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 just did something I very rarely do. I turned off the Diane Rehm Show. Phyllis Schlafly is being allowed to make outrageous statements with impunity. Usually I appreciate Diane's willingness to engage her guests, but today it seems she is unwilling to force her guest to stick to the facts and not peddle her fantasies. Her comparison of Palin and Fluke was unconscionable. Her claim that the contraceptive issue was invented by the democrats is factually false. Contraceptives were included in the Affordable Healthcare Act using the same rubric as any of the other requirements. Specifically, most insurance policies already included it. The vast majority of Catholic institutions have been paying for contraceptive coverage for years! It only has become an issue recently because a conservative political advisor decided it would make a good talking point. Please in the future don't allow the truth to be subjugated to ideology.
Schafly is absolutely disgusting. She accused a caller of making a personal attack on her, when the caller called her on her misinformation. Meanwhile Schafly insulted single women, Elizabeth Warren, Obama and so on. What a blazing hypocrite. If you get on national airwaves and make outrageous you should be able take to consequences. And again the government will NOT be paying for birth contorl and the Affordable Care Act is NOT a government takeover of health care. When will the lies stop?
This health care coverage will NOT increase your costs. Here's the deal: as employees, we purchase our health care insurance through our employers. The benefit packages that we buy are negotiated and hopefully will cover the needs of it's subscribers. Otherwise, what's the point?
98% of all American women use birth control at some point in their lives. That's a huge number. Insurance policies should, logically, cover common meds that include preventative care... birth control falls under this catagory.
My employer-provided insurance covers dental check-ups, yearly preventative and diagnosis exams, high blood pressure meds, birth control, mammograms, viagra, diabetes meds, and many many other common needs.
Again. Your costs will NOT go up. This argument is not about cost... although some have tried to make it into that - that is not at all an issue you need to worry about... go ahead and enjoy your vacation! The argument is about insurance policy coverage. In what world does it not make sense to cover a very basic medication that prevents unwanted pregnancies and is used by 98% of women who are, after all, paying for their own coverage?
One thing that is important to note: the insurance companies are NOT balking at covering birth control.
Erectile dysfunction can also be a psychological issue.
Diane, you are a superhero for remaining civil and friendly to Schlafly. I've never heard her speak before. She's so offensive.
Although I am really pleased you decided to hold this discussion on your show, I was really sad to see that the pundits you chose were, shall we say, no longer directly impacted by the laws and regulations being discussed. There are any number of advocates and pundits under 40, who are still well in their contraceptive years, and who have a greater influence on a younger generation of voters. Furthermore, the discussions among these writers also tend to get beyond the model of feminism and reproductive rights constructed in the 1970s, incorporating issues of sexuality, education, housing, economics and so forth.
I hope you are building a list of younger feminist (pro- and anti-abortion/contraception) panelists for future shows!
Ms. Schalfly's comment that single mothers want government handouts proves she is just as odious and ignorant as she has been for the past 35 years.
I've never been clear on why the free marketeers are so against the Health Care Law. We are not all getting free government health care but we, the people, are mandated to get healthcare from private companies with assistance for the LOW income people. This should overjoy the free marketeers, as now there are millions of more customers all out there trying to get the best coverage for their money. My biggest clue to this is a smoke screen is that the insurance companies are for the most part pretty quiet about it. They stand to make BILLIONS.
Wasn't it amusing how callers who disagreed with Ms. Schalfly were personally attacking her.
Renee wrote: "The argument is about insurance policy coverage. In what world does it not make sense to cover a very basic medication that prevents unwanted pregnancies and is used by 98% of women who are, after all, paying for their own coverage?"
In the world that has a first amendment that guarantees the free exercise of religion. When religious institutions are MANDATED to provide coverage, whether they do so freely or not, that right is violated. As rights go, that's about as basic as it gets.
"One thing that is important to note: the insurance companies are NOT balking at covering birth control."
Irrelevant. What about Catholic hospitals and universities that SELF-insure. What do they do?
Diane is stealing Tom Ashbrook's technique of putting hostile pitbulls in a pit and making them fight. There goes the educational mission. Some good barking though.
DaoudaW: me too.
Because the law, as written, does not employ the free market. I don't know where you live, Mike, but if you live in IL say, try buying health insurance in MI or CA. THAT would be a free market. And when you cover those millions more customers (30M by some estimates), for "free" (i.e. government, i.e. "we" pay) everyone's costs NECESSARILY rise when there is no free market.
ecgberht,
Are you talking about 30million more people getting free healthcare? Hmmm..... That seems interesting. I suspect that most of the people who qualify for free health care are already getting it, its the ones in the grey area of not being able to afford health care premiums but mandated to have it that are in real trouble. Think you can afford to pay for car insurance, health care insurance, rent, heat, and food on $400/wk? Probably not.
