Pres. Obama Fails Women, Chooses Politics Over Science
WASHINGTON – First it was Bart Stupak.
Then came poor women in Washington, D.C.
Now it’s Pres. Obama putting politics before science, while making Kathleen Sebelius the first H.H.S. secretary ever to overrule the F.D.A.
In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by girls and women of all ages. But she added that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had rejected the move. – Washington Post
Shamefully, Pres. Obama ducked the responsibility, hiding behind Secy. Sebelius’s skirt yesterday, claiming he had nothing to do with this decision. But the right gave him the approval he was seeking, as Pelosi and other Democratic women went mute.
Kaiser Health News has a round-up of reports on the subject.
Mr. Obama didn’t get the message in 2010, when women split with Republicans, after winning their vote by 13 points in 2008. Now Pres. Obama has given progressive women another reason to be depressed about his presidency, because he’s confirmed for the third time that what’s important to a majority of women in the Democratic Party isn’t important to him.
Obama’s continual war on our reproductive freedoms sends a message to organizations like Planned Parenthood, a group that’s been feckless since Pres. Obama came into office, with NARAL not much better. But they’ve got their own funding to worry about, which isn’t coming from the right, so what difference does it make if a poor or young woman has to pay more to get a doctor to prescribe medication that’s been approved by the F.D.A. as safe for women of all ages to be available over the counter? More from the Post:
“We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science,” said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, a Washington-based advocacy group. “There is no rationale for this move. This is unprecedented as evidenced by the commissioner’s own letter. Unbelievable.”
Susan F. Wood of George Washington University, who resigned from the FDA in 2005 because of delays in relaxing restrictions on Plan B, said she was “beyond stunned” by the decision.
“There is no rationale that can justify HHS reaching in and overturning the FDA on the decision about this safe and effective contraception,” Wood said. “I never thought I’d see this happen again.”
I’ve referred before to the chapter in my book, The Hillary Effect, that’s titled “Is Freedom Just for Men?” It’s detailed, taking on the right, including Sarah Palin, who trumpets “freedom,” just not for women, and also Michele Bachmann and the “baby Palins,” among others, including Leader Pelosi, for allowing the Catholic bishops into the conversation when health care legislation was being debated, as well as Pres. Obama for emboldening and then capitulating to the Bart Stupak contingent, which ended up codifying the Hyde Amendment into law (previously it was a budget item, voted on yearly). You may also remember this past April, when Obama caved to Speaker Boehner, this time again screwing poor women, doubling down in D.C. Hey, why not? They don’t vote, right? From Colbert King, as a refresher:
The budget deal that averted a federal government shutdown delivered a below-the-belt blow to local self-determination. Congress used the budget negotiations to attach riders that prevent locally raised tax dollars from being used for reproductive services for low-income District women. Another provision forced a federally funded school-voucher program on the city.
If that weren’t galling enough, President Obama threw the city under the bus and bought the deal, telling GOP House Speaker John Boehner, “John, I will give you D.C. abortion. I’m not happy about that.” Boo-hoo. Like hell.
That Pres. Obama has hit women again isn’t surprising. Pres. Obama is afraid Republicans will use his support for reproductive freedoms against him in the general election campaign. The right is anti-science, so Obama wants to prove he can be, too, when it’s convenient and the constituency being hit is also being squeezed, because Republicans would do worse. Never mind that this mentality is what inspires Pres. Obama and other Democrats like him to believe they’ve got nothing to lose, because women won’t dare bolt the Democratic Party.
So, get ready for Obama fans to tell you that it’s the correct decision, because young women under the age of consent don’t have rights, unless their parents say so, while the Bill O’Reilly contingent applaud Obama, as will conservatives and some independents, which is exactly what the White House wants to hear.
Obama and his fans will ignore how his decision impacts a healthy majority of the female population, especially women in rural areas and poor women, as well as others in the 99% hit hard by bad economic times, women who have lost their insurance. They’ll say it’s important to support Obama, because Republicans are worse.
The right’s argument is that it encourages early promiscuity and encourages men to prey on young girls. Men who victimize young girls don’t give two hoots about the Morning After pill or contraception, they’ll do it anyway. Teenage girls in today’s society are not the same as they were during the June Cleaver era, sexualized at younger ages than ever before. Preparedness and access to all SAFE and F.D.A. approved medicines is the only way we will prevent unwanted pregnancies.
That’s not to say the thought of a girl age 14 or 15 getting pregnant and taking Plan B shouldn’t make everyone squeamish, because having sexual relations this young is not a wise decision. But first sexual encounters are almost always rooted in emotional and physical reactions, not through thought. That doesn’t mean emergency measures that have been tested and proven completely safe by the F.D.A. shouldn’t be available for these teens.
