Obama Screws Over America’s Women To Appease Religious Fanatic Men

  election year betrayals

Shake hands with the Devil.One thing about patriarchal religions of the ancient Middle East — like, say, “Sharia Law” or “American Catholicism” — is that the menfolk don’t like the womenfolk having any control of their own bodies or lives. That’s why there was a predictable outrage over the Obama Administration’s long-planned addition of basic family planning medicine to health insurance coverage. It might seem like reproductive health would naturally be part of what we consider “health insurance coverage,” but that would be a dangerous assumption in a nation where one major political party, the Republicans, is completely based on the ring kissing and worship of an old Nazi child molester in Rome.

Is Barack Obama betraying American women just to “spin the news cycle” during an election year, so a bunch of cretinous old farts who already hate him would continue to hate him and also continue not to vote for him in November? Yes, but it’s an Election Year, so all basic convictions and common sense are “on hold” and perfectly acceptable.

The Guardian reports, because we can’t even deal with the American media on this shit:

The Obama administration is set to retreat in the face of a wave of opposition from the the conservative right and the Catholic church over health insurance coverage that would include birth control. The issue has grown into a dangerous one for Obama, threatening to alienate Catholics in an election year and providing an opening for conservatives who are accusing him of an offensive against religious freedom.

[...]

The White House will propose a compromise that would allow religious organisations to opt out of providing coverage for women that would include birth control. But the religious organisations would have to provide alternative, low-cost insurance, allowing the Catholic church to say it was not directly paying for contraception.

Eh, “something something Obama screws over America’s women so that old conservative men will calm down a bit,” the end. [The Guardian]

Share This
 
Related video

About the author

Wonkette Jr., everybody! Hooray!

View all articles by Wonkette Jr.

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

299 comments

  1. Sue4466

    A Democrat caving to the Republicans when it comes to women? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

    There is a Republican war on women. And it's aided and abetted by feckless Democrats.

    Fuck them all.

    1. MegPasadena

      I think Wonkette Jr. has jumped the gun this time and should definitely change his headline.
      If you read the later news,(from TPM)
      "A senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control."

      That means even "nuns" can get pills for free now.

      1. Sue4466

        Let's wait to hear from the insurance companies. What I resent is the putting on the table the issue of a compromise when it comes to something that disproportionately affects women. If this was a religious opposition to providing health insurance for the African American spouse of a white employee at Bob Jones University or blood transfusion coverage for Seventh Day Adventist hospital employees, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But all too often, political battles are being waged on women's bodies and the Democrats are too willing to participate. Even if this is a "good compromise" we should be appalled by that tendency.

        1. Cicada

          This policy is modeled on the way that states with mandatory contraceptive coverage laws have handled it for years. The insurance companies have incentives to go along with the plan because of the funding they get and the fact that it's cheaper to provide contraceptives than prenatal and maternity.

    2. Cicada

      Take a deep breath and read the article that Jr. linked to. All this compromise does is allow religious organizations to hand off administration of contraceptive coverage to a third-party insurer. Employees still have to be provided with coverage, the church just gets to say their hands are clean.

      Every time I see stupid crap like this on Wonkette I'm reminded of why this place stopped being a daily stop for me. Is it really so difficult to read past the first few paragraphs of the very source you cite? No, no it isn't.

      If you want to be SUPER sleuthy you can follow a link from the Guardian piece and read the actual proposal. I'll save everyone the time and quote the relevant bit here:

      • The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the non-exempted religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

      o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

      o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

      o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

      o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

      So women still get covered, it's just that the insurance companies will handle the administration of the coverage instead of the religious orgs.

      1. Sue4466

        The compromise isn't the fucking point you nitwit. It's that the Democrats once again were willing to play politics with women instead of standing up for them.

          1. Cicada

            I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I was responding to "Fuck them all", which sounded not so calm. But you're right, you can be as pissed as you want to be.

          2. Sue4466

            Wasn't hurt feelings, but thanks for patronizing. Again.

            For the record, that's not calling you a name. It's describing your attitude.

          3. Cicada

            I wasn't being patronizing! I was honestly sorry that I came off as patronizing! I know that you're pissed and I respect that! Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I can't respect your feelings about the issue.

            Fucking hell.

          4. Sue4466

            If I misinterpreted your point, I'm sorry. But your first response was "calm down." Then "sorry for hurt feelings." It's almost comical in how stereotypical those are as responses to a clearly pissed off woman. And in the context of a discussion of women too.

          5. Cicada

            I'm a woman too, and I don't like being patronized to either. I also spent years working in women's health, so this is an issue close to my heart apart from the fact that I have a vagina.

            My "take a deep breath" comment was meant in a friendly way. I was upset when I read Jr.'s piece, so I had to take a deep breath myself. Then I read the Guardian article and was relieved, and then angry that Jr. represented preserving contraceptive coverage for employees of companies run by religious organizations as "screwing over American women".

            I don't like feeling manipulated, period.

          6. Sue4466

            I don't feel manipulated by Jr. at all. I feel manipulated by the political parties who are using women's health as a political football. Obama has carved out an exception for religiously affiliated institutions to a legal requirement that applies to all other employers except actual religious institutions. In doing that, he's suggesting they had a legitimate complaint. They didn't. And, he has capitulated to the argument that this is a religious issue more than an employee's rights issue. He has let the right set the terms. That he may have beaten them at the game–this time and for now–doesn't change that he was willing to play the game. That's how I feel manipulated. And I don't like it at all.

        1. Cicada

          Oh, silly me. Here I thought the fucking point was that women have their contraceptive coverage protected, even if they work for Catholic institutions.

          Thank goodness you've set my nitwit priorities straight!

          1. Cicada

            I suppose I'm reacting to what the proposal actually does, rather than the word compromise. The framing is just so much fig leaf to me. This proposal doesn't change the level of contraceptive coverage while making it harder for the wingnuts to scream about their RELIGIOUS FREEDOMZ being violated. I see that as a good thing.

            I don't feel sold out. Sorry.

          2. Sue4466

            I'm not responding to the word “compromise.” I’ve read what it does. Obama’s clever, this thing outmaneuvers the right. Yay for him.

            I'm responding to the instincts of the Democrats to appease the religious right when it comes to women's rights. Even if they do it in a "clever" way, they are still playing the game. They are still signaling a willingness to politicize women's bodies, women's rights, and women's lives. And they are doing it with women in a way they would not do if the right implicated affected men (or at least not only gay men).

            If you don't see it as a problem, whatever. But given the right's stepped up assaults on women and that it is likely to only get much worse between now and November, I am not particularly sanguine about the Democrats' willingness to stand up for women. Because when it comes down to it, the Democrats will go along with the GOP’s framing of the issue and seek “compromise” for the sake of political expediency.

          3. Sue4466

            I dunno Chet. That's the problem right? The Democrats can keep sliding to the right and the left will keep saying "well, what else can we do? at least they're not as bad as the GOP" because where the fuck else are we going to go. The politicians know this, which is why the Democrats will betray the left, but the GOP is clinging tighter and tighter to the right. So, the "center" shifts every rightward and we get more and more conservative Democrats willing to sell out the left because the left is willing to take the "not as bad as the GOP." And on and on and on and on.

