Individual Freedom and the Birth Control Debate: Finally, a Man's Perspective

This whole recent debate about birth control has been truly one of the worst examples of how we Liberal and Conservative Americans talk to one another. There has famously been a whole lot of name calling, but not a lot of listening. And it definitely has been cutting both ways.

Terrible things have been said by Rush Limbaugh regarding Sandra Fluke's testimony about birth control to Congress, and he has been rightfully excoriated by the mainstream media to the point where his advertisers are having a hard time justifying their sponsorship of his program. But while it is fun and a little bