The fight about the Obamacare provision requiring Catholic organizations and hospitals to provide employees with birth control could have been a major boost for Republicans. It was an opportunity to simultaneously attack the unpopular health care law, defend religious freedom, and make the case against Big Government overreach.
But somewhere along the way, the debate about religious freedom started shifting into one about the merits of birth control. It’s a debate social conservatives can’t win, since they already lost it about four decades ago – which is exactly why Democrats are so eager to rehash it.
How did the GOP lose control of the narrative so badly?
First, blame the media, which is always willing to do the Democrats’ heavy lifting on social issues (case in point: Darrell Issa’s hearing on religious freedom and the birth control mandate last week snowballed into a fake “scandal”about the lack of women on his first panel).
But Rick Santorum’s long-time opposition to birth control, and his newfound prominence in the primary race, has also helped Democrats take hold of the narrative, by presenting them with the perfect “anti-contraception” boogeyman.
It’s not Santorum’s fault. He’s gamely trying to stick to the real issue – religious freedom for Catholic employers – while pointing out that he has no intention of banning birth control. But he also responded to questions about his own personal views on contraceptives last week. And his comments don’t just put him at odds with most Americans, they’re also helping fuel the Democrat-and-media-manufactured dispute about the merits of birth control access.
Democrats are winning the debate by changing it to one that Republicans never even wanted to have and have no chance of winning. If the GOP wants to get back to the real debate about religious freedom, they’ll have to stop taking the bait on the contraception question. It’s a losing issue.
Alana is right on target. The media is relishing to rub the GOP's nose in the dirt on this one. The Republican will have to work doubly hard to re-direct th debate but then, what else is news? The media is the water carrier of the Democrats and Obama on this. The GOP candidates must repeat, time and time again , that this is about freedom. Sooner or later, it iwll get through. The same with gas prices- hammer the high prices time and time again- and highlight Obama's war against emergy self-sufficiency.
Actually, the problem is that Alana does not even get it right. It IS NOT about Religious Freedom. It is about freedom for everyone to not have medical issues decided for them by the government. Prof. John Cochran of U of Chicago made this point brilliantly in the WSJ a week ago. Everyone, Alana included, fell for the trap of talking about religious, birthcontrol, etc, when the real issue has always been freedom from that monstrosity that is ObamaCare.
BDZ you're not reading her post right. She's not discussing what the merits of the debate are or should be. She's talking about what the debate has become. You are calling her wrong on the basis of your misapprehension of her post.
Scruptious, I respectfully disagree. Alana says of Santorum: "He’s gamely trying to stick to the real issue – religious freedom for Catholic employers". n nIn other words, Alana believes that the "real issue" is religious freedom for Catholics. But in my opinion, that is not the "real issue". n nI believe the real issue is basic freedom for all of us. By arguing Catholic religious freedom, we implicitly concede that this power grab would be just fine and dandy if it did not implicate Catholic religious freedom.
Good point BDZ but I'd make three responses in characterizing her post: one, however one sees the real issue, the gist of her post is the R's loss in the framing of the issue; second, she repeatedly says the issue is religious freedom; she does where you quote her say that Santorum is trying to stick to the real issue– religious freedom for Catholics, as you note–but that is the real immediate issue, with, of course, as she says a number of times that raising the overarching issue of religious freedom for all.
Santorum is to blame. He's the one who said it's his moral obligation as president to denounce married couples who have sex only for enjoyment. He is off his rocker and voters are right to be scared of him.
I don't know about you, but I'm scared of people who think its scary that there are people who refuse to buy into the sacred liturgy of the Sexual Revolution.
I think people who want to deny married people birth control and to force women to give birth to their rapists' children are scary. And I think you'll find a healthy majority of the country will agree with me.
What a crock. All Santorum does is mention the negative side-effects of birth control which is something that should be part of the national dialogue. But people like you who buy ino the sacred doctrines of the Sexual Revolution believe that there shouldn't even be a dialogue on such matters. Okay, then go ahead and be happy with Obama.
Killer, you can't get the guy to fork over the $20? n nMention "paternity suit" — that'l do it….
What business in the world does the federal govt have anywhere NEAR the subject or the mechanics of contraception????????????
Santorum knows what's best for women, because he's on a direct pipeline to the God of the Old Testament.
I think you meant OBAMA has the direct pipeline to God since he is trying to dictate mandatory contraception "rights" for all.