And really how much of a free market is it anyway when, if I have health care through my employer (as millions do) that I am paying for, but do not get a choice of provider. No company I have ever worked for has given me the option, if I don't want to use their policy, then I would get a that difference in my pay, which I could go out and use to purchase my own.
Bottom line is that I am being forced to by the government to purchase a policy from a private company. This is my biggest problem with it. It strikes me as a HUGE government subsidy.
The law is imperfect, for reasons you state and for other reasons, i.e. it doesn't do anything about the supplier side of the equation, but it is better than we had
I state this because the republican party has for a number of years pushed to privatize social security, educaiton thoguh various means, and medical care as emplyers provide less of these benefits. In addition wages have been stagnant for many people for a number of years, fact the reppublicans I know do not even believe in minimum wages. This I see is an assult on families
I believe firmly that a society must have a community investment for some basic needs and I see the current conservative movement being very hostile to the concept of the "public good".
I have been lucky to have a good education through hard work (I put my self through college) but I also benefited greatly from public investments in education, and health care when I could not afford it. And I am willing to help support others. I do not believe yoyo (you are on your own) public policies make for a just society.
But to the topic at hand. Why do republicans hate ACA so much given that the basic format came from the Heritage Foundation and it is the insurance industry who wanted the mandate in order to accept other regulations. As far as getting health care across state lines, it is my understanding that states AG's were part of the reason this is limited.
Mike Sergeant,
I agree with a lot of what you say on how health insurance is delivered. All the more reason to DE-COUPLE health insurance from employment. Where did that come from anyway?! Like many other things, what starts out as a "benefit" becomes a "right".
"it is better than we had"
Disagree here. It is DIFFERENT than we had. It is a high-cost, low delivery entitlement like the others. Sorry, (and I don't mean this as a jab, but history proves it) ... that's just what government does.
Ladyingreen wrote: "I state this because the republican party has for a number of years pushed to privatize social security, educaiton thoguh various means, and medical care as emplyers provide less of these benefits."
You say "privatize" as if it's a dirty word. The core concept behind privatization is free-market priciples, which given a true chance, do work. In the case of SS for example, at this point people under 30 or 40 are pretty much screwed without major changes to the program. We are trillions in debt BECAUSE of SS - not because of the concept but because of the structure. It allowed the congress to pilfer SS receipts and replace them with TBills(read:promises to pay). This turned an asset (cash receipts) in a liability (duty to pay). Now, imagine if each individual had his own account that the government could not touch. Imagine that money placed in the most sound investment (when money is invested for a lifetime), which is the U.S. stock market, tailored over a lifetime to more and more conservative investments. The marketplace would be awash in money for innovation, discovery, and invention. That is the way you build economies - not giving the money to the government to spend Solyndras and bridges to nowhere. That is what privatization can do.
"I do not believe yoyo (you are on your own) public policies make for a just society."
When I see the words "social justice" my antennas go up - because social justice does not really mean "social justice" - it means "social (i.e. everybody's) responsibility" instead of personal responsibility, and I'm sorry, but history has shown us that a safety net becomes no safety net at all, but the minimum that lazy people will accept.
I'm listening right now, and i'm disappointed that no one has mentioned the other health benefits of birth control, such as the mitigation of the other things that accompanies one's period: cramps, nausea, vomiting, headaches, backaches, and other problems that are sometimes so severe that they make you miss work.
I am disappointed in the selection of Ms. Schlafly as a guest today. One of the things I love the most about this show is that your guests dig down to the real issues and reveal why exactly there is controversy in the public arena. As an independent voter, I am most interested in understanding where both sides are coming from. I might not agree with someone, but hearing their valid concerns helps to promote a respectful exchange of ideas and broadens my perspective. The blatant, broad-stroked name calling by Ms. Schlafly is what I expect from 24-hour cable news shows. It was inflammatory and baseless. Please give us intelligent discourse.
On a side note, my understanding of the birth control issue is that these requirements are tied to federal funding received by religious institutions... if this is the case, can Catholic (or other) groups just opt out of federal funding? Are they required to provide particular benefits if they receive no federal money?
I was just amazed at the comments made by Phyllis Schlafly who clearly is still living in the dark ages many of her comments were offensive and just outdated.
I note that she avoided answering directly many of the questions posed to her by Ms. Rehm and her responses to all the questions clearly reflected her lack of knowledge and research on the issue.
This issue is not a "feminist" issue as Ms Schlafly loved to label it, rather it is a mainstream women's issue that the Rebublican's keep attempting to label as something else.
What I am most distressed about is Ms. Schlaffy's and other members of the Republican Party's refusal to condem Rush Limbaugh's absolutley unacceptable tyrade regarding Ms Fluke.
The Republican's have clearly lost the women vote come November and they have no one else to blame but themselves - not the media as Ms. Shlafly would have us believe.