Teen sex is a reality throughout history, as females at puberty are going through a potent sexual passage, which they obviously feel, as their partners sense.
But 13-year old females having a child is a much worse consequence, one that is life threatening. The embarrassment, shame and fear of telling a parent of such an occurrence is no doubt harrowing, with a young female not having the means to do other things or the support system, beyond family, to rescue herself. When you take it to rural areas it’s worse, as it is in religious communities and families. Doctors are also out of reach for young girls in emergency situations.
We haven’t even begun to talk about victimization, force and abuse.
As with all access and reproductive health care products, it’s a public health and safety issue, which should be subject to science, not politics, as Pres. Obama has done, or religion, which does not belong in the dialogue either.
Modern women would be better off if Mr. Obama would go back to voting “present,” as he did so often in the Illinois state senate.
I wonder how Pres. Obama would like it if progressive women did that next November?
Taylor Marsh is the author of the new e-book, The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss, the view from a recovering partisan, chosen by Barnes and Noble as one of 4 books in the launch of “NOOK First” Featured Authors Selection. Marsh is a veteran political analyst and commentator. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her new media blog.
30 Responses to “Pres. Obama Fails Women, Chooses Politics Over Science”
I agree it was a political decision but probably a wise one. No need to open that can of worms 11 months before the election.
I’d like to remind the demented “Professional Left” that under a Republican admin, this wouldn’t even be available OTC. Now, go back to hunting your mythical unicorns. The rest of us live in reality.
djshay says:
DECEMBER 9, 2011 AT 12:36 PM
I’m very happy ensconced on the side of science over politics.
under a Republican admin, this wouldn’t even be available OTC…
um… Excuse me, but a Democratic administration isn’t supposed to channel Newt Gingrich on women’s rights.
RON BEASLEY says:
DECEMBER 9, 2011 AT 12:35 PM
Oh, silly me, you’re right. Women should just shut up about our reproductive rights.
I just keep forgetting the boys club rules.
Sometimes I find arguements for an issue hard to understand. Plan B is available to those boys and girls 17 and over OTC. That means any girl under 17 has to have a clinic or physician write a script, or they have to have a parent purchase the item for them.
Some say this is an infringement on womens rights. I think their is one key word in this arguement. “Womens”. When does a girl become a women old enough to make personal decisions like all other medical treatments other than Plan B. At that time, girls should be able to purchase plan B just like any other medical treatment. If they can not get a vacination for some desease without parental authorization, the same should hold true for Plan B.
Wow, this is the first time that Obama has let politics rule his decisions making and support; surprisingly there are complaints.
dduck says:
DECEMBER 9, 2011 AT 1:51 PM
That’s funny.
Thanks for this well-thought-out article, Taylor. I hope Obama understands that this, right here, is why many on the left are “unenthusiastic” this year. I’ll certainly hold my nose and vote for Obama against whatever truly awful Republican the other side puts up for the nom, but I certainly can’t see myself sending him money or phone-banking.
I mean, I thought this guy was supposed to be some sort of progressive.
roro80 says:
DECEMBER 9, 2011 AT 2:08 PM
I’ll certainly hold my nose and vote for Obama against whatever truly awful Republican the other side puts up for the nom, but I certainly can’t see myself sending him money or phone-banking.
Hey roro80, you’ll have a lot of company on that, I’m sure.
The really stupid thing is that he’s truly undercutting his base while gaining nothing. What is he thinking he will gain, politically, from this?
While it should be offered to everyone, no matter the age, the price of Plan B is beyond the average couple under 18. I would guess most teens wouldn’t spend the typical $50 for this contraceptive. The Wingnuts want to go back to the old days when even buying a condom was taboo…
I’m ok with Obama not picking this battle at this particular moment– he really should be focusing on the economy and jobs creation. We always elect the lesser of 2 evils–
No need to take up the banner for every lefty cause– though I generally favor reproductive rights for women.
Well, bluebell, he did pick this battle. He chose to side with the anti-science Republicans who will always hate him anyway over his base and over the young women who would benefit from the FDA’s recommendation.
“We always elect the lesser of 2 evils”
The ultimate, unfailing, unrelenting, immovable, totally dedicated Brainwash of the American citizen.
All “Corporaticians” running for power in the WH rely on this fact!
Yes he did- but on a minor battle– and I’m not entirely sure that I disagree with his decision. I’m not happy with everything he’s done or hasn’t done– but I’m not sure what a better alternative would be right now– though I still think Hillary Clinton would have done a better job. The system is rotten with corruption but its the only one we have.
I do believe he’s doing the best he can considering the situation he’s working with, and would rather have him in office than some buffoon who is a slave to the anti-science religious right group. If he wants to get reelected his priority had better be the economy.
