I think that from a tactical standpoint it makes sense to pull this from the stimulus bill.  Regardless of any real economic benefits (I really do not know if it will actually have any economic stimulative effect), it is both a potential sticking point for Republicans and a tool that they can use to lambaste Obama and Congressional Democrats by painting this as Democratic special interest “pork.”  On the other hand, I think the Congressional Democrats need to reintroduce this in another bill and ram it down the Republicans throats.  It is a vital public health measure which needs to be enacted.

I don’t get Tweety.

Most of the time, he’s a blathering idiot blowhard, but then occasionally he has these little flashses of genius where he is so right on (see: the way he smacked down Kevin James).

I don’t get it. What goes on in his head?

Why in the hell are they caving in on this? Fuck those people. As if any fucking republican rollover like this. Well, at least we know how the next 4 years are going to be. Minority rule in DC.

“I think the Congressional Democrats need to reintroduce this in another bill and ram it down the Republicans throats.  It is a vital public health measure which needs to be enacted.
DrDick on 01/27 at 07:19 PM”

I agree and they will do this later. I bet they planned to put this in the bill then pull it out all along, using it as leverage.

Over 90% of Catholics report to pollsters that they use artificial contraception (and another 5% lie and say they don’t).

The Democrats seem to be avoiding the cabloids right now, because they have Important Stuff To Do, unlike the Republicans, who have nothing to do but go on TV and talk shit, but it’d be nice to have a couple of Dems show up and ask the religious wingnuts if they think contraception should be banned outright and the fiscal wingnuts if they’re happy to support more kids born into poverty with their precious tax dollars.

(Do remember, Amanda, that cablenews interviews are generally the place to find politicians who are more talk than action.)

So yeah, let’s have this debate. Let’s have the legislation in another bill, with a focus on healthcare and general welfare. And let’s keep the Dems in Congress on notice about it.

But I have to warn the wingnuts out there who are melting down because OMG FAMILY PLANNING—-every sane person who witnesses your meltdown is assuming that you are suffering from impotence, either erectile or social, but either way, it’s clearly not happening for you and you’re bitter.

Well, either that or they’re crazed patriarchal types (literally) who think it’s their mission in life to bring so many children into the world that they can’t hope to raise them all properly, or, in all likelihood, even afford to support them financially.  AKA the Duggars. 

Anti-contraception types fall into those two categories, in my experience.  Sad vindictive losers and Quiverfull types.

Matthews might get a teensy out if he’s as old as he comes across—it could be that he came of age before men were expected to know anything more about contraception than “it means you can ball as many chicks as you want, man!”, and now his primary sexual partners are past menopause.  Then again, I might be assuming he’s 20 or so years older than he really is…

I’m guessing you’re right, chareth.  It’s one reason Obama won, because people are completely sick of the wackiness.

Yes, everyone knows that using tax money for contraception is just like outlawing multiple births and pressuring women into abortions.

How the fuck did Matthews get his job, anyway?

Turns out Chris Matthews is older than I thought—-I would have guessed he’s in his 50s, but he’s 63.  Still, I think the era when contraception was considered women’s problem, and a lot of men don’t think about it at all is now as well as in his youth.

TO—

According to The Wikipedia, Tweety was born on Dec. 12th, 1945.

Also, Matthews is a Democrat, but his brother is a Republican politician, so you know where that likely puts him on the scale.  According to his Wikipedia page, he was a Goldwater Republican, but then a Democrat because of his anti-war stance in the 60s.  He worked under Tip O’Neill, and I just generally get the opinion that his time in politics was under the old school Democrats who were just as sexist as Republicans are now.

All the Rs can do is obstruct at this point. Their problem is that Obama knows it. Not enough of the ones who are left are bright enough to figure out that they should just let Obama do whatever he wants, because it’s the least terrible option for them.

Also, Amanda, while the Unfuckable Loser demographic is pretty minimal when compared to the overall population, it’s at least 1/3 of the remaining rump Republican party. So it’s a significant threat if you’re a R who wants to keep his/her seat.

way, I agree with you on this specific issue.  But it’s coming up again and again in different ways—-Republicans pander to anti-contraception weirdos.  After all, it’s a teeny fraction of a giant bill, but it’s the one they’re hyperventilating about because they’re hostile to contraception.  Republicans claim they want to pass a stimulus package, and that the contraception issue is offensive because of the contraception angle.  And that is the WTF part of this.  Taken as a whole, Boehner’s argument seems to be, “I’m happy to spend all this money on all these projects, but people are fucking and we can’t have that.”