Obama has a direct pipeline to secular humanism. He and Santorum are equally objectionable. n nThat's why AG is exactly right. Social cons can't see that nominating Santorum is the worst thing they could do, because you make the social moderates lose all sympathy for you. Speaking for myself, I disagree with the Left on a lot of social issues, like wanting to give birth control to minors; but when Santorum makes it clear he would like for married women to be deprived of access to birth control and prenatal screening and that he thinks it's "God's will" that women carry their rapist's children to term, he totally loses me. n nBecause of this I've been condemned by social cons as a godless hedonist, etc. You folks are going to drive a lot of us right out of the GOP. Good luck with that in the fall.
Killer_Paisley, I call you on this. Give an academically valid figure on either (a) the number of pregnancies that result from rape, (b) the number of abortions which are *KNOWN* to be directly related, or (c) the number of children born. Include an academically acceptable citation. n nNow becoming pregnant from one sexual encounter (rape or otherwise) is like hitting someone with a handgun — the odds of a hit are not that good. I say this as one who has taken handguns away from people – the odds of it happening are not that good, but then people get hit by lightning too… n nFurthermore, I have heard of women who not only cherish but are grateful for the child they have as the result of a rape. Yes, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is scary, hypnotherapy even moreso, but these women truly appear to be grateful that they did not abort the child which resulted from what was likely the most horrific event in their life. Go figure…. n nBut please explain how having to pay $20/month for your B/C pills prevents you from taking them. nSeriously, please explain this in a world of $40-per-med copays — and how you could afford to pay for those but not the B/C pills which are half the price…. n nThe insurance already is required to pay for the visit which led to the 'script, all you are demanding is not to have to make a co-payment on the 'script itself. And why should this 'script be any different from any other one? Why should the insurance (eg ME) pay ALL of it when you aren't paying all of the meds that I need not to have sex, but to remain alive. WHY? n nAnd there are a lot of other things that the insurance won't even pay for the visit for. n nBut guys are second class citizens, we can all go commit suicide I guess. Welcome to modern America. n nThink we might be rather upset — you are right, WE ARE! n nBe careful tossing matches into the tinder dry underbrush, you might get a fire a whole lot bigger than you expected….
The issue is that they are requiring employer-subsidized insurance plans to pay for it — while they do not pay for other prescriptions. (I have to ask — do guys get free condoms out of this? Sorry, I had to ask…) n nI remember something being discussed at a Student Affairs conference years back — Catholic colleges have a real problem with the cohabitation of unmarried persons. Even if the couple intends to get married when she gets her degree, even if they will soon be married, they have the issue with pre-marital cohabitation which implies sex. And this is a real issue with the women (finishing a degree) who are dorm supervisors). n nIt really doesn't make sense for him to rent an apartment when he will be with her, and the are both saving for a house anyway — and everyone including the Priest knows they are sleeping together — he having discussed it at length with both of them at both the Engagement Encounter and Marriage Encounter meetings. (These Catholic-only things that the Catholic Church instituted in an attempt to reduce the divorce rate — other than some really nice coffee cups that are handed out, I have no idea what they are.) n nThe solution is simple: go downtown now and file a marriage license with the town clerk and then you are legally married (and the Church has no problem with your husband sharing your bed with you) and then have your wedding in the spring like you planned — or go find a new job. n nIf I am working for a Jewish school (or college), do I have the right to make them serve me ham sandwiches? No, I can also go find a new job if I am not happy with the Kosher meal. n nEven if I am allergic to Kosher dry salami (and I am, even though I love it – split pea soup too, but that is a Yankee dish), should I have the right to demand that they slice off a ham sandwich for me on the same machine, prepare it in the Kosher kitchen, etc. Is this fair? And being allergic to something is a bit more medically serious than just wanting to have sex because you do have a choice on that.. n n0r do I realize that if I work for a Jewish school, they might actually *be* Jewish and if I don't want to eat Jewish food, then I don't eat the stuff given to me FOR FREE at lunch, instead I politely excuse myself and go downtown and buy what I want to eat. So too here — the Catholics aren't talking about blood tests to find out if women are taking B/C pills, all they are saying is GO DOWNTOWN AND BUY THEM YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN MONEY! How is this different? n nThe Jewish school can't make me practice Judiasm, but likewise, I can;t make them serve me ham. nHow is it different with Catholic school and B/C pills? They aren't making you honor Catholic teachings on Birth Control, all they are saying is that THEY WON'T PAY FOR YOU TO VIOLATE THEM. n nAnd why are you working there if you are so offended by their religious values, anyway? nSeriously — if you don't have enough respect for their values to respect where they are coming from, why are you working for them? Is this not taking money under false pretenses?