          4. Cicada

            There's actually plenty that you can do about it. The Dems aren't some undifferentiated mass, there are plenty of Dems who fight hard for women's rights. Support them. Make a point of telling them why you're supporting them. Contact the Dems who aren't fighting on your behalf and tell them why you won't be supporting them. I used to give money to the DNC and changed to giving money to individual candidates for this very reason.

            NARAL and Planned Parenthood can always use donations, too. NARAL is primarily a lobbying group, so they're actually taking the message directly to the politicians.

            Both NARAL and PP have endorsed the administration's proposal, so you might not always agree with them. They do fight the good fight, though.

          5. Sue4466

            Been doing that for years. As someone who's worked for reproductive health organizations, I'm pretty familiar with their work.

            But, while there are individual Dems who do stand up for women, I'm talking more about the broader political moves that have been happening in this country.

          6. Cicada

            They use the compromise language in part because it makes the other side appear unreasonable. I understand your discomfort with it, though.

          7. MissNancyPriss

            If you are assigning "playing the game" to "politicizing women's bodies", you need also apply it to politicizing everyone's bodies, everyone's health, everyone's religion, everyone's, gender, race, creed, weight, sexual orientation, right to fair trials, to wear fur or headscarves, to marry or bully or hate kill, to pray or not pray, to beat your kids, to own guns or smoke weed, and on and on. Women's bodies are not unique in politicization, and the office of the president is not "above" playing the game. It IS the game.

          8. Sue4466

            Bullshit. If you haven't noticed that women's bodies have been politicized in a way more than men, you've not been paying attention. At all.

            And the problem is, it should NOT be a game. We've gotten to the point (a long time ago) where politics became not about policy and governance but about a GAME. That is supremely fucked up.

          9. MissNancyPriss

            No one disagrees that it's fucked up. But you can't NOT play. Not until there is a revolution and the Republic is given another chance – to dismantle the entire shebang and start again. I am horrified that we are discussing the fucking PILL like it is fucking 1970, but I feel equally horrified that we have laws that allow backwards fucktards like Rick Perry the power to execute innocent humans, leaders willfully destroying the planet from the inside out, and sending kids to die in illegal wars for oil profits – IT IS ALL HORRIBLE. But you can't be the president and not be entrenched in the situation that stands now and that he had no hand in creating. And you can't take chances, not with maniacs like Rick Santorum sniffing at your heels.

          10. Sue4466

            You can NOT play. You can govern. You can reject their bullshit framing of the issue as a religious one and make it about employee rights. He's the fucking president, he has the bully pulpit. He didn't have to buy into their framing of the issue. But he did. It's naive to think he has no hand in this.

        2. imissopus

          I think putting a provision in the ACA that mandates contraceptive coverage for all women IS standing up for them. He's just changed the mechanism by which some will receive that coverage when the law goes into effect.

      2. io9k9s

        On a serious note – how does this work in a self funded program – I am not questioning the solution – but how does a self funded program (many hospitals choose this type of insurance) not end up paying for the birth control? I am not being a smarty pants maybe i just do not understand self funded programs…

        1. James Michael Curley

          "Self funded" programs often have insurance coverage for catastrophic losses. The potential 'catastrophic losses' are defined by the coverage and don't kick in until losses exceed the defined amount. One of the problems of choosing such a plan is that premiums tend to increase without an experience base which justifies the premium increase and, being self funded can often mean the insurance protection is a doughnut hole. It kicks in but leaves you holding the bag after a defined loss amount is exceeded.

          The simpler response, "Its a crap shoot and you get sixes and sevens for the first bunch of roles."

          1. James Michael Curley

            As a further note, in many states once the employer exceeds a certain number of employees, if he wants to provide “Self Funding” he is required to have the catastrophic loss coverage. This particular beast is also influenced by the move forty years ago to provide coverage for the average employee in a business environment that found nothing amiss about providing free health care for the executive suite and docking the workers on the factory floor if they called in sick. In other words ‘self funding” was often a ploy to circumvent efforts to provide equal benefits for all employees. For a good, readable treatment of this as it applied to health care, life insurance and pension plans see “Roger and Me” by Michael Moore.

    3. Callyson

      I was pissed too but it seems Obama might not be throwing women under the bus after all. From HuffyPo's story on this:
      Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told members of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus in a phone call on Friday morning that the new compromise is the insurer — rather than the employer — would be required to provide the contraceptive coverage free of charge for women employed by the entities in question, a congressional staffer told HuffPost.
      Now, I know it would be ideal if Obama could tell the wingnuts to STFU on this, but if he can diffuse the shitstorm that this issue has become without denying women's access to birth control, that may be for the best. Obama has not been perfect on women's issues, but he is light years ahead of any of the Reeps…

      1. Sue4466

        I understand that. But it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are willing to play politics with women's lives and rights and we accept it because "hey at least they're not as bad as the GOP"? I'm tired of doing that. I really really am.

        1. James Michael Curley

          Would you rather an action by these "Democrats" which results in the issue coached in terms of "Religious Freedom" going to a US Supreme Court with six Catholics on it?

          Or maybe the success of these "Democrats" in getting employment discrimination protection for women in the same institutions should be considered as "willing to play politics with women's lives and rights."

          1. Sue4466

            They didn't get employment discrimination protection for women, they got a "religious exemption" enshrined into law, which accepts this as a religious–not an employment–issue.

          2. Cicada

            I call bullshit. If you've really been working for reproductive health organizations for years you should know that this exact religious exemption had been enshrined into law for over a decade.

            Are you truly not aware of the legal precedent established here?

          3. Sue4466

            That's not the exemption I'm talking about. The rule was for churches, not religiously affiliated institutions. Instead, everyone BUT churches (i.e., including religiously affiliated institutions) had to provide prescription coverage without discriminating against women, which denying birth control coverage would do (discriminatory effects). That's been the rule since 2000. So there was nothing Obama did before today that was particularly different from the rules that have been in place since Bush was in office.

            But the right still got into manufactured outrage mode to gin up the culture wars and Obama went along with it. What he did was take that seriously as a religious freedom issue instead of casting it as an employee rights & equal protection issue. Then in response, he's created a NEW exception that requires insurance companies to pay for the benefit for religiously-affiliated institutions that don't want to cover birth control for religious reasons.

            Maybe that is something the insurers will want to do because it saves them money, but it is still an acceptance–at the federal level–that this is a religious liberty issue. That is bullshit.

            Yeah, I am aware of the legal precedent. Are you? are you now ready for the shitstorm from the right claiming that other things shouldn't be covered by insurance if employers don't want to for religious reasons? Because that's already started to happen.

            Oh, and I didn't say I've been working for repro rights orgs for years. I said I have worked for them. Now I'm a law professor.

          4. Cicada

            The rule was for churches, not religiously affiliated institutions.

            This is patently not true. The exemption at the state level has included religiously affiliated institutions.

            Yeah, I am aware of the legal precedent. Are you? are you now ready for the shitstorm from the right claiming that other things shouldn't be covered by insurance if employers don't want to for religious reasons? Because that's already started to happen.

            Really? This is already happening? I'm dying for some links here.

            ETA: Here's a nifty little site that gives info on the precedent set at the state level: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insura

            As someone who actually had to navigate this crap on behalf of women seeking coverage, I request that you check yourself before you wreck yourself.

          5. Sue4466

            While you're doing the checking for the nice ladies, you might want to read this: http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controver….