You “hate pulling this card”? I hope not. This post was spot-on, and nearly had me laughing aloud. More like this, please.

...while the Unfuckable Loser demographic is pretty minimal when compared to the overall population, it’s at least 1/3 of the remaining rump Republican party. So it’s a significant threat if you’re a R who wants to keep his/her seat.

felagund FTW!

Then again, even if Tweety is just a said deluded old sexist baby boomer, even the “contraception = something women take care of” is a much more normal stance than “contraception = murder!”

Interesting how this is painted by the right as being about pre-marital sex versus abstinence - rather than limiting the size of your family to an appropriate size and solidifying your marriage through intimate contact.

These losers have a very unrealistic view of human sexuality and sex before and after marriage and children, to say the least!

“These losers have a very unrealistic view of human sexuality and sex before and after marriage and children, to say the least!”

For Boner and the rest of the Republ-O-Creeps it isn’t about sex at all; as individuals they probably don’t care about the issue in the least.  (the same was obviously true in the Terri Schiavo situation…)

It’s about stirring up the base, scoring “pro-family” points, and fucking with Obama.  If a few women’s lives are fucked up from fucking, they don’t give a fuck…as long as they get re-elected and keep that sweet, sweet lobbyist money flowing…

I have a challenge for anyone who pulls the “if you can’t afford a kid don’t have sex” BS:

Line up a couple hundred married men and make the anti-contraception person go down the line and tell each one of them, face to face, that he can’t have sex with his wife until he gets a better job that pays more. (“Twelve dollars an hour? NO SEX FOR YOU!”)

Seriously, I would love to see this. I figure there’d be one of two outcomes:
1) The anti-contraception whack job would be unable to deal with the conflicting beliefs that “women should only have sex if they can afford a baby"and “married women must put out on command”, and his head would explode.

2) Someone in the line will get mad enough at the whack job to slug him.

Either way, any of the guys in the line or normal people watching this spectacle would realize what intrusive assholes these anti-contraception people are.

In addition to what everyone else here wrote, I think the expansion of Medicaid spending on contraception is doubly offensive to Republicans, because it promotes two things they hate:  (other people) fucking and helping poor people. 

The one thing that really gets a Repub steamed is that idea that poor people in this country just aren’t suffering enough.  I remember Limbaugh a few years ago railing about spoiled welfare recipients who “have microwave ovens, for God’s sake!”—as if owning a microwave were the height of decadent over-consumption.  Witness also the countless studies by Cato, Heritage, et. al., that argue that since America’s poor no longer live in Dickensian squalor (itself a debatable point), poverty no longer exists—anyone who’s poor just isn’t trying hard enough.  And so on.  The message is clear: poor people (especially women and people of color) do not deserve the slightest pleasure or respite, especially as long as they receive any kind of government assistance.

Wow, there’s going to be some great anti-GOP attack ads in 2010. I hope Planned Parenthood and NARAL are taking notes.  These guys are way out of the mainstream and out of touch.

“if you can’t afford a kid don’t have sex”

It’s funny how this never applies to white married people in Teh Heartland.

My mother (bless her heart) simply does not understand why I persist in my refusal to pop out scores of babies ASAP.  The answer is mainly that I can’t afford a kid right now.  I’m white and educated and “middle class” (and in her assumption, I would get married before the children appeared), therefore it is simply impossible that I could “not afford” to have a child.  “We would work something out”, “it’s not as bad as you think”, or “well just move back home; New York is just too expensive…”

But if you’re brown, not very educated or well off, and have more than maybe one child?  IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD A KID DON’T HAVE SEX, SLUT!

“I bet they planned to put this in the bill then pull it out all along, using it as leverage. “

I sure hope not.  Because that would be too much like using women’s health and livelihoods as a disposable bargaining chip.  I hope they put it in there with sincerity.  I hope they put it in there realizing that women’s ability to plan for and space their offspring is crucial in helping women and their children to rise out of poverty.  I hope they put it in there realizing that preventing pregnancy allows women further assurance of remaining gainfully employed and able to provide for their families.  I hope they put it in there in the spirit of ensuring that this economic stimulus package isn’t just for the Wall Streeters and the bankers and the middle class, but for those among us who have struggled far longer and far worse than the chatterati class imagines it will if this stimulus package doesn’t pass.  Shame on anyone who favors removing it for political expediency or bipartisanship or any other such nonsense.

They put it in there sincerely.  Pelosi wouldn’t be on TV getting treated poorly for defending this if not.

Also, both/and blog, no?

