RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Et tu, Barack?

By Cristina Page, Moderator, OnCommonGround

January 27, 2009 - 1:47pm

Cristina Page's picture

Yesterday, the Republicans, accompanied by a sadly uninformed media, led a frenzied bitch fest over the inclusion of a family planning provision in the Democrats' stimulus package. That provision, a mere $200 million of a $825 billion stimulus package, which represents 1/4 of 1%, or 0.225%, of the overall budget, offered a safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance.

But the ideology-plagued Republicans, and their media enablers, couldn't seem to figure out why unemployed Americans without health insurance would possibly want, or need, to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. They seemed mystified that a surprise addition of a new family member could batter a no-income family financially, or when multiplied exponentially, a state, and work against everything a stimulus package is supposed to stimulate. Rep. John Boehner wondered aloud, "How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"

News story after news story reports that many Americans suffering through the collapse of the economy (like the 71,000 who were laid off yesterday) are, among other lifestyle changes, postponing having a child. Planning when to have a child based on whether you can support one seems like a pretty common sense approach. It could even be described as "responsible" -- which, you will recall, was the overarching theme of our new president's inaugural speech. One small part of the stimulus package the Democrats presented offered this family planning safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance. The staged Republican freak-out revealed the degree to which they are out-of-touch with Americans' lives, as if we needed another reminder. The more disturbing part is how quickly President Obama surrendered to this pressure. Without a single attempt to explain the importance of family planning in the lives of struggling Americans, the White House distanced itself from the provision. After a day of bizarre media misinterpretation of the proposal, Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, told Cybercast News Service that it was not Obama's idea and that "the principles of what he thought should be in the package--that wasn't part of that."

Yet just last Friday Obama, in a statement accompanying his rescinding of the Global Gag Rule recognized the importance family planning plays in "promoting global economic development" and promised "In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning." Unless he meant fresh as is impudent and presumptuous, I'm confused. If family planning can promote economic development globally, why won't it here?

Experts say, it would. According Cory Richards, VP of Public Policy at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote on RH Reality Check,

Assisting states with their Medicaid programs is a proven and effective strategy for stimulating the economy in times of economic distress. That's why the stimulus package contains $87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs. One can only assume that Rep. Boehner's singling out for criticism the Medicaid spending for contraception is politically motivated.

Not only is it politically motivated, it is highly ironic coming from a self-described fiscal conservative who repeatedly says the stimulus package should include spending that doesn't increase the deficit. When the Congressional Budget Office assessed a virtually identical provision in 2007, it found that it would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. An expansion such as the one permitted by the stimulus package could save Rep. Boehner's state of Ohio $1.4 million in 2009 - money that could make a real difference in a hard-hit state that is struggling with significant budget shortfalls.

The Republican opposition to the family planning provision is without merit but does serve as a perfect tool to misrepresent a thoughtful stimulus package; one that takes in to consideration real people's lives. And this misrepresentation found a bullhorn in a media that
likes goes light on the facts, especially with regard to reproductive health. (The Republicans and the media, both of which like to think of themselves as loyal opposition, may make a powerful, reckless, and frightening pair.) On his show, Chris Matthews compared the family planning provision in the stimulus package to China's coercive abortion policy stating:

I don't know. It sounds a little like China. I think everybody should have family planning and everybody believes in birth control as a right. I'm for -- abortion is a right and all that. It's all right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births?

On Fox News, Neil Cavuto bizarrely argued that unwanted pregnancies are good for the economy because, "You want more people eventually in this country paying into social security because you have more people retiring."

James Pethokoukis, blogger for US News and World Report, abandoned all journalistic integrity when covering the stimulus package and got all misty-eyed about unwanted pregnancy, stating, "This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the 'wrong people' as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow." Wow is right, this guy writes for US News and World Report? Guess those layoffs in the publishing industry weren't broad enough.

After suffering through eight years of attacks on contraception, we come out the other end with surging teen birth rates in 26 states and increases in STDs. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports that the cost to taxpayers (federal, state, and local) of teen childbearing in the United States in 2004 alone cost tax payers $9.1 billion. We know that for every dollar invested in family planning the federal government saves $4. The Republican distortion campaign will, sadly, prevent Americans from understanding what they already know -- especially in hard economic times family planning makes sense.


. . . . .
7 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

Amen to that
Great article Cristina, all the rhreality articles on this topic have been great.

Submitted by Shannon O'Malley on January 27, 2009 - 4:07pm.

Is the honeymoon really over so soon? 

The personal is political.

Submitted by Alex_M on January 27, 2009 - 11:59pm.

The Economic Recovery packgage looks beyond jobs and recognizes that every day there are hard working individuals who through no fault of their own find themselves without and job and little prospect of a replacement job at the same level. American workers have seen their health benefits rise in price and disappear altogether. The US has a growing % of workers without insurance coverage.

The contraceptive coverage that WAS included by Waxman and Pelosi gives states the flexibilty to provide cost effective services in a cost efficient manner. Low income "working" women without insurance would be eligible for an annual exam, breast and cervical cancer screening, contraceptives, and screening and treatment for STD's. Extensive research has demonstrated this program saves money for both state and federal agencies and provides women with a basic preventive health service.

The American public overwhelming supports contraceptive servcies, yet, Republican leaders in the House clearly don't, despite every indication it woud help women in their state. If we don't speak up now and protest this cut, then we run the risk of losing future Cpongressional battles. The President asked for citizens to work with him, and now we need to ask him to work for american's working women. Please call the White hOuse today 202-456-1111.

Submitted by KK on January 28, 2009 - 12:56pm.

Thanks, Cristina, for the great article!

Family planning funds for low-income individuals and families that Obama cut would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. (The Congressional Budget Office, 2007).

We need to speak up and protest this cut. Here's how:

1. Email, fax, or call your Senators and Representatives and ask them NOT to reduce or eliminate family planning funds for low-income individuals and families. You can find your elected officials’ contact information here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml



2. Call the White House immediately and ask President Obama NOT to cut family planning funds in the stimulus package. Call the White House today at 202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111.

2. Leave a comment online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Submitted by Anonymous on January 28, 2009 - 5:07pm.

I am a REPUBLICRAT from Wisconsin. I didn't vote for Obama, but not because of his position on abortion. It is mostly because I believe in a HAND UP NOT A HAND OUT. I do support limited abortion (I do not support abortion as a means of birth control and I do not support partial birth abortion - give the kid a chance if you carried it this far - but I can't judge you - this is between you and God). I am a firm believer in family planning. God gave us a brain to know when to have kids and when to stop. I was raised Catholic and used birth control. I am now Lutheran because I respect the rules of the Catholic church and since I didn't follow them, I left, I had my two sons and support family planning. It makes sense. But what irks me, is my democrat friend who voted for Obama, is a Catholic and then sends me an email with a link to the Catholic's video that shows the fetus and in powerpoint gives verbage about how this baby wasn't wanted, blah blah blah and now that unwanted baby is in fact Obama. When I pointed it out, she says well, she hopes that when he looks at his daughters, he would change his mind. I find it ironic how many pro-lifers voted for Obama and is now pleading for him to reverse Roe V Wade. You can't have it both ways. Don't cry now, for you made your choice. And it would be tragic to return to the dark ages and back alleys if abortion was abolished.

Submitted by also anonymous on January 28, 2009 - 6:09pm.

While I agree with Ms. Page's p.o.v. on this issue---I think she undermines herself, at least in my eyes, when she uses the phrase "bitch fest"--and by so doing, reinforces the stereotype that women are argumentative, quarrelsome, and out of control--

Sorry Cristine--it's an inappropriate phrase, and falls into the world of language-based smears against women that are used casually in writings and conversations, which include such things as "on the rag" etc.

Just a thought!

Submitted by Anonymous on January 28, 2009 - 6:52pm.

Thanks for the feedback Anonymous. "A Republican bitchfest," at least for me, doesn't bring to mind argumentative, quarrelsome, out of control women but rather argumentative, quarrelsome, out of control men. Taking that terms out of context and applying it to those who typically characterize women that way, at least to me, kinda reclaims it. But, I understand how that could be in the eye of the beholder.

There's a great essay on just this in the book that is actually entitled Bitchfest, (which, by coincidence, I also happened to blurb.) You, in particular, might find it of interest. Thanks for writing. Cristina

 

 

 

Submitted by Cristina Page, Moderator, OnCommonGround on January 29, 2009 - 12:14am.