            Have you heard of the EEOC? Here's it's opinion in a Title VII suit referred to in the MoJo article: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contrace

            Here's a link of the GOP's response seeking to expand religious exemptions: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/10/423346

            Check yourself before you wreck yourself? Seriously?

          6. Cicada

            Yep. Seriously. Totally seriously. Completely.

            You've provided links for:
            1) The fact that most employers had to provide contraceptive coverage previously. This doesn't address the fact that exemptions for coverage also have legal precedent.

            2) This is an awesome interpretation! Again, there is plenty of legal precedent that doesn't agree with this interpretation. And guess what? Those precedents are actually in effect! For, like, over a decade and shiz.

            3) Yep, this crap is cray cray. Isn't it oh so nice that the administration had shifted the dialogue away from "religious freedomz" ? It makes this kind of stuff even more obviously bullshit.

            Oh goodness me, lookie here! It's yet another linkee on the current state of the law re: contraceptive coverage: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_

            ZOMG!!!!

            20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate. 8 states have no such provision that permits refusal by some employers or insurers.
             4 states include a “limited” refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so.
             7 states include a “broader” refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse, but not hospitals.
             8 states include an “expansive” refusal clause that allows religious organizations, including at least some hospitals, to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with moral or religious objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states exempt insurers in addition to employers.

            Fucking Obama administration, passing laws that have been in effect since 1999.
            If only they had shared their time-traveling knowledge with the people, we would be well on our way to a glorious Peeple's Revoloootion!

          7. Sue4466

            You said it was patently untrue that religiously affiliated institutions had to provide birth control coverage before Obama’s rule because of state rules I wasn’t talking about. My post referred to federal rules (because we’re talking about Obama, who’s a federal executive, not a state one). The link I provided established you were patently wrong about that.

            Yeah, there’s something called a circuit split on Title VII and coverage of birth control. The decisions holding it is a violation are also still in effect. Hopefully you told those women you did all that research about this or maybe you should call them back. So again, the right was fine with that rule until it wanted to wage a culture war in time for an election.

            And finally, Obama didn’t shift the dialogue from religious freedom. He bought the argument and responded to it by giving religiously affiliated organizations a right to deny something they’re offended by and then have someone else (insurance companies) cover the cost. That’s why the GOP is now continuing the game with other coverage restrictions.

          8. Cicada

            BLARGLE FLARGLE FLEEP FLOOP.

            Sorry, I can't think of anything else in the face of this: Hopefully you told those women you did all that research about this or maybe you should call them back.

            Hahaha. I dealt with bomb threats, anthrax scares, and insurance companies. My easy days working for Planned Parenthood were the family planning clinics. SO MUCH easier than wrangling coverage for abortion services.

            Here's a thought, perhaps (just perhaps!) the organizations dedicated to fighting for reproductive rights might have a more informed view of the legal implications of this than you do.

            Then again, maybe Planned Parenthood and NARAL really are just ratfuckers who really want to sell women out. CONSPIRACY EXPOSED!!

            Here's NARAL's statement: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/press-relea

            Here's Planned Parenthood's: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroo

            Good day to you. I said GOOD DAY.
            Heeheehahahahaha

          9. Sue4466

            Or maybe Planned Parenthood & NARAL have a different point of view and perspective, one that is limited to their mission (reproductive rights) and not the broader implications that I'm talking about.

            I wouldn't say that means they're selling women out (you're the one who is suggesting that, which is odd given that you seem like you're such a frontline hero and shit!). But this does actually happen a lot with advocacy organizations. They're rightly just worried about their particular mission. That's entirely appropriate.

            But then, I don't subscribe to your notion that we should implicitly trust what others tell us. I'm not a Fox News viewer for that reason.

            Since you don't seem intellectually capable of understanding what I'm saying and can only respond with attacks and beside the point information, good day to you too. Seriously, fuck off.

    4. io9k9s

      Fuck them all, indeed. Except for Santorum… He needs a very special kind of hate fuck – something styled in such a way as to make Quentin Tarintino proud.

      1. Lascauxcaveman

        As a husband of 19 years experience, I think Baldar has a viable solution. I don't particularly like it, but it works.

    1. Lionel[redacted]Esq

      You know, the buttsex would take care of this too, and from what I've seen, the Catholic Church has no problems with the buttsex.

  2. Not_So_Much

    fuckety fuck, I'm tired of this spinelessness. Rent some convictions, or some balls, or some fucking thing!

    1. WhatTheHeck

      In the last couple thousand years, few have been able to stand up to the power of those men in dresses without losing their heads.

  3. chascates

    So where's Obama's War on Religion now, huh? He's no Diocletian but now the right will say he's just waiting till his second term, when he'll force Catholics to say the mass backwards.

    1. Lascauxcaveman

      Here's the deal, as I see it: Certain religious organizations don't want to include coverage of contraceptives or abortion in the healthcare insurance they provide. It's a shitty deal for the people whose coverage is affected, but the libertarian in me says they can go get their coverage themselves somewhere else, or maybe pay out of pocket, like in the olden days. As I recall, when I was courting my wife, keeping ourselves stocked up on birth control pills and condoms wasn't exactly breaking the bank.

      Currently, I work for a company that provides *no* insurance of any kind. (True, I'm the only full-time employee, but still). If the folks who owned the business I run suddenly told me, "We're gonna get you insurance, but it's a budget plan that won't cover birth control" I wouldn't spit in their eye.

      If I was Barry, in the middle of an election year, I'd walk away from this one, too.

      1. real_dc_native

        Too bad some non-government-mandated not-for-profit couldn't just set up clinics and dispense birth control information and supplies to poor women. Maybe provide some kind of comprehensive health care fore poor women. Needs a catchy name like say Planned Parenthood. Oh wait – never mind.

  4. MissNancyPriss

    I think we're underestimating the president. I may be wrong – and we'll see in his second term – but don't think it's alll about "caving". He isnt stupid.

    1. actor212

      Granted, in an election year, it's a hard issue to not try to nuance.

      But 99% of women, and 98% of Catholic women, of child-bearing years use some form of birth control.

      This is not a hard issue to make a principled stand on.

      1. Sue4466

        As a woman, I'm sick and fucking tired of my rights being "nuanced" for an election year. Because the elections are never over. Oh, and it's always the women whose rights are nuanced.

        1. GOPCrusher

          The smartest thing I've heard on NPR this AM was a caller who said, if the President caves on this, the entire Affordable Health Care Act will be negotiated away, piece by piece.

          1. Lascauxcaveman

            I think that's hyperbole. But only because most Americans like most of what's in the Affordable Health Care Act.

            But I don't think most Americans would like to see the Catholics forced to go against their high moral principles.

            (OK, I threw up a little in my mouth there…)

        2. sewollef

          To Sue4466:

          I totally agree…. you should be sick and tired of this shit. And then I listened to a piece on NPR this morning that gave me pause for thought.

          It pointed out that there are already statutes on the books in [I think] 28 states so far, that stipulate that birth control health care has to be included in any agreement.

          However, the reason was because it was considered a potential discrimination problem, since birth control pills are a strictly female issue, therefore to deny those would be viewed as sexual discrimination. Ergo inclusion in health agreements.

          So it would seem that Barry might have just shot himself in the foot unneccesarily on this one.

          Problem was, I was busy fucking and cursing and ranting at the radio about the asshole GOP's opposition to this to hear the story's completion.

          I was yet to have my first coffee. Sorry.

