Soft Power (Updated with a couple of double-entendres I had left over)

This has never happened to me before, I swear! And by “this” I mean crushing disappointment over the administration’s willingness to cave in the face of opposition.

To be fair, lots of men have difficulty remaining firm when contraception’s involved.

UPDATE, 8pm-ish: I’ll be dammed, this might be a victory after all. Links to that effect in comments, but I’m mostly going off of what I’ve been hearing on NPR, and it sounds good so far. I’ve still got a nagging suspicion that when all’s said and done today’ll redound to the benefit of the Ecclesiastical-Industrial Complex, but I promised I’d eat my words if I had to, and as of right now the score looks to be women: guaranteed contraceptive coverage, Christofascist Zombie Brigade: 0. So I’ll just print this post out and chow down—not looking forward to it, but a vegetarian diet’s great practice for occasions such as these.

Still not ready to buy into the idea that this was Bam’s plan from the get-go. I mean, I only play chess in 7 or 8 dimensions so I can’t be sure, but c’mon, he’s a clever dude, not a Time Lord. Still, heckuva plan B, and if lobbyists for Big Jesus like Dolan (“step in the right direction,” fuck you) get a good humbling in return for their overreach, all the better. Gotta love it when bishops get beaten.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/10/12 at 10:19 AM • Permalink

Categories: NewsPoliticsBushCoHealth CareNuttersRelijun

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

I wouldn’t jump just yet. The Bishops are already lining up against it, so Obama could possibly say that he tried to compromise and was stonewalled.

You think I’m being premature?

There’s therapy for that, you know.

You think I’m being premature?

Is John Kerry Catholic? Per the ABC link above:

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.

Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.

Also: it would preserve contraceptive access at zero-to-nominal cost for the insured. So it’s a “cave” only in the brain-dead perspective that obsesses over who “wins” and who “loses”. 

Jeebus O’Malley…this place is usually so much better than this.

RH Reality Check is cool with the compromise, which sounds more like a sidestep anyway.
It basically requires that when an employer buys an insurance plan that doesn’t include contraception, that the insurance company provide that coverage directly. Since this is a no-brainer for the insurance company cost wise (i.e., contraception helps to keep them from having to cover the higher costs of pre and post natal care)they’re more than happy to do so. That’s how I understand it anyway. house-amends-birth-control-mandate-contraceptive-coverage-to -be-offered-dir

Comment by HG Hay on 02/10/12 at 11:53 AM

ACLU’s on board:

“The most important thing is that the administration ensured that every woman who needs coverage for contraception is receiving it. We know that Catholics in the pews support this position as 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception and 58 percent of Catholics support insurance coverage for contraception,” said Louise Melling, ACLU Deputy Legal Director. “The ACLU will defend the health and religious liberty needs of employees, and hopes the intense recent debate is now be behind us.”

Jeebus O’Malley…this place is usually so much better than this.

I think there’s been some Balloon Juice cross-pollination or something. Though there has been no shortage of this kind of post on the lefty blogosphere today, some of which have added retractions.

I was pretty freaked out this morning about the “accommodation”, nearly went full Hamsher, but I calmed down when reality set in.  It’s almost like that Obummer guy knows what he is doing!

some of which have added retractions

And you can add me to their ranks, if and when I’m convinced this isn’t just the umpteenth goddamn iteration of lefty wonks passing reassuring links back and forth while the good guys get their asses kicked in the court of public opinion.

Which, I’m shocked and delighted to say, looks increasingly likely. It’s still failsville as far as the print press in concerned, but I like what I’m hearing on the radio.

Hopefully I’ll have to revisit this; I’ve still got a bunch of unused double-entendres sitting around. Oh, and I guess there’s something about the Establishment Clause and women’s health and whatnot that it’d be good news for too.

lefty wonks passing reassuring links back and forth

Yeah. Fuck the ACLU. Always in Obummer’s pocket.

Heck, can I get an “Amanda Marcotte, Obot”?

Have been busy all day and just saw the details of the “compromise”.  After looking at it and reading through the various commentary I have to say I’m pretty pleased.  If the Catholic Bishops and Rethugs continue to resist it then they’re just laying it out there that controlling women’s reproductive choices is really what they want, so-called “freedom of religion” has nothing to do with it.  Good luck with trying to make contraception a wedge issue guys.  I think we can count this as yet another WIN!

Ha, I was gonna post that Pandagon link as another arrow for your quiver, but I was at the clinic and they shooed me off the computer. And I get the sarcasm, but uh… she kind of is one, if we’re going by the standard definition of “person who tends to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and catches hell from hardcore progs over it.”

About your 3:08, I was thinking more of a general tendency on the more policy-oriented end of the spectrum, the Ezrasphere if you will, but okay, I can see how that would’ve seemed directed at you and HG.

I think we can count this as yet another WIN!

I’m really looking forward to eating crow on this one—crofu in my case—but I dunno, guys, I just listened to E.J. Dionne and David Brooks vigorously agreeing for ten minutes straight about how great this is. Gonna take a while for my spine to thaw.

... she kind of is one, if we’re going by the standard definition of “person who tends to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and catches hell from hardcore progs over it.”

You can get your own quiverful over at Shakesville, c/o Melissa McEwan (and I do get the outrage that this is even a frikkin issue, let alone a horsetradey one), but my usual bellwethers for caveyness (some of the commenters at C&L, for instance—I havent had time or patience to look at DU, and a glance at Kos bore me out) are showing a rare concensus at the moment and pointing the finger in the bishops’ and Repubs’ direction: basically “bring it on.”

How it plays out in the mainstream is another matter, of course, but given the stats on how many people use birth control, and the vested interest even males have in not procreating willy-nilly while still getting a chance to get their rocks off, it looks promising as wedge issues go.

While I mention Melissa, this post of hers is full of win itself.

98 percent of Catholic women use contraception and 58 percent of Catholics support insurance coverage for contraception,

Why would 40 percent of Catholic women not want their contraception covered?  Oh right that second figure probably includes men.

So does this mean women whom work for ‘Catholic institutions’ (I always thought they were churches not hospitals and such like) will need to pay two different insurance premiums instead of having it at one place?

I obviously don’t know how company insurance works over there seeing as the US has to make everything as complicated as possible.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

Next entry: Taiwan Covers Romney's Seamus Shame

Previous entry: eHarm

<< Back to main