Let us not overlook Mitt Romney's complicity in the fumbling of this issue. Although he's made a few obligatory remarks about the abridgement of religious freedom by the Obama administration, he's generally stayed away from the issue. He might have pointed out that these sort of outrages will be commonplace occurrences once the Medicine by Junta provisions of ObamaCare are fully implemented, but we've heard little from him. Can it be that he's afraid of unflattering comparisons to his Massachussets Health Care Law? n nBut yes, Rick Santorum is the main culprit. With gasoline approaching new highs and the economy still faltering, President Obama would just love to see the political debate center around condoms and birth contol pills. Mr. Santorum seems determined to give him what he wants.
Oh, obviously Romney is incapable of inspiring anyone outside the Mormon community. It's a shame we didn't get someone who would have been acceptable to everyone, like Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio. I fear the GOP's goose is cooked this year, no matter who they nominate. But Rick would be our Goldwater and probably take the GOP House down with him.
It was a set up! The only issue worth debating is: Should medical care be linked to employment. Every economist left or right says NO! Conservatives in this case got caught thinking with their chastity belts too tight. Too bad…could have been a smack down win for the Tea Party.
This kerfufffle was ginned up by the Prog/Democrats and their lapdogs in the MSM. It would have been smart if the Republican candidates had responded with laughter laced with disbelief. Why should they get all nervous and struggle to cover themselves with too much talk?
Excluding Republican ineptness, falsehoods reported by the media, and outright lies from the Administration, this issue is simple. It is not Democratic or Republican. It is not directly about contraception. At its root, it is about an unconstitutional power grab by a government bureaucracy, HHS, to order religious institutions to support and fund abortion. (See the scholarly analysis by Rivkin & Whelan) It was the hottest issue in the passage of Obamacare, argued by Democrats, led by Congressman Stupak. He has been double crossed.r nr nFacts are useful. Over half of the births to American mothers under 30 are out of wedlock. There is no clearer social determinator of disease, poverty, or violent crime than this fact. People who say that our government must butt out of private activity (but must fund it) are simply stupid, or lying. Our medical network is an unfunded disaster. Obamacare, unaltered, will destroy our economy. This is an election issue, a survival issue. Obamacare was sold as insuring the uninsured. It was not about forcing religions to pay for abortions, which they consider homicide. This issue would have killed it, by Democratic votes.r nr nMore facts: Some dioceses, as well as many organizations are self insured. So the “grand compromise” to force the insurer to fund abortion means nothing to a bishop. Two weeks ago, he was ordered to allow abortion coverage for an orphanage worker; today he is ordered to pay for her abortion. There has been zero compromise. HHS had a zillion dialogs with Planned Parenthood, on this “compromise”. PP stands to make hundreds of millions, on this point. No bishop was called by HHS.r nr nThis is not a partisan issue. Let Obamacare be altered, by Congress, in an election year, on one simple issue: government funding of abortions. Another fact, known by every politician: Congressman Stupak lost his seat on this issue.
Romneycare requires everyone to pay for coverage for abortion. I believe this even includes people working in Catholic hospitals, etc.
No matter who the Republican nominee will be, he will be attacked as a religious extremist. It has been like that since Reagan was president, maybe earlier. nBy the way Mr. Hails, Congressman Stupak chose not to run for re-election.
You are correct. I state the reason for his decision, known to every candidate for office, and himself: taxpayer funding for abortion.
That certainly appears to be the case. Stupak had been betrayed by his President and his Democrat colleagues–and he had betrayed his church because of them. That's why he chose not to run for re-election. And you are completely correct in your analysis of the REAL issue here, an unconstitutional power grab by an executive branch of the federal gov't headed up by a president who has no respect for his country or its constitution. n
What a circus. Republicans condemn condoms! Republicans praise rape as a gift from God. Republicans endorse trans-vaginal probes. Republicans hate women (and men who want to plan their families). What’s next? Republicans mandate missionary-position only? Hey, Newt was right. ‘Cause Newt and all his Republican friends SHOULD set up a moon colony…. AND GO THERE! Then, they could tell each other what to do and how to live and who to love…. while leaving the REST of us alone, here on Earth. Newt, I always KNEW that you were a problem-solver. Unfortunately, you and your Republican friends ARE the problem… n