The Battle Over Women Voters
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-12/battle-over-women-voters
Women cast nearly ten million more votes than men in the last presidential race. Their traditional preference for Democrats helped put President Obama in the White House. but the female vote swung to the GOP in 2010, giving Republicans congrol of the House. Now there are signs of another shift. Recent polls show Republicans have been hurt by the current focus on contraception, abortion and women’s health issues. This week the President’s re-election campaign plans to launch an intensified effort to mobilize female voters. Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women and Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the eagle forum, join Diane to discuss the battle for and about women.
Guests
Terry O'Neill
president, National Organization for Women.
Phyllis Schlafly
founder and president, Eagle Forum
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I wasn't able to listen to most of the discussion but was surprised to hear Terry use the 98% of Catholics number, when The Washington Post said "a media foul" about this statistic last week. I didn't hear, in my limited listening, anyone state what the struggle is really about, abortion.
There may be any number of Catholics who don't want to pay higher premiums as their insurer is forced to offer free contraception. Most pro-life volunteers I know and work with see the healthcare mandate covering abortion inducing contraceptives like an IUD or the morning after pill as abhorrent. Not because it's birth control but because a human is killed. The even bigger problem is religious hospitals, organizations or employees being forced to do something against their deeply held belief, that life begins at conception.
Focusing on birth control is a contrived sham. Pretending this fight is about contraception ignores the growing body of men and women of all ages who are saying no group of people should ever have the right to kill another group of people.
I think that Ms. Schlafly must not know any feminists -- her claim that we are all single moms looking for handouts, anti-men, anti-family, is absolutely ludicrous. I also agree that she was on this show to be divisive, although I was disappointed that Diane only indirectly called her out on some of her most bizarre views by asking other guests a related question.
I also find it interesting that people use the argument that women should keep big government out of our reproductive rights while excoriating women for single parenthood and the poverty which it often leads to. "Pro-life" only means pro-life if you're willing to support that child's life AFTER it's born.
Child support awards are less then adequate when people divorce, and the fact remains that women make a fraction of what men do, if they are even able to get the "same" kind of job. Maybe these things need to be addressed, as well.
And yes, covering erectile disfunction and contraception are valid comparisons. Pregnancy, ovarian cysts, hemorragiac or irregular menstrual cycles, are all medical conditions. An argument otherwise is just ridiculous.
"War on women"
What an interesting phrase. Now as I understand it, a "war" generally has a stated purpose and a stated goal. What is the purpose of a "Republican war on women"? To p- them off? To alianate them? To get them to vote Democrat?
The term "war on women" is a strawman created by the left to frame a debate that is really about the Constitutional Right to be free from the dictates of Government be it in the bedroom or in the insurance coverage an employer freely provides.
The US does not actually track the marital status of welfare recipients so I have no idea where Phyllis Schlafly gets the idea that unmarried women look to big brother other then her own ignorant prejudice. When I was married I wound up paying all the bills and quickly figured out I would be better off without him, emotionally and financially. You people who are anti-single-women,what's your problem? For a breakdown of government spending: http://tinyurl.com/74yvzwl
Section 8 has been around for a long time and has a huge waiting list. Most of the time Section 8 housing is in low income neighborhoods and are pretty run down houses. If someone is indeed getting Section 8 housing on a lake, she's a extremely rare and lucky exception. In my city, we have tons and tons of houses that go vacant while homeless walk the streets. I'd much rather those houses were filled at $350 a month rather than remaining empty. Before we start examining who deserves to be warm in a home on a winter night, perhaps we should explore the woeful lack of good paying jobs...and don't assume that a job at McDonald's fits that bill because it doesn't. Minimum wage does not equal living wage. Anyone who keeps a home and a job should know what it costs.
QUESTION for TODAY"S GUEST:
Can Social Security be revamped into an annuity, with all funds invested in government securities?
My thought as I listened this morning:
Conservatives complain that if tax money goes to fund insurance that funds contraception or abortions, they will be paying for something they do not approve of morally.
But is this not already the case with private insurance? In other words, money you pay for your private insurance premium goes to the insurance company which may use that money to pay for contraception or abortions, if these are covered under their plan, correct?
Why have conservatives not complained about this?
I think this yet a another line of argument where the real goal is simply to limit women's access to reproductive health services, and they will make any argument that sounds better than this truth.
The real debate here is over whether reproductive health services should be part of a standard heath care insurance program or not - not who pays for what - that is a excuse issue.
So most unwanted pregnancies can be prevented with birth control pills? What about the STD's. It seems noone is worried about that. I also would like to say that those who focus on Rush Limbaughs comments could care less about Bill Mahers comments about Sarah Palin. What about Ed Shultz comments about other Women? Could it be we have some hypocrites?
Justin P. wrote:
"the real goal is simply to limit women's access to reproductive health services"
Of course. That's one of the fronts in the "war on women".
Utter, complete, unadulterated nonsense.
i totally disagree!!