          And my wife, holy fuck! She was ready to napalm Santorum's scrotum as punishment and throw the little Nazi in the vatican onto the resulting pyre.

          I was glad to go to work I can tell ya.

          1. Sue4466

            Yes, that's all true. That's again why this is so fucked up. Because it is the law in many states already and has been a rule since 2000 and during none of his 8 years in office did Bush bother to care about it. Nor did the right do anything about it. Because they don't actually care about this issue except to the extent it is usable to win an election or bring in campaign dollars.

            So again, I am still pissed that women's rights keep being "nuanced" for the sake of a political election. Instead of nuancing their support for women's reproductive health, Democrats should be saying "Shit yeah, sisters got a right to her birth control and fuck any of you all who say otherwise. It's 2012, and I'm not going to participate in politicizing women's bodies. Next issue."

            But they don't do that. They never fucking do that.

          2. James Michael Curley

            That there are 28 states with similar insurance requirements for the same circumstances is the reason this decision had to be made. Allowing it to pass unheeded leaves open the possibility that health care insurance providers can argue that they can provide me (in NJ) the insurance they provide in Oklahoma. This issue was fought tooth and nail and was a principal reason why it took so long to get the Act through.

      2. MissNancyPriss

        I totally agree. I just think there's a strategy beind shutting down the GOP psychopath's asinine topics of the day, even if it appears like caving. Who knew it was going to be so difficult to take principled stands on hard issues when you're not a white guy. I don't think he is an unprincipled person.

        1. Ms_E_Abernathy

          He may be principled, but he's clearly shown that upholding women's reproductive rights is not one of his principles.

        2. Crank_Tango

          I dunno, I think he should stand tall and make the republicans scream about how bad birth control is. BIRTH CONTROL. Not abortion, not buttsex, but fucking BIRTH CONTROL.

          Let these fuckers rage about it for the next 9 months, or years, or whatever it is until November. It only makes them look more and more out of touch. 98% of Catholics use birth control, so really they are only alienating their own peoples.

          Also, buttsex.

          1. actor212

            Yea, I think this is a moment he can stand up and say "For crying out loud, what's it going to take to stop you asshats from whining? Don't make me turn this car around!"

    2. TipsyLongstock

      I'm all for access to birth control and I didn't see it as a "cave" either. It's politics. As long as I get my birth control covered, I don't care how it's done.

    3. Limeylizzie

      I agree, I think he is just being a fucking adult so he can worry about jerbs, jerbs, jerbs, so the fucking Republicans will finally STFU.

          1. WIDTAP

            We all have dreams, hopes and ambitions.

            …and then there are delusions.

            It's a nuance thing, I'll grant you, but it is still an important distinction.

    4. Boojum_Reborn

      Read the actual agreement. The employer can refuse to provide it, but the insurance company has to include it separately. It is a fig leaf.

      Speaking of which, you know who else wore fig leaves?

  5. WhatTheHeck

    If choir boys could get pregnant, there would be a different outcome today.
    But as its only women we are talking about here…

  6. spends2much

    What is the point of having a Democratic POTUS? Or, at least, this Democratic POTUS? Is there ANYTHING he will stand up for? No snark, just angry.

    1. poorgradstudent

      "Is there ANYTHING he will stand up for?"

      The ability to assassinate or indefinitely detain our asses, of course!

  7. BaldarTFlagass

    "I really enjoy working with young people such as yourself down at our new Lutheran Center… Why don't you drop by sometime, eh?"
    "I've often thought of entering the priesthood."
    "Oh, are you a Roman Catholic? Oh, then I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you can't come."

    1. freakishlywrong

      Right on. I'm also fed up with asshole men using my lady parts/cycle as a cudgel to beat one another with. Leave us the fuck alone.

  8. orygoon

    OMFG, what an awful, terrible, horrible politician this guy can be. Sets himself up for fail and then fails. It just drives me crazy.

      1. orygoon

        It means this guy's spine is made of–yogurt! (That's what I'm eating just now. Gross. Now it taste like cream-of-vertabrae.)

  9. HELisforHEL

    If Obama were a Catholic, he would understand that nearly all of "us" (I don't participate in religious sports but grew up with this particular team) generally ignore whatever the fuck the pedophiles in the pulpit go on & on about every week and make up their own damn minds re: birth control.

    Catholicism is more like a loosely-organized club with calisthenics and singing.

      1. Redhead

        Depends on your definition of birth control. I've had more than one devout Catholic look me in the eyes and swear to me that the rhythm method works, oh so very well, and that they MEANT to have 9 kids all spaced one year to 15 months apart.

    1. slithytoves

      Obama really needs to get an expert on Catholicism to take him to school on this. He doesn't seem to understand that the bishops are just a bunch of guys who could never get a date with women or men and like to wear dresses. I don't even know what you would call them, besides, "bishops."

    2. Guppy

      This is why I'd like to see Santorum get the nomination. It's not often that the laity gets to vote on Vatican dogma.

  10. donner_froh

    The Roman Catholic clergy answer to the birth control "controversy": Rape boys–they can't get pregnant.

    Grants for advanced study at the Penn State athletic department available.

  11. MrFizzy

    I wish Obama would stop hanging out with Rosie O'Donnell's mom – she looks like holy hell in that dress.

    1. Biel_ze_Bubba

      The compromise calls for a third-party health insurer to provide contraception coverage. Basically. it allows the women to tell the Church to fuck off, and get the coverage they want, at the same price, through a non-employee plan.

      It should actually cost less, since the third party insurer won't be shelling out for pregnancy and childbirth expenses. The employee plan, on the other hand, will face higher costs when women who are on birth control opt out.

      Karma's a bitch (and she wants her pills.)

      1. prommie

        Its kinda genius-ey. And it got Santorum to take off his mask and look like the loon he is, too, with us liberals readying the tumbrils to take the religious to the guillotine.

        1. Biel_ze_Bubba

          It is sheer genius.

          The wingnuts can't complain, having hung their arguments on the "forcing" bullshit. Any GOP candidate who gripes will look like the idiot that he is. The affected women win, and might possibly come out ahead. And Obama, again, looks like a brilliant problem-solver to independent voters.

          Revealed check in dimension 7. Your move, GOPtards.

  12. GuanoFaucet

    Oh, for fuck's sake. This is the compromise, or at least what the NY Times says it will be:

    Emulating Hawaii, where the rule is in effect, would mean that employees at religious institutions that do not offer free contraception in the health insurance plan can get birth control through side benefits, which the employees nominally pay for but which often end up being free.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't really see him caving here.

  13. nounverb911

    "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me."
    –JFK

    Ah, the good old days.

    1. Schmannnity

      When a 45-year-old President could knock off some 19-year-old strange without a constitutional crisis?

    2. Lascauxcaveman

      Meh. JFK had balls, big clanging brass ones.

      But even he wouldn't have tried to force the Pope to spend his ill-gotten gold on birth control pills for the faithful.

      He knew how to pick his fights.

  14. chascates

    First they came for the contraceptives, but I did not speak up because I haven't got laid in ages.
    Then they came for . . .

  15. Buzz Feedback

    Would arresting under the RICO statute everyone who puts money in the collection basket be a step too far?

    1. SexySmurf

      I'm real happy for you, and I'm going to let you finish, but Beyonce sent me some of the best Valentines of all time.

  16. sharethegrief

    The ONE TRUE RELIGION has won, again. The only woman who is ever worthy of their adoration is Mary, being immaculate and all.