Diane, I find it a little disingenuous, your assertion that we should be focusing on the economy instead of these women's health issues. Because first, after all, you did devote this segment to women's health issues! Second, it just seems out of character, implying that women's health rights aren't worth discussing.
After all, it's not as if we have to choose one issue to discuss (if that were the case, you wouldn't have much justification for a daily show)! And for another, issues affecting our private, personal lives are absolutely as important as the economy.
Since when is birth control only a womens issue? I would think "family value" proponents would be ackowledging that chidren have/need fathers too. Condoms are free, given out like candy in bowls at clinics all over the US. Why should womens' access be any less? If Republicans really believe in individual liberties they would stay out of our bedrooms.
I am a 60 year old single working mom, grandmother and Democrat. I feel this issue is trying to throw womens reproductive rights into the dark ages.
The discusion is so offensive on so many levels it is hard to choose just one in this post. I have always known I had to protect my own reproduction (I am the one who carries the fetus for 9 months) But, it is disturbing to me that I have to pay out of pocket for reproductive care when men do not (Viagra).
Is the message men can have all the sex they want, but women are not allowed unless it results in pregnancy?
johnandere,
What I meant by better is that there are more covered, and by the theory supported by the insurance companies of spreading the risk means that there will be more trips to the doctors and less to the expensive emergency room.
I agree about the high cost and this law does nothing to reign in health care costs. How many MRI's does a community need? Who knows? The market cannot tell, it's being blinded by the insurance companies who just pay "reasonable" costs to whomever sends a bill, so the hospitals just keep adding them. I have NEVER been in a hospital where they were not building a brand new wing that cost millions.
I disagree to the word "entitlement" here. This law is effectively a unfunded mandate from the government, not an entitlement. I must purchase a private policy or be punished.
I was also fairly appalled by Phyllis Schlafley's comments on this show. She simply repeated the uneducated and uninformed spin that has been put out, and frankly, sounded both uneducated and uninformed. It seemed that the other two guests mostly ignored her as did I.
I must say i never herd of Terry O'Neill until i was listening to NPR radio (DIANE REHM SHOW)
I was very impressed with her knowledge on every question asked of her.This woman is very intelligent
and exceeds all expectations on knowing the facts.Should O'NEILL run for any public offices she would
definitely be getting my vote. Dave.
I registered to comment specifically on today's show. Phyllis Schlafly is a dinosaur -- as a feminist stay-at-home mother in her mid-30's with a PhD and high earning potential in my own right, I had to laugh out loud at her depiction of single women unable to support themselves without a man. Then I turned off the radio and went to laugh at her with my husband, a feminist and one of many men I love and respect. I was really looking forward to the show today too. It was inflammatory, but not very enlightening...I expected more, Diane!
I listened with interest to your show today and couldn't fathom Phyllis Schlafly's constant referral to the moral issue connected with paying for women's contraception. I could take issue with insurance companies paying for heart attacks in people who insist on not controlling their weight and continue to smoke. All the diseases that could be avoided by lifesyle changes seem to me have a right in this argument.
I see you didn't listen to the show. More than 1100 legislative bills have been introduced by Tea Gagger extremists since 2010. More than 100 have passed. Ms Rehm may have a personal vendetta against that festering suet sac, but the attack on women's right and laws mandating what they can and cannot do with their body transcends any petty squabbling. And women ARE beginning to take notice. Even former RNC Chair Michale Steele recently voiced concern that the GOP was leaking women.
I was shocked to hear the seemingly angry tone of Ms. Schlafly, and was compelled to sign up for an account so I could comment. So, Good job to the person that books your guests.
First, I think it's irresponsible to continue this deceptive argument that taxpayers are paying for contraception. I thought the law from the Affordable Care Act mandates coverage under our employee-paid health benefits... So the insurance companies. As in the benefit that comes out of my paycheck, which I elect to purchase at points throughout the year in accordance with my company's HR policy.
At one point I felt like she was defending the comment made by that radio host. Moreso I think there's an image problem with her ideology. I respect that she's well educated and has had access to understandings that I don't have, but she sounded negative (to me) that she's struggling with a socially changing America---An America that doesn't share her exact same values. I mean, I am not trying to live in the 1950s however "good" it was supposed to have been. Also, almost all of my bosses have been women; I've been better off.
Rather than the negative tone, she could instead focus on what we CAN do to economically strenthen a single-mother's access to what she needs to care for her children. I'm certain studies will show that helping women in these circumstances is cheaper than the incarceration and generational poverty that has persisted. This false notion that our current president is pursuing government control over our lives is a tired catch phrase, so is "Obamacare." Yeah... I think Obama DOES care. Obamadoescare!
and also. someone posted that education is tantamount to a private decision that shouldn't be free. I disagree 1000%. Education is a national imperative. And if we want to keep our lattes and 2-car garages we'd be wise to make it our priority. It's not a zero-sum game, I think you can make something a priority while still controlling costs.