An absolutely disappointing show and a low point for the Diane Rehm Show. Phylis Schafly is a rude guest -a dinosaur spouting off dated arguments and stereotypes that are a milenium old. With all the smart conservative voices out there, why go to there? I could barely listen to what I consider an important topic because of her abrasive behavior. And what was the purpose of Karen Tumilty there? Was she there to spout off about selective polling that never takes into consideration cell phones and seems to be limited to old white people on landlines? Sad...
It's abundantly clear from the experiment conducted here today that despite her veteran status, Schlafly still has what it takes to generate controversy, build audience, and increase ad revenues.
As other media outlets observe that Schlafly still has the ability to boost their bottom line, she'll be invited on more shows, which will help her sell more books etc, and further expand her influence in the cultural marketplace.
Here's a simple, easy to remember formula that summarizes how this process works.
1) Drama => Bigger Audience
2) Bigger Audience => Bigger Ad Income
3) Ad Income => Corporate Profits and Media Salaries
Your passionate response to this show proves Schlafly can still provide the drama that fuels this business model. She's doing her job, and doing it pretty darn well.
Notable competitors to Schlafly include other dramatic characters such as the Rush guy, the Florida preacher Koran burning guy, the Osama guy, the Moore media guy, and so on.
Every time one of these drama entrepreneurs does or says something that stirs us up, we reward them with billions of dollars of free advertising, via mass exposure of their view point on shows like this one.
The core problem is the business model.
The core problem is us.
It's our involvement in this profit driven partnership between media and extremists that keeps the loud crazy stupid dangerous ball spinning round and round and round.
I would like to ask the NOW representative a question. I'm retired after decades of working on the railroad laying track. My wife, who is Filipina, likes to travel. In order to afford one vacation a year (this year Niagara Falls) she works part time in a local kitchen scrubbing pots and pans.
When our health care premium increases so women like the 30 year old law student can have fee birth control paid for by us, what should we cut back on?
Diane, physicians organizations have developed relevant policy on women's need for access to affordable contraception. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has supported insurance coverage of contraceptives:
(ACOG) applauds the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for the prompt acceptance of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recent recommendations that require new health insurance plans to cover vital women's preventive services, at no cost to the patient.
"The recommendations, which closely mirror ACOG's best practice guidelines, will ensure that women covered under new plans will no longer face a barrier to receiving the following services because of a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible:
The full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods, to help women control the timing, number, and spacing of births. Planned pregnancies—which for most women require contraception—benefit women by allowing them to optimize their own health before pregnancy and childbirth. An unintended pregnancy may have significant implications for a woman's health, sometimes worsening a preexisting health condition such as diabetes, hypertension, or coronary artery disease. Planned pregnancies improve the health of children as well, as adequate birth spacing lowers the risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, and small-for-gestational age; "
This is good medicine, good health policy and good economic policy. Please have a follow-up show that represents the medical and public health communities so that we may return the dialogue to the relationship between a woman and her physician.
http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2011/ACOG_Applaud...
Thanks to the appearance of Phyllis Schlafly on Diane’s show. She reminds us of the twisted logic of the Tea Party supporters. Tea Party voters dominated in 2010 with the result that we have a House with representatives who focus on ‘moral’ issues instead of jobs; who vote ideologically instead of compromising (the art of politics); Governors like Mitch Daniels striving to destroy unions; Bob McDonnell in Virginia who wants to restrict birth control and eliminate all abortions; 7 states with restrictive legislation which invades our personal choices; local and state officials who promote evolution and want to inject religion into all aspects of life.
If enlightened people remain inactive in this years election we will be taken back to the USA of the 1920s.
Ms Schlafly states that 'who pays' for anything they do not agree with is the real issue here. But that brings up taxes. Couples without children and single people all have to pay for education. I have to pay for wars and other things that my taxes go to, despite the fact that I strongly object to them.
Her mischaracterization of health insurance fails to add up, since all insurance contains coverages for things I will not need or want in my lifetime....but still have to, by her formulation 'pay for'.
This is about politics and nothing else.
The Rush Limbaugh commentary I've heard in recent days, including this program, misses a very important point: It is Limbaugh's position that a woman who uses (or has used) contraceptives, and believes it is a reasonable part of the employer insurance package which is a part of her compensation, is a slut and a prostitute. His vitriol is not directed solely at Sandra Fluke. He insults EVERY woman with his vile language. I felt personally violated by his statements.
I became single mother of four boys after my husband died. I am offended by the the idea that women "need" a husband to support her and her children! What century are we living in!
I agree! I feel like we are turning back the clock to an earlier and less enlightened period!
Schafly comments about single women and the Democratic party and President Obama is way over the top. Just where does she get a concept like this?
The single point is should birth control be required to be offered through private insurance plans that people purchase. The government is not paying for birth control or abortions for that matter. But this is one the consistent lies among many spread by conservatives.
Schafly and many conservatives do not like the Affordable Care Act since they are free marketeers and want everyone to purchase their insurance from a for profit insuance company with NO government regulations.
The gop is not only waging a war on women they are waging a war on working families of all sorts. Pay for your own education, health care and retirement and by the way our corporate sponsers do not want to pay working class wages.