  17. fredbell

    The Catholic Church's Child Sexual Abuse scandal really reflects poorly on the church and especiallyAmerican bishops…I expect they will not have much influence on public policy going forward until all those in the church who ignored these awful abuses (including American bishops) are severely and properly dealt with….

  18. chascates

    Nutjob Matt Barber:
    I am hoping that they have called President Obama’s bluff here, because what’s the alternative now? Are they going to go in and start shutting down Catholic hospitals? Start shutting down Catholic schools? Start fining them inordinate amount of money? Start throwing priests in prison, pastors in prison, organizers and CEOs of Christian hospitals around the country in prison? They might!

    1. GOPCrusher

      What's too stop the Xtian hospitals and schools from denying employment unless a female employee agrees to abstain from any birth control whatsoever?
      They might!

    1. Toomush_Infer

      Nope – they're counting on the "Fruitcake Women" vote, which, face it, is nearly as big as the "Bloated White Ignoramous Male" vote, though maybe less self-serving….

  19. C_R_Eature

    Found this on CNN (I know):

    Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals that object to offering health plans that include contraception will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance company that provides the plan will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

    It sounds to me like Barry's come up with a Clever Workaround, if this is true. Especially since the Church's lawyer has come out and actually stated that the only compromise they'd accept is that all contraceptive services must be removed from everyone's health plans.
    I do hope I'm correct, but we'll see in a few minutes, I guess.

    1. mrblifil

      Yeah it's a fuck you to the Church. He's daring them to come out against giving ladies a nice thing for free that they want to have. Naturally they will say it's because he hates religion. In point of fact what's really going on is that our President just loves fuckin'.

    2. Limeylizzie

      I'm with ya Creature, I think it's the smart, sensible response, rather than seeing weeks more of the pallid, male pundits yammering about shit they know nothing about.

      1. C_R_Eature

        It sure looks like that from here. The "compromise" preserves the Right of women to have access to affordable reproductive health care while removing the only reasonable religious objection.

        It's a clever bit of political Ju-Jitsu, if it works…because the Outrage machine is running full tilt now and can't be stopped in time before it runs headlong into some really stupid and embarrassing situations for the Wingers.

        What's next with these people, Repeal of the Anti-Miscegenation laws? What it some "Religious Institution" requires that? And why don't the American Bishops bust all the Republican politician's Balls about their stand on Capital punishment?
        No less than the Current Pope came out against that, just recently. Pro Life, much?

        1. Limeylizzie

          MrLimeylizzie said it's great because all the Repubs. basically just came out and said women shouldn't use birth-control!

    3. DarwinianDemon

      I believe Planned Parenthood supports this decision, and although personally Id rather he just say "fuck you church, this is bullshit", as Rachel Maddow said on FB, this is actually a decent attempt to "thread the needle".

      But you know, hysterics anyway. Rubios bill would allow any organization to opt out of contraceptioon but..duh….there's no difference between dems and republicans.

  20. V572 Flambé

    So if freedom of religion trumps every other right that anybody ever has, then if the Catholic Church wanted to do something awful — systematically assfuck little boys and hide it from the law for years, for instance — nothing should be allowed to get in the way.

    Seems reasonable.

    1. Radiotherapy

      Why can't Mormons have multiple wives, or we can't buy liquor on Sunday, or every fucking Catholic is beholden to the Nazi in the pic (the one on the right), or they can have the Sharia-Talmudic-Biblical Law they want. Fuck these fuckity fucks. Can't Obama see that the only respect he loses is ours?

  21. MissTaken

    I really wish American men would stand up to this bullshit and support the women against this celibate mafia of vagina hate. Remember guys, when we can fuck without constantly worrying about "am I gonna get knocked up?" or "I really hope I don't catch syphilis" we are MUCH more fun in bed.

    1. prommie

      Well, sometimes, when your Catholic girls turn to the blowjobs as the lesser of two evils, that can work out well for us.

    2. Chet Kincaid

      I really wish American women would support Feminism. 90 years ago, women who couldn't even vote got the country to enact a goddamned stupid policy of Prohibition that no besotted white male supported; now we're arguing over fucking condoms.

  22. freakishlywrong

    Too bad this is all really about the Republicans looking like doody-headed toddlers, throwing tantrums about a Clint fucking Eastwood commercial because maybe the economy was improving a tiny bit. Can't have any good news! To the Outrageometer! Talk about anything but good news and get the always enabling "media" to play along!

  23. KeepFnThatChicken

    So how many little orphan boys are grandfathered in for Dick Cheney to eat, thanks to this deal?

  24. V572 Flambé

    Barry's pitching it right now, saying the insurance companies have to pay rather than the Church. In other words: a tapdance around the fact that the rule still stands. Yea, Barry!

  25. chascates

    Barry holding presser now to announce he's retreating in the face of unhappy men who insist women not decide what happens to their bodies.

    1. prommie

      No, he is saying "OK, Bishop, if it offends your morals to buy the coverage for your employees, don't, but the employee can still go get the coverage, for free, directly from the insurance company. So whats your problem now, boy-fucker?"

  26. sunmusing

    If'n all of these "non-political" pulpit pushers got something to say, let them say it with TAXES. Tax them all. Tax them big. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, ohh I'm ranting again.

    1. chascates

      Because 'uppity' women (who don't need men to run their lives), just like out and open gayz, scare the ignorant. The GOP wants to return to the good old days. Of subservient women, invisible gays and lesbians, and people of color who 'know' their place.

  27. Chichikovovich

    Slow down gang. It's not yet time to cry havok and let slip the dogs of war. To say the administration is "set to" do something suggests that this is still at the trial balloon stage. And everything depends a lot on what the precise details of the "alternative, low cost insurance" is required to be. Perhaps the administration is counting on this being an alternative that the Church will reject so that they can represent themselves as prepared to compromise but opposed by fanatics.

    Nothing has actually happened, and even if it does happen we don't know what the specifics of any planned compromise will be.

    I'm wrong about this kind of stuff all the time, so I hope I'm not wrong here. But it is inconceivable to me that the administration – and indeed any Democrat who isn't essentially a Republican on these issues – isn't salivating at the chance to shift the social issues focus from abortion to birth control. If their public relations strategy isn't calibrated to speed that shift along, they are incompetent. (Of course, that's not to say that they haven't done stupid things in the past, but I don't see them failing to be aware of this one.) So they leak the details of some contemplated compromise that still ensures birth control access to anyone who desires it. Gives them a chance to talk about how the compromise still makes birth control – covering insurance available, how important it is to them, etc, and generally still keep the conversation focused on birth control. But also gives people on our side the sense that the wolves are at the door on this issue, so they will get loud and angry. Gives people on the anti-birth control side the sense that they are making progress, so they will keep talking about it.

  28. notreelyhelping

    Uh…if the new plan sucks so bad, how come Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are giving it the okay?

      1. Cicada

        No, it's because they actually understand the policy being advocated. That's what they do for a living, after all.

        The current policy change being advocated is that women will still get their contraceptives covered, but that the religious orgs can hand off the administration to a third party insurer to keep their hands clean. So , if you care about women getting coverage then you are okay with this plan (hence PP's support). If it's more important to you that religious orgs not be given any exemption, no matter how meaningless, then go right ahead and scream FUCKING OBAMA CAVED AGAIN!!!!

