Your personal religious beliefs are protected under the constitution but you have no rights to inflict it on everyone else. That is also protected. You need to find another way.
“And hopefully, these gals aren’t taking the Morning After Pill each time.”
The Morning After Pill is emergency contraception. It would never be prescribed for each time you have sex.
Again… the people who are protesting this situation seem to know so very little about the subject.
And it also seems like you just suggested that if you are not having a lot of sex, then you wouldn’t have a need to be on the pill. As has been stated over and over again during this debate… both here and in other outlets… there are benefits to hormonal birth control that go beyond just allowing you to have sex without pregnancy. Indeed, some of them have nothing to do with sex at all.
Focusing in on how much sex people are having strikes me as such a juvenile, Beavis and Butthead, way of looking at this issue.
When I first responded to the question asked in this forum, I earned 13 “dislikes”. Interesting.
(And Liberals say they are for diversity and tolerance)
I admit it. I came on with both barrels loaded. Feminist stuff just hits a nerve with me and in my opinion, Ms. Fluke’s testimony reeked with all the tell-tale signs of it.
The very thing you charge Limbaugh for doing, you also do. Additionally, you have become judge and jury regarding his intentions (e.g. “myown’s” thoughts above). Why? Because Liberals are not tolerant. They only tolerate those who agree with them.
If Limbaugh is guilty of defamation of character, I would think some on this forum are also guilty since you, too, have come to conclusions that have no basis except for the same arrogant opinions you accuse Limbaugh of.
The bottom line is this. What can we agree on? That we love our country? And if so, what is it that we can compromise on in order to work together? But first, we have to build on truth. Not ideas.
Dave,
Ms. Fluke stated that 20% need birth control for health issues. Fine.
The other 80% who are using it don’t need it to be provided for them.
You know, when you’ve raised a family without health insurance, when you have surgery and can only afford 2 PT sessions, when you can’t get a screening test … you come to see the triteness of some people’s expectations.
That’s the lens I’m seeing out of.
Furthermore, I do not expect the government to do something about it, either.
Sorry Kathy, nothing in these posts, made by average citizens, compare to or has the effect of the demeaning and derogatory comments made by Limbaugh every day on a national radio show (for which he also gets paid an obscene amount of money).
It’s interesting that when people disagree with conservatives and present facts to support their position they are called intolerant Liberals. Forget about labels, I think everyone should be intolerant of intentional ignorance. And Limbaugh’s public rant was based on a complete lack of understanding the issues involved or deliberately misrepresenting them. We all should also be intolerant of politicians and talking heads who ignore science and reality and instead want to follow blind allegiance to political ideology to run the country. The future of our great country depends on thoughtful pragmatic solutions based on factual evidence.
So how should we discuss these things? Well one of the problems documented recently is the tendency of “Conservatives”, especially those better educated, to disregard facts that do not fit their ideological expectations or preconceptions. How do we address that? I am not sure, but raising awareness of the phenomenon is a start. And, we need to keep talking with each other.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/the_republican_brain%3A_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science_–_and_reality/?page=entire