Why give a someone like Schafly a public voice? This woman is not dealing with reality.
it's really sad, offensive really, to hear someone say women need men to take care of them and their kids...and that if they don't have a man, the women expect the government to do it! Really?! It's 2012! (I want to believe I didn't hear that right!)
Your culture warrior guest, Phillis Schlafly, has been a real challenge this morning. I can't think of a single comment she made that didn't go off subject into diatribe. I will not anxiously await her return to your future panels.
Phyllis Schaffly! She's been inspiring me since the late 1970s - her words prompted me to get a degree in Women's Studies, and every time I hear her speak I donate more money to Planned Parenthood and to the local food banks. She simply is out of step with contemporary life... and sees the entire world through the filter of her own narrow (rich, white, educated) experience. How can it possibly be that here she is, decades later, STILL bashing women for demanding equal rights? She still has no idea of what the regular women's experience is.
Lest anyone misunderstand me.... I was a stay-at-home mom for 8 years, have been married to the same man for 30 years. I've had both children AND an abortion - I used birth control for years and when we decided to not have any more children my husband had a vasectomy... both services provided by Planned Parenthood. I represent more women out there than Schaffly ever did, and ever will.
I am amused to hear her still thumping her regressive world views, and bashing women. I sort of thought that with age comes wisdom. But there are always exceptions to the rule.
I am just tired of this being framed as a debate about access to birth control. Nobody is saying take away access. This is about who pays for it. I do not consider it fair to me (as a woman) that birth control is supposed to be provided free of charge with no copay, when the other medications I and my family need cost a small fortune. My contributions are paying for free contraception, but I don't even get coverage for infertility treatments in order to have the children I desperately want. The copays for my medications that I need in order to live day to day are outrageous, but I am expected to subsidize birth control for others. This really makes me angry.
If the Insurance Companies that the religious organizations currently use - provide vasectomies - than they should cover ALL contreceptive methods.
This discussion is absolutely absurd. There should be no question of morals on this issue. It is about comprehensive coverage for women's health ... if men get it then why shouldn't we?! If the christian right don't want their women using birth control then it is up to them to take responsibility for that when dealing with their congregations and parishioners. Insurance is not an inherently religious institution and should not, therefore, be beholden to religious dogma. Those who agree with the conservatives on this issue will not be affected by this mandate, but those who don't should not be subjected to a specific set of religious beliefs in a country that supposedly prides itself on civil and religious freedom. And freedom of religion, by my estimation, also necessitates freedom from religion.
>>Phyllis Schlafly really?! I am speechless
Amen. Who's up next, George Wallace?
On another point, Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, and what Rush Limbaugh did falls into the category of libel and defamation, and I believe should be addressed from that angle. What people say about public figures is held to a different standard.
To the economic point of this discussion, if we eliminate abortion and restrict birth control to only those who can pay for it, what are we going to do with all the extra children? The foster system is already overrun. Are you going to require every one to adopt a child even if they do not want one? The US has very few orphanages in which to warehouse the abundance that will spring forth from the economically challenged.
Sex and procreation activities are a fact of life, the drive is evolutionary. Abstinence programs and religion do not counteract this drive.
I for one would rather pay for contraceptive or an abortion that to pay for inadequate foster care, welfare children and worse yet the unloved and uneducated child that lands in the prison system.
Phyllis Schlafly is painful to listen to. I wish the show had found a better guest to support this side of the debate. Schlafly is making BROAD generalizations about so many topics (her views about feminism are 30 or 40 years dated! And still horribly generalized!). I listen to the Diane Rehm Show to hear intelligent conversation about issues, I love hearing all sides of the story. I DO NOT love it when guests come on, beat a worn out drum, and refuse to see commonality. Listening to Schlafly makes me roll my eyes, her single dimensional viewpoint is frustrating.
Ladyingreen wrote:
" The government is not paying for birth control or abortions for that matter. But this is one the consistent lies among many spread by conservatives.
Schafly and many conservatives do not like the Affordable Care Act since they are free marketeers and want everyone to purchase their insurance from a for profit insuance company with NO government regulations.
The gop is not only waging a war on women they are waging a war on working families of all sorts. Pay for your own education, health care and retirement and by the way our corporate sponsers do not want to pay working class wages.
Why give a someone like Schafly a public voice? This woman is not dealing with reality."
Lady, I hope you will give this post your serious consideration. First, the "lie" that government pays for bc, etc. is a strawman. The only contention is that government is MANDATING coverage and that, in the case of religious institutions violates the "free exercise" clause of the first amendment.
Yes, many of us are free marketeers and believe that a free market where people where free to purchase insurance across state lines with LITTLE, NOT "NO" government regulation (pre-existing condition regulations should stay, for example), would bring costs down.
"The gop is not only waging a war on women they are waging a war on working families of all sorts. "
Again, I ask. What is the purpose and goal of "waging a war on women" or on "working families of all sorts"? To p- them off? To get them to vote Democratic? To alientate them?
"Pay for your own education, health care and retirement"
Who do you think should pay for those personal things?