        Wonkette Jr. is a fucking hack for reporting this in such a stupid and ill-informed way. Seriously, I get that it's humor but you should at least get the facts straight.

        From the very same article Jr. linked to:
        The White House proposed a compromise that will allow religious organisations to opt out of providing coverage that would include birth control for women. But insurers will be required to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

        1. orygoon

          Wow, that's just awesome. I think we should take this farther. Employers don't have to provide coverage for–medical stuff. Any of it. But the insurance companies have to give it to us for free. For no money.

          Sign me up.

          1. Cicada

            Since the ACA language says that you can't charge women different premiums then men and that all institutions receiving federal money have to provide no co-pay BC coverage, there are already a lot of plans out there that will have adjusted accordingly.

            At any rate, it's a lot cheaper to pay for BC than abortions or maternity care. That, more than anything, is probably why the insurance companies are cool with this.

  29. jallend1

    Wonkette is funny and all, but I think Planned Parenthood might be a more reliable source on women's reproductive issues…They're take:

    “In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women’s health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work. We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits."

    Incendiary headlines promoting outrage are great for clicks, but not for any meaningful takeaway.

  30. chascates

    There is still some power left in protest: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-

    Android's Iris, a Siri-like service, changes stand on abortion
    If it is powered by Android, and running the Siri-like voice-recognition system Iris, you may be surprised to learn that until Wednesday morning, it was decidedly anti-abortion.
    Cha Cha, the real-time Q&A service that powers Iris, has made some changes as of this morning, but before that, if you asked Iris "Is abortion wrong?" the answer you got was: "Yes, abortion is wrong. The Lord has said, 'You shall not murder.' Exodus 20:13. The life that is growing within the mother is a child, a baby. The Bible looks at the life in the womb as a child. Thanks!"

    1. sewollef

      Off topic, but I was led into it:

      IRIS – SIRI, really? They just spelled it back-to-front. Android seriously couldn't think up a name all by themselves? Dear-oh-dear.

      1. James Michael Curley

        IRIS is a voice recognition system that has existed for at least twenty years. I think it is owned by Nuance now.

    2. James Michael Curley

      Iphone Android or whatever, why would anyone take the advice of a cell phone. I don't even listen to my car when it tells me where to go and the car is much bigger.

  31. prommie

    New headline: Obama rope-a-dopes religious fundamentalists, highlights their unreasonable and unpopular demands, while ensuring women have contraceptive coverage." Please substitute, thank you.

  32. Joshua Norton

    Fortunately for the women in California, state law already requires religious organizations to provide these services.

    If the red beanie set thinks they'll have a snowball's chance in hell of getting those laws revoked, there's a nice pot of tar and a whole bunch of feathers just waiting for them.

  33. Harry_S_Truman

    Man alive, that 80-year old virgin and his lot sure have pantsload to say about something they're supposedly not taking part in ('cept, of course, where it comes to anally raping young boys).

  34. anniegetyerfun

    I honestly couldn't believe the coverage of this "scandal" last week. Even commie news outlets like NPR were, like, "American Catholics feel betrayed and the administration is going to have to backtrack."

    1. HistoriCat

      NPR's coverage of anything with even a whiff of politics is pathetic. They're curled up in the fetal position, hoping that if they water everything down and play "both sides do it" then the Republicans will stop calling them "liberal media". I guess they just don't get it.

  35. themolluskking

    Nazi child molester in Rome? Come on Wonkette, Jr., there's a difference between snark and just being a dick…

    1. real_dc_native

      OK, this is more accurate: Some of the Catholics in Rome are Nazi sympathizes. Some of them are child molesters and some are criminal money launderers. But not all of them or at the same time.

  36. kissawookiee

    Anyone catch Mike Huckabee at CPAC? "Today we are all Catholics."

    Yeah, including those of us who thought we'd escaped long ago, apparently.

    1. GOPCrusher

      Yeah, it's shit like this that makes me wish the Republiklan candidates were right and the President is engaged in a war against religion.

  37. el_donaldo

    My solution would be to require ALL religious fanatical men to wear outfits like the Pope's before they can soil the public discourse with their inane objections. At least then people could see them for what they are.

  38. snoopyfan2010

    Unpopular opinion warning!!!
    I still like the guy. I understand why he did it. As a Catholic, I can say that while the church has old fashioned views on contraception, it has progressive views on charity. At least they are consistant on their issues instead of picking and choosing which ones are convenient for them.

  39. BarackMyWorld

    Everybody chillllll:
    Women's advocacy groups were generally pleased with the Obama administration's "accommodation" on Friday because it maintains birth control coverage with no co-pay for most women.

    Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, praised the compromise, but warned that it would still not appease the policy's staunchest opponents…

    Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, reacted with a similar level of caution…

    A senior White House official told reporters on Friday that Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, also backed the decision. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not yet responded to the news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/obama-bi

    1. DarwinianDemon

      NEVER!!!! I'd rather be outraged based on a misleading Wonkette headline! Obama is Mitt Romney! Both parties are the same! Yarblegarbleglugglug

  40. An_Outhouse

    "threatening to alienate Catholics in an election year"

    The only Catholics he alienated can be counted on two hands and one foot and are not going to vote for him any way.

  41. Fare la Volpe

    Why is it that the assholes who most want to regulate a woman's vagina have never even seen one in person?

  42. Toomush_Infer

    Yeah, but what a great pic – the eyes on that old Nazi are so cunning, the Medicis and Machiavelli and 2000 years of outlasting the Emperors, combined with some magic fuzzy finger tickling handshake to the naive black guy who happens to control the purse strings for a moment in time….

  43. gullywompr

    Actually what Obama has done is make sure all women have access to contraceptives, respected religious beliefs, and toppled the GOP's fantasy argument.

    Jr., I find your lack of faith… disturbing.

    1. MegPasadena

      After stirring up the pot and getting people all riled up, I think Jr. owed us a change of the headline or an update for the full story.

  44. real_dc_native

    <rant>
    I'm pretty sick and tired of our national policy being dictated by religious fanatics. The Catholic Church has absolutely no moral capital between there obscene handling of child abuse by their staff and money laundering by the Vatican Bank not to mention hundreds of years of trying to wipe out the Muslims and the Jews. I'm sick of a few fanatic Jews dictating our dangerous and unfair policies in the Mideast while our tax money supports the standard of living in Israel. Don't even get me started on the tax breaks on religious media mega-businesses that are little more than con-games. At the same time we can't let the Muslims build a community center anywhere in New York without major controversy. Fuck Billy Graham for starting this "Christian Nation" bullshit. Fuck Jimmy Carter for making being Christan an election issue. GET RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS!
    </rant>

  45. slowhansolo

    The only Catholics I know who really got really upset about this whole thing are the ones who hate Obama. All two of them. It's not about contraception. It's about the near, always about the near.

  46. Tom

    Obama keeps on giving in to the republicans because he thinks it's going to help him win in November. IT'S NOT! Are any members of the religious right going to think "well at least this Muslim terrorist Kenyan who wants to force us to gay marry and have abortions isn't going to force us to provide women with birth control" and then vote for him? No!
    Obama won in '08 by winning over independents, but mostly by motivating the democratic base in a way that Gore and Kerry couldn't do. However, by never standing up to the republicans, by giving in time after time, Obama hasn't given the democrats a reason to get excited again, which is why there is a serious and scary chance that he might lose in November.