I see that he gets a lot of grief on here- maybe some of it deserved- but I don’t see anyone offering a real solution. The GOP has just gone off the deep end– and the SCOTUS decision to allow corporations to express their free speech by influencing elections will ensure that we keep movign towards corporatocracy.
Do you think the U.S, should use aid to promote gay rights OVERSEAS?
As reported in The Guardian, headline:
Obama tells US officials to use overseas aid to promote gay rights:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/06/us-overseas-aid-human-rights
“President Barack Obama has told US officials to consider how countries treat its gay and lesbian populations when making decisions about allocating foreign aid.”
Women don’t vote in blocks. Blacks and hispanics vote in blocks. The “voter threat” simply don’t work, IMO.
dduck– I believe Obama views it as a human rights issue not just a gay rights issue– and I think that’s a legitimate position. Many countries that receive financial aid hunt down gays like dogs and execute them.
It comes down to whether you believe that the US should exercise leadership over the rest of the world by encouraging more humane treatment of gays.
the under 17 is the real issue here. This has nothing to do with women’s rights. This has more to do with parent’s rights. I don’t think it is fair to call this an attack on women, but more a discussion about how parent’s should play a roll in their children’s lives. Sadly, many progressives don’t think parents are capable of raising children, thus the government should step in and help…or we just let them raise themselves.
If djshay imagines that progressives are “demented”, then I’m sure he would be downright giddy with any of the offerings from the current GOP clownshow.
It would be foolish of Obama to continue ignoring progressive women – and progressives in general (who are in essence nothing more exotic than traditional democrats)… that is, if he wants a second term.
JS, said: “that is, if he wants a second term.” I wouldn’t worry about that. He assured us that he would rather be a good one-term president than a poor one two term one (paraphrased).
BB,said: “It comes down to whether you believe that the US should exercise leadership over the rest of the world by encouraging more humane treatment of gays.”
“World leadership” ambitions can get a country into trouble and these days we have to be more careful with our expenditures.
Good grief, none of this should be so complicated. This sort of “world leadership” would fall into the ounce of prevention category, meaning a relatively small amount of money well spent.
JSPENCER-
I would think that NO money spent and keep mouth SHUT would serve us best. I could understand if populations where being exterminated like in Sudan, but gay rights? Oh please, Spare us the butt lickings we will get over such duffus agenda.
Pax Romana, policeman to the world, all that good stuff. We can do it all, because we are “exceptional”. God bless America, and the rest not so much.
Point is, we can’t do everything and tell everyone else how to run their own business. We are spread too thinly and it costs a lot. If we had a lot more money, we could do more to impose our way of life on the world, but we are broke in case that fact has not penetrated our heads.
Simply put, we have been spending and borrowing too much, and yes the Reps are totally responsible for it all.
Duck-
…and we have no moral right to tell other nations what rights they should embrace.
BTW, I deplore what goes on in countries with the most abusive “crimes” against women and gays. Just today, there was a story about a acid attack on a young girl and her little sisters because the father rejected a suitor.
We can express our opinion and support reforms, but we can’t push too hard our use our money to coerce people. When we get rich again we can review our tactics again.
It would be amoral for the US to step away from fighting for international rights. As part of the international communitte and as human beings, it is our responsibility to protect those that cannot protect themselves. How we go about trying to influencing abusive nations can be debated…but I would hope that we would at least be active through agencies like the UN.
To sit back and say… shucks, it ain’t our problem….is flat out unAmerican…imho
Perhaps, we could get the Pope’s people to investigate our university sports programs for child molestation, and the U.N. to look at the Catholic church’s little boy “education” curriculum.
We have come a ways in fixing our own homegrown aberrations, but there is still more to do. We don’t have to sit back, but as Obama likes to do, “lead from behind”, as in the U.N efforts.
BTW: did we ever catch up with the the dues we owe?
Duck-
“Acid in the face” has nothing to do with Gay rights or women’s rights. It has to do with human rights. NOBODY should get “acid in the face” for any reason.
A decade and a half ago I watched a thief, who tried to steal a purse, get mobbed in mid Nairobi by an angry crowd. He was beaten to death right before my eyes despite my strident effort to prevent it. They could have been beating him because he was gay and it would have been the same horror. It was very, very sad to see and one of a multitude of scenes that occupy my mind.
You can tell someone to got to hell, but you don’t have the right to kill them, or throw “acid in the face”. We can stand up for human rights, but gay rights and women’s rights are not our prerogative outside our own borders.
It is right and moral to fight against violence but none-of-our-business to fight against culture. This is the difference between a fair foreign policy and an American Hegemony.
“many progressives don’t think parents are capable of raising children, thus the government should step in and help…or we just let them raise themselves.”
Hi Shannon — I definitely think of this differently. I think of it more like helicopter parents being so common that they’ve convinced the government to legally indulge their control fantasies for them.