Unfortunately, the above picture of people with tape over their mouths does not have the affect they intended.  It only makes me support birth control more.  If their parents had used birth control, we wouldn’t be listening to a loud and angry group of hypocrites trying to push their personal beliefs on the rest of society and take away people’s rights to live as they choose.

It’s about stirring up the base, scoring “pro-family” points, and fucking with Obama.  If a few women’s lives are fucked up from fucking, they don’t give a fuck…as long as they get re-elected and keep that sweet, sweet lobbyist money flowing…

MikeEss

Bizzarre as it may sound, I tend to think many of them are actually serious, and not necessarily opposing this only for tactical/strategic reasons. Some people have a genuine hatred/fear of sex, and this can color their worldpicture.

Well, so endeth the honeymoon with Obama. “Stimulus package” means jobs are only for men now, as is bodily autonomy.  Is it to late to vote for Clinton?

(sorry, I’m very, very dissappointed with this).

>>The title alone screams, “I’ve never seen a woman naked, and probably never will without paying for it, and I’m bitter.”:  “Earmarks for ‘Great Sex’”

Citing the title does not prove the point you’re trying to make. Maybe you didn’t read the full post at RedState. The title is a reference to an event that was funded with CDC money.

>>* Funded events called “Booty Call” and “Great Sex” put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.

The title is not, as you suggest, a reference to all the great sex that conservatives fear the stimulus spending proposal will create.

Ladies: the bus, we’ve been thrown under it.

This isn’t about “if you can’t afford a kid don’t have one.” We shouldn’t be talking about it as though it is. Being poor does not preclude someone from having the desire and the right to have children. This is, as Wexler said, about making sure that people have the proper education and resources so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to have children, and if they decide that they don’t want children for whatever reason, that their socio-economic status won’t be a barrier to preventing children from happening.

It’s not as simple as “if you don’t want a kid don’t have sex.” If you’re a poor women, you are statistically more likely to be raped or coerced into sex. You’re also allowed to be married and be poor, which may come as a shock to these people—and what also might come to a shock is that loving married couples frequently enjoy having sex together for reasons other than babymaking, or even domination.

If we were animals that experienced heat and didn’t get any pleasure out of the sexual act, you could make the case that sex was for reproduction alone. But since we aren’t, and we do, it’s a little silly to pretend otherwise.

“Ladies: the bus, we’ve been thrown under it. “

Unsurprising.  Along with Teh Ebil Gayz, we always are. I’ve seen multiple defenders saying this is no big deal, that this is bone to throw the repubs for their cooperation later.  What they seem to forget it, there is never any cooperation from the repubs.  This is merely going to make them more bold in their opposition to all things that might even vaguely be positive for women. Shame on Obama, shame on all the spineless dems.

The (remarkably homogenous group of) people in the top photo probably need more tape.

Also perhaps to learn what irony is, because ‘ZOMG weez bin silenced!’ is, as they say, funny because it’s not true.

Well, so endeth the honeymoon with Obama. “Stimulus package” means jobs are only for men now, as is bodily autonomy.  Is it to late to vote for Clinton?

Riiiight. Because Obama is involved in the congressional negotiations. So this is entirely his fault. The congressional Dems and Reps and the media really have no influence at all.

Yes, he could ultimately have put his foot down and refused to sign it unless the Medicaid funding for contraception was in. And he decided to get the funding into another bill instead. Having different tactics to the ones you’d like doesn’t mean he’s thrown you under the bus.

“It was put in to the bill as a target for Republicans in the first place; they can be relied upon to seize the bait of sexual panic, and they did, of course. Obama takes it out, Republicans can’t claim they had no input on the bill, and they’ve blown their loads attacking something that was at most a few million instead of something more costly but less sexy. Obama gets everything he wants and looks like he’s compromising, to boot.”

I sure hope not, but I see this is a popular theory. Very popular. And, see how smart: people have no problem at all dismissing the health and livelihoods of impoverished women and their children.  They’re a perfect bargaining chip because you can dispose of them easily and no one will put up much of a fuss.  In fact, some will call it brilliant strategy.  Completely unaware of how vile that tactic is.

And, see how smart: people have no problem at all dismissing the health and livelihoods of impoverished women and their children.

If by “people” you mean Washington insiders, then you’re completely correct. David Gregory doesn’t care about poor people.

They’re a perfect bargaining chip because you can dispose of them easily and no one will put up much of a fuss.

If this funding doesn’t come back within the next 6 months, I will set fire to my own shoes. While wearing them. No-one’s being disposed of.

Yeah, pepito, spoken like a guy whose shoes alone are at stake, and then only if you actually….Oh, what the fuckever.

“Riiiight. Because Obama is involved in the congressional negotiations. So this is entirely his fault.”

Riiiiiiight. Don’t bother reading the *entire* post, just cherry pick.  Because, hey, when it’s not you on the short end of the stick, it’s fun to pretend its not that big a deal. 

“Having different tactics to the ones you’d like doesn’t mean he’s thrown you under the bus. “

Translation:  *condescending head pat* we’ll get to you when we feel like it, lil miss.

Don’t bother reading the *entire* post, just cherry pick.

The post is about media hysteria trying to make contraception sound evil and why it’s self-defeating. I’m not responding to the post, I’m responding to your inane comment. You honestly think Clinton would have refused to sign the stimulus bill without Medicaid funding for contraception? Or are you just grandstanding, as you have fairly consistently since you started posting here?

Fuck off, Gypsy Lee. You know nothing about me.

pepito: “Yes, he could ultimately have put his foot down and refused to sign it unless the Medicaid funding for contraception was in. And he decided to get the funding into another bill instead. Having different tactics to the ones you’d like doesn’t mean he’s thrown you under the bus. “

No see, we have been thrown under the bus. Bargaining chip, brilliant Republican-baiting strategy, evil genius, accidental genius, intentional double agent asshattery, calculating and brutal mysogyny, it doesn’t matter. Right now, on this issue, we have been shafted.

Sweet conjecture about how Obama will come through for the poor ladiez, he really, really, really will, just watch!!1! is nice and all. But here and now, we’re under the bus.

If no-one had suggested putting this funding into the bill, would you still be under the bus?

Sweet conjecture about how Obama will come through for the poor ladiez, he really, really, really will, just watch!!1! is nice and all.

It is a sweet conjecture - and it’s way too smart for me to have thought of on my own. Where did I read it?

His reasoning is that the money can be put into another bill, which is actually not a bad idea because then we can have another round of Republicans going on talk shows to talk about the evils of contraception while journalists inject to point out that contraception is really evil.

It’s not even about Obama. It’s Congress who passed the damn bill.

Folks, we don’t know:
-how Obama will act in the future
-what Obama’s real game is
-what the socialcon’s game is or if they even have a clue at this point
-whether Obama will stick the contraception funding into another bill
-what the Democrats’ purpose was in including the contraception funding in the stimulus bill
-what Pelosi’s expectation was for the bill

All we can do about it is note the reaction of the anti-contaception people, note the reaction of the corporate media, try to guage the reaction of the public at large, and watch to see what Obama and congress do next. There’s no reason to attack one another, since we’re pretty much all on the same page about this. (Well, most of us anyhow.)

Re: getting thrown under the bus/priorities.

Say, I’m a waitress who’s hours have been cut and who isn’t getting much tips because there are fewer customers and they are tighter with their money. Or a female architect rendered redundant by the lack of construction. Or a female banker sending out resumes without results.
Would I rather have to go a couple of months with condoms and less sex, to save money, but then find the stimulus package is working and I have full-time hours with benefits? Or would I rather cut back all the same, find myself in worse financial situation than ever, while tuning into the news every day to hear about the filibuster?
The stimulus package is for women in the workforce, too. And a good job is worth more than a packet of birth control pills, provided you aren’t forced into unprotected sex and don’t end up with an expensive baby. The sooner the Pill is available cheaply and universally the better, but better to fight for it on its own than have 100,000 Americans lose their jobs each week while the economy nosedives.

“The post is about media hysteria trying to make contraception sound evil and why it’s self-defeating. I’m not responding to the post, I’m responding to your inane comment.”

Apologies, I wasn’t clear.  I meant you were cherry-picking MY comment.  I made it very clear at the end of it that I was merely venting, and was not blaming Obama.  You chose to omit that, so you could scold me condescendingly, which is dishonest.

“Or are you just grandstanding, as you have fairly consistently since you started posting here?”

I was *venting*.  other people agreed with me, yet I’m the only one you’re attacking, and dishonestly. Regardless of you bizarre need to insult me for some unknown reason, I do have the right to be disappointed, I do have the right to vent and, since I made it clear in the very same post that it was merely venting, you’re dishonesty shines nice and bright for all to see. 

“Fuck off, Gypsy Lee. You know nothing about me. “

And your condescension and inability to be honest has made certain I don’t care to. 

BTW, pepito - not a single republican voted for the measure.  Good thing women’s concerns were shuttled to the side to suck up to them, huh.