  47. dzymzlzy

    Oh calm down. Instead of requiring the employers to provide coverage the new rule will require the insurance companies to provide free birth control coverage to those employed by entities that opt out of contraceptive coverage.

  48. ghblowhard

    The Holy Father appears to be eying President Obama like he's a big fat lolly Pop! Er Pope! ER Pop! Oh dear I have to go to Confession now.

  49. fuflans

    apparently i mispoke yesterday. it is nazi week here at wonkette.

    which is just fine as it gives me an excuse to watch 'inglorious bastards' again as mr. fuflans is standing me up to go to a poetry center.

  50. Steverino247

    If you think it's going to be difficult to fix what W did to this country in eight years, how hard is it going to be to fix what religious belief has done to humanity in the past 2,000 years. We're not going as fast as I want us to go, but at least we're moving in the correct direction.

    Yes, I want women to be able to fuck without worrying about the consequences…wait, where was I?

  51. smitallica

    I am taking solace in the fact that the hardcore Mackerel Snappers are STILL pissed off and say this doesn't go far enough. So I think this is less of a cave than semantic wordfuckery to appease a bunch of religious fanatics. But we'll see.

  52. Redhead

    You know what's a great way to reduce the number of abortions? Make it expensive, complicated, and cumbersome to get birth control! Yeah, that'll teach them whores, getting all uppity and thinking they actually have a say in their lives and their bodies and what not.

    And hell, while we're at it, why not ignore the fact that the government is letting them get away with this bullshit in their own churches but saying, hey, you know what, you don't have a right to impose YOUR religious views on people who work, not at your church, but at this other institution that just HAPPENS to be run by someone who GOES to your church. Why not stamp your feet and cry that your right to religious freedom (to impose your religious views on everyone else) is being taken away! Why not!

    I'm sure there would be similar outcry if an Islamic manager of a Target refused to let any of his employees bring pork for their lunch since it was against his views, or if a Jehovah's Witness refused to let any of his employees have time off at Christmas, since recognizing holidays is against his religious views, and by granting time off, he's essentially giving a free paid day. I'm sure they'd be outraged.

  53. Extemporanus

    Wonkette, Jr.: Read the fucking article, and stop writing lazy, inaccurate headlines and copy that give commenters who are too lazy to read the fucking article reason to write lazy and inaccurate fucking comments. Please.

    Wonketteers: I'm going for another walk, friends. Please give Barb my best, and don't wait up…

  54. poorgradstudent

    Liberal Atheist Allah knows I'm the last person to buy into the "Eleven-dimensional chess" theory for explaining Obama's more than occasional lapses into nasty Third Wayisms, but I do hope some of ya'll are right about this being an attempt to make the Republicans fly their anti-birth control flag. At the least it does seem like Obama is trying to back them into a "compromise" that won't really mean anything except let the Catholics think their whining accomplished something, but it remains to be seen what will happen when they inevitably cry, "But compromise means you do everything we want!"

  55. MozakiBlocks

    I thought I'd gone to the wrong website for a second. Planned Parenthood ( remember them?) says ok, so I say ok.

  56. MissNancyPriss

    The only smart thing the GOP has done since Obama was elected was to pit Democrats against the Democratic president by propagating the idea that we are so naive that our expectations of this man transcended what we know to be true about money, politics, racism, ignorance, religious mania and abject stupidity. It started with the "Barack the magic negro" crap and we let ourselves be sucked in and it's working. I for one – I supported Hillary – was never presumptuous enough to think that Barack Obama would be using his executive privilege to dismantle the entire corrupted system of governance that has developed and rotted for generations. Half of this country is made up of people so bigoted, so deeply stupid that it is insane to think even the highest office in the US would be able to turn the country into what we all – Obama included – dream of, and disregard that other half the population. i will be damned if I allow these ideological terrorists to make me turn on this president. It is the only way they can win and as God is my witness, I will not have "Rick Santorum" as my president. To say that he and Obama are one and the same is not laughable, it is abhorrent. Don't lose to Rush Limbaugh, don't fall for their buyers remorse psychopathy or get sucked into their hell. if i gave in it, jeopardizing voter turn out in November, that helps put a maniac like Rick Santorum in the White House, I could not look myself in the mirror in the morning.

    1. poorgradstudent

      Yeah, because it's all a conspiracy and manipulation and nobody can ever, ever have an honest disagreement with the President's policies especially the controversial civil rights policies that he was clearly behind 100% (but he's completely powerless anyway).

      Read up on "neoliberalism" and Clinton's rebranding strategy …if you're actually interested in why us "firebaggers" might be a little peeved with certain aspects of Obama's policies, which you're not.

      1. MissNancyPriss

        Yes, I am. Anything in particular you recommend? I don't have a large information framework to draw from, admittedly. Too poor for college, so sort of a failing autodidact. Trying, but failing.

        1. poorgradstudent

          Thanks, and I am genuinely sorry for my belligerent tone. I've been lectured enough times, both online and in "meatspace", about how my issues with Obama all come out of anything – progressive pessimism, naivete, cynicism – except genuine ideological differences that sometimes in conversations like these it's a really short trip to "raging bitch" mode.

          A lot of the best literature on neoliberalism I'm aware of deals with international politics, especially the IMF, and not specifically the US. But along those lines I can recommend an article by Al Jazeera. It's mostly about southern Europe, and it calls the phenomenon "technocracy" (which is the same as neoliberalism, although I'm sure a PhD in Political Science can dispute me on that), but I think much of what the article says can easily be applied to the US:
          http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/

          Eric Touissant is a French political scientist who has written a lot about neoliberalism in the US. This is one of his articles that I particularly like (er, don't let the shockingly bad editing undermine his points):
          http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&amp

          About neoliberalism in the US, I really would recommend Colin Crouch's "The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism." I somewhat disagree with a few of his conclusions, but I think he gives the best indictment of the Democratic Party's behavior during the Recession of 2007. On Clinton specifically, there's "Surrender: How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution" (which is discussed thoroughly here: http://monthlyreview.org/2001/04/01/neoliberalism….

          1. MissNancyPriss

            thank you! i just purchased the michael meeropol book, and after reading the global research article, a book by eric toussaint ominously titled "your money or your life"….will report back – if i haven't self-immolated, that is.

  57. Respitetini

    Meh. The Democrats left me behind in '92, so I've never been this POTUS's biggest fan. That said, what he actually did on the whole silly (holy crap is it 2012 and we're still talking about the freaking pill?!) issue, as opposed to what the Guardian was predicting, was pretty nimble. So, for the first time since January of '09, good on ya, Mr. President.

  58. io9k9s

    Quite frankly I am tired of watching Obama juxtapose himself against the extremist right just to slink away and store the footage for the re-election campaign. In fact I am getting downright cranky about these stunts….

  59. LadyWisdom

    You've got the story wrong. Women will go directly through the insurance company, their birth control will be free and they won't be paying extra premiums. You need to update this.

  60. Chet Kincaid

    God forbid Wonkette should ever put up a post about anything positive Obama has ever mistakenly stumbled into doing! Since the inauguration, there has been a grand total of one — a backhanded compliment last month about the pipeline. EDIT: OK, there have been a few others. Osama; the early pirate take-out; and the fly-swatting on camera. But everything else Obama has served has been a miserable shit sandwich!!

