Tag: contraception

How Dare the Federal Government Set Minimal Standards for a Consumer Product!

When elements of the Republican noise machine decided to call Sandra Fluke a slutty naughty sex fiend for suggesting–in public, no less–that all health-insurance plans ought to cover hormonal birth control… so that women wouldn’t suffer from ovarian cysts, here’s what I thought: “this is such a bunch of obviously crazystupidinsanemisogynistselfimmolating craziness that it has got to go away soon.”

But left-ish groups smell a fundraising winner. And we can always count on some members of the American right to double down on the stupid. Which means that we’re stuck with this for a while. So then I thinks to myself all “‘I’m a Georgetown University employee. dangnabbit. Heck, I’m like a professor and stuff. Maybe that means I should comment!”

(Did I mention the crazy crazy, crazy stupidness? Seriously, take a look at this. But don’t say that I didn’t warn you that it makes this look tame. And the second “this” is a big heaping plate of offensive.)

So, while I probably shouldn’t comment, I guess I will.

1. The President’s office at Georgetown is all kinds of awesome for producing such a magisterial letter in defense of one of our own. Yeah, I know everyone has already seen it. But its just way cool.

2. This controversy is all kind of weird for me, because I am pretty darn sure that at least one of Georgetown’s employee health-insurance plans covers hormonal birth control; our bill for it looks an awful like a copayment rather than a full-blown out-of-pocket expense. Of course, Georgetown also has domestic-partner coverage provisions for faculty and staff. This sort of stuff makes us, if I understand contemporary Church doctrine, very bad Catholics. Apparently at Notre Dame they point to us as examples of what happens when you let Jesuits build a top-ranked school. Of course, I have it on good authority that Catholic University looks at Notre Dame as a bunch of apostates, so perchance Notre Dame should lay off with the holier-than-thou stuff. And that’s holier-than-thou in the literal, not figurative, sense. Which is kind of neat.

3. I’ve been reading comment threads that involve both conservatives and liberals, and I’m starting to notice a pattern. A lot of the comments I see are all about the evil hypocrisy of the American left for being upset with Limbaugh but putting up with nasty personal attacks from the likes of Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, etc. etc. Most of the liberal commentators–myself included–don’t even know what attacks our right-wing brethren are talking about (Maher apparently has said some disgusting things about Palin, but who knew?). I must say that this makes it pretty hard to feel hypocritical.

Anyway, as I was getting to, I’ve started to figure something out (I think). I used to believe that conservative handwaving about MSNBC commentators and similar types amounted to a cynical attempt at false equivalency. After all, Maddow gets about half the viewers that O’Reilly does in their respective peak slots, and the rest of Fox’s conservatainment lineup basically trounces MSNBC.

Yes, this wasn’t very charitable of me, but I couldn’t think of another explanation.

Now, however, I realize that many conservatives aren’t being at all cynical and misleading: they just assume that politically engaged liberals relate to their commentariat the same way that politically engaged conservatives do. But many of us simply find our blowhards irritating. I just don’t think we have the kind of close tribal affiliation with our self-appointed spokespeople that many conservatives have with their own (recall that Air America failed). It simply wouldn’t occur to me to aggressively defend idiocy from any of “my side’s” media personalities the way that the aforementioned commentators range far and wide to support Limbaugh–albeit largely by attacking left-wing hypocrisy.

The closest thing for liberals, I believe, is the relationship many of us have with Jon Stewart. But Stewart’s sort of odd to compare to O’Reilly or Hannity insofar as the core of his show involves making fun of “news” media. Really, most of the liberals I hang with smugly listen to NPR. We congratulate ourselves on our “intellectualness,” still act like “This American Life” is pretty fresh, and think we’re staying hip because we occasionally buy music reviewed on “All Things Considered” or promoted on “All Songs Considered.”

(Keep in mind that I’m talking about liberals, not the American left, those who still spend lots of time on DailyKos, and/or people who call themselves “progressives” because they don’t realize Teddy Roosevelt irreparably tarnished that label back in the nineteen-teens. I don’t really understand most of these people either.)

Well, I hope I’ve made my case that I probably shouldn’t comment. So I’ll stop.

Share

Global Implications of the Contraception Kerfuffle

Our readers are surely aware of the contraception kerfuffle, the outpouring of criticism and controversy engendered by the Obama’s administration’s efforts to ensure that more American women have access to contraception as part of their health plans. With the insurance schemes of religious-affiliated universities and hospitals often not covering contraception services for women, the Obama administration sought to use the new health care law to extend access to contraception. (It took John Stewart to point out that many of these same plans cover Viagra for men but not contraception for women). The ensuing political melee was almost comic, with the president’s detractors, mostly on the right, seeking to make hay about the extent to which this move was an affront to religious liberty.

In the process, by putting forward only men as interlocutors to speak for women, critics of the President’s plan likely further alienated both women and younger voters. Polling and analysis suggest this that may prove to be a winning issue for the president in the fall election (nearly all American women, including Catholics, use birth control). That said, given a divided Congress, U.S. advocates of family planning and reproductive health face deeper obstacles of mobilizing U.S. government resources to support their cause internationally. I thought I’d use this post to explore some of the global health implications of U.S. domestic politics.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Punanny State
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Family Planning and Reproductive Health as Political Football

While global health issues have frequently enjoyed bipartisan support, the same cannot be said of family planning and reproductive health which have unfortunately often become casualties of America’s culture wars. A constant battle has been waged between successive Democratic and Republican administrations mostly about abortion but with important consequences for more consensus issues like birth control.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan initiated the Mexico City policy, what critics call the Global Gag Rule. The policy forbids NGOs that receive U.S. government money from performing or promoting abortion services. NGOs that refused to adopt policies satisfactory to the policy are ineligible for funding.  The International Planned Parenthood Federation was one such organization and lost 20% of its funding. While there were exemptions for rape, incest, and life-threatening conditions, the policy was seen by critics as overly restrictive, sometimes at odds with national laws (which in some cases mandated providing information on all options), and ultimately making it more difficult for women to get family planning services and information.

The policy has since become a political football between U.S. presidential administrations; it was rescinded under President Clinton, reinstated under George W. Bush and rescinded again under President Obama.

Congressional opponents of abortion have also extended their concerns to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), again out of concern that the organization was supporting abortions and helping China implement its one child policy. From 2002 to 2008, the United States suspended contributions to UNFPA, an organization that has increasingly shifted its mission from population management to women’s empowerment (As an aside: the Center for Global Development issued an important working group report last year that encouraged UNFPA to streamline its mission and activities to focus more centrally on family planning). 

In 2011, supporters of reproductive health fought off aggressive efforts to cut $150 million in funding for international programs and efforts to prohibit U.S. support for the United Nations Population Fund as well as proposals to reinstall the Global Gag Rule.

In an election year in which the GOP primary candidates have largely focused on the domestic agenda, global health issues have not surprisingly been largely invisible across 20 GOP primary debates and on the campaign trail.  That said, this year’s Republican presidential candidates have pledged to resinstate the Mexico City/Global Gag policy should they win. Romney, in his January 2012 speech to CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference), sought to win over conservatives who questioned his bonafides on abortion:

On day one, I will reinstate the Mexico City policy. I will cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which supports China’s barbaric One Child Policy.\

Michelle Goldberg for one warns that the consequences of such pledges could be quite significant for women around the world:

If Romney is willing to scrap the only federal program to provide birth control to low-income women in the United States, programs to do the same thing abroad certainly aren’t safe. We already know that, like every Republican since Ronald Reagan, he’ll impose the global gag rule, preventing any American money from going to organizations that perform or even counsel about abortions. He will likely follow George W. Bush in withholding money from the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, an agency that promotes reproductive health worldwide, on the demonstrably false grounds that it supports coerced abortion in China.

It would be convenient to suggest that the Republicans are wholly opposed to women’s health issues, but this assertion would forget that the incredible rise in global health spending happened on President George W. Bush’s watch, not President’s Clinton nor President Obama who has merely continued what his predecessor started. Indeed, his 2013 budget looks like it may be something of a step back from the boom years of the Bush administration.

Bush’s Other Surge: Funding for Global Health

In the midst of recent criticism of Republicans for the stance on contraception here at home, former Senator Rick Santorum and his supporters have received the bulk of the criticism for their socially conservative views. But, it should be remembered that Santorum was one of the leading supporters of Bush’s other surge: funding for global health.


Throughout the early 2000’s, U.S. funding for global health expanded dramatically from less than $2 billion a year to nearly $9 billion by the time George W. Bush left office. While most of the Republican candidates have fallen over themselves to talk about reducing and even zeroing out foreign aid altogether, only Rick Santorum has offered a vigorous defense of PEPFAR and the Global Fund in the November 2011 national security debate. As David Fidler noted, Rick Santorum is the one GOP candidate who has a track record of supporting HIV/AIDS programs that have had a tremendous impact on saving the lives of women and children.

It is true that even as U.S. funding for global health increased in the Bush years, U.S. funds for reproductive health and family planning remained largely flat by comparison (as these tables from the Kaiser Family Foundation reveal). This left disappointed proponents of family planning grousing that disease like AIDS were diverting attention and resources from other problems that in their view accounted for a larger share of deaths in some countries.

This always struck me as a little bit of sour grapes from groups hoping to capitalize on the success of the AIDS treatment advocacy movement. It is not as if those funds were fungible. The President and Congress were moved by the compelling story of millions needlessly dying of AIDS while treatment was possible. Activists from these other causes needed to make a stronger case that their issues were worth supporting.

Indeed, the Global Health Initiative from the Obama Administration did widen the aperture of issues that received attention from the U.S. government, including reproductive health. President Obama just released his proposed 2013 budget which, according to Population Action International, includes modest increases for international family planning and reproductive health after two years of cuts. Most of the money is dedicated to bilateral programs administered by USAID but also includes the U.S. contribution to the UNFPA.

Source: Population Action International
However, these are just proposals and with Republicans controlling the House, it is anybody’s guess as to what level of support these programs will ultimately receive. Obama’s total request of $8.5 billion for the Global Health Initiative is 3.4% lower than than FY 2012 levels.

Given that poor women overseas have no voice in the U.S. political system, it is easy enough to see how their concerns, however trivial a part of the federal budget, will not get much attention in an election year.

Of course, the same was once said of global health writ large. AIDS activists dogged Al Gore on the campaign trail in 2000 and the ONE campaign (which appears to be pretty silent this primary season) vigorously engaged the candidates on international development and global health in 2008. Even as advocates celebrate the planned extension of contraception services here at home and the modest proposed increase in funding, they should seek ways to engage the candidates and the broader political class about the value of providing reproductive health services.

Given our two party system, one party’s ownership of this piece of global health is ultimately bad for women’s access to family planning. Perhaps it is impossible to disassociate contraception from abortion, but this episode may provide an opening for advocates to appeal to women and particularly younger voters across the political spectrum about the benefits for families both at home and abroad of being able to decide when is the right time to have children (As a new father, that is something I completely understand).

Share

© 2020 Duck of Minerva

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