  61. qwerty42

    Well, Anna North over on Jezebel seems to think this one is ok, and PP is cautiously in agreement. So, I'm kinda thinking this one is doable.

  62. Gainsbourg69

    The headline should be changed. Obama struck a hell of a deal on the contraception hullabaloo while the GOP jumped the shark big time on women's reproductive rights. The best part is that Marco Rubio went full right tard and took a position which will harm him if he gets the nod for VP.

  63. real_dc_native

    One thing I have to say about the Wonketteers. (that you'll never see on a "Conservative" blog) When there's an overly-hysterical headline they will call Wonkette out on it.

    Some Wonketteers also saying calm down it's not as bad as being reported. And no one gets pissed off and starts calling each other names or childish stuff like that. For all of our raunchy humor, I have to complement the Wonketteers on being classy. And I mean that as a compliment!

  64. aliajactest

    Oof.

    I generally land on Wonkette a few times a week for some light scatological political reading but you guys have seriously slipped a few credibility notches with this article and thread.

    Like say one for every breathless "TRAITOR" !!!outrage!11!!!1! didn't-bother-to-actually-find-out what-the-hell-was-going-on-or-follow-up-on-it hyperventilating nonsense post here.

    I have registered expressly to tell you this: you are a bunch of fucking twits. Go back to writing stories about ass-fucking republicans and stop sprawling on your fainting couch clutching at your "but..but…BETRAYAL" smelling salts whilst pretending to care about my reproductive organs. If you actually cared, you might do something like actually report or update instead of waxing hysterical about how horribly outraged all of us wimminfolk should be.

    And yes, I am deliberately using misogynistic tropes in my criticism. Parse this how you will.

  65. Negropolis

    I hate that he did this, because the optics are bad. But, on the substance, I'd hardly call this caving. Compared to the shit he's given up on in the face of challenge, before, what he offered to The Church is crumbs. Their employees still get the coverage, but it has to go through an additional hoop, which is what already happens in quite a few states. But, the point remains that the employees still get it, and they don't have to pay for it out of pocket. From what I understand, the insurance companies have to eat the costs.

    Now, that said, that The Church is getting to call any shots over secular matters remains disturbing. I wonder if the Obama administration really didn't see this coming? This was obviously a cynical ploy launched by conservatives after they saw Romney tying the president in polls slipping away.

  66. aliajactest

    Read it:

    As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money –- for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one.

    We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. In addition to family planning, doctors often prescribe contraception as a way to reduce the risks of ovarian and other cancers, and treat a variety of different ailments. And we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services.

    Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.

    Whether you’re a teacher, or a small businesswoman, or a nurse, or a janitor, no woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes. Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period. This basic principle is already the law in 28 states across the country.

    Now, as we move to implement this rule, however, we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here –- and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution. As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.

    In fact, my first job in Chicago was working with Catholic parishes in poor neighborhoods, and my salary was funded by a grant from an arm of the Catholic Church. And I saw that local churches often did more good for a community than a government program ever could, so I know how important the work that faith-based organizations do and how much impact they can have in their communities.

    I also know that some religious institutions -– particularly those affiliated with the Catholic Church -– have a religious objection to directly providing insurance that covers contraceptive services for their employees. And that’s why we originally exempted all churches from this requirement -– an exemption, by the way, that eight states didn’t already have.

    And that’s why, from the very beginning of this process, I spoke directly to various Catholic officials, and I promised that before finalizing the rule as it applied to them, we would spend the next year working with institutions like Catholic hospitals and Catholic universities to find an equitable solution that protects religious liberty and ensures that every woman has access to the care that she needs.

    Now, after the many genuine concerns that have been raised over the last few weeks, as well as, frankly, the more cynical desire on the part of some to make this into a political football, it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option, that we needed to move this faster. So last week, I directed the Department of Health and Human Services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. We weren’t going to spend a year doing this; we’re going to spend a week or two doing this.

    Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

    The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they’ll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.

    END 12:30 P.M. EST

    Complicated issue? Yes. Issue you have portrayed? no.

    But, hey…why worry about the meaningful nuances of a real controversy when we can just make shit up? That's cool…hotair, redstate and freerepublic all agree so you must be on to something! Tally ho, ho!

  67. ttommyunger

    Thought bubble over Barry's head: "OMG, this is the creepiest motherfucker on the planet, this hand feels like a cold turd wrapped in dirty socks, hold the smile, hold the smile, ewwww…" Thought bubble over Pope's head: "I'll bet my hand would have to be like ziss big to hold your ballz, Barry."

  68. WRH_Mike

    Wonkette has fallen for Obama's trick. Obama could care less about women or the Catholic church. But Obama is desperate to lure the campaign debate away from the wars and the economy, because if voters are thinking about the wars and the economy come November than Obama will be studying the unemployment problem from a more personal perspective. So Obama and all the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul) are hot and bothered to get the people worked up about abortion, church and state, illegal immigrants, gay marriage, or any other side issue that keeps people from looking at those things that affect ALL Americans' lives; the economy and the wars.

  69. lulzmonger

    Shorter Wonkette Jr. = Ready! Fire! Aim!

    Yes, that gutless wonder Obama just … got women who can't get Catholic-run facilities to provide them with coverage access to free birth-control.

    THE MISOGYNIST BASTARD!

    Even worse, he made American bishops (along with the likes of Santorum & Rubio) look like the slope-foreheaded sexist dickweeds they are, just by firing up their Self-Righteous Poutrage subroutine & letting them do all the dirty work for him … damn, what a political n00b! How does he even tie his own shoes, maaaaaaaan?

    Wingnuts & Leftier-Than-Thous alike sure do home in on that dark-skinned Presidentin' guy like sharks on chum any time he does or says anything whatsoever – & if it doesn't fit into their nice neat prefab storyline, then FUCK REALITY! Also sure seem to love love love them some galloping doom-&-gloom confirmation bias when it comes to anything that doesn't smell like TOTAL VICTORY 4 MY SIED FOREVAR & EVAR.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us pathetic deluded sheeple must somehow toil on under the curse of perceiving a spectrum with more than two colours, & try not to put an eye out with all the fucking facepalming we do every day.

    Call me back when Obama bails on an executive order initiating a tsunami of RICO raids on these fat Latin-droning creeps with the funny hats for knowingly aiding & abetting an active international pedophilia ring … THEN you can save me a nice warm cot on the Whaaaaaaambulance.

  70. PrestonDawknes

    ….PLEASE…. go to reXes NEW WebsiTe ~ ! Oboma *( Just like Adolf Hitler~~\oBOMA~~~ Demands ! — [ THE FINAL SOLUTION - for Un~Wanted Children

    Barak Obama is A MURDERER .~Torturing UNWANTED babys on DEATH ROE.

    CLICK HERE http://obomlnation.webstarts.com/index.html

    OBAMA TAKES a little NEW BORN innocent child, BORN ALIVE sTabS it iN the head and SUCKs ITS BRAINS OUT.

    This is just too wrong and horrible. Please stand for Loving Children and the USA.

    Respectfully and Thankfully Thank you ALL for your Time.

    To see HORRIBLE HONOR Killings~` HATE CRIMES ]`~ ! eXecuted by the CLINTON,RENO and ATF Media WHO COMMITTED H0NOR KILLINGs [

    SLAUGHTERING }] 21 LITTLE Helpless Children at Waco.

    Click Here http://obomlnation.webstarts.com/partly_born_tota

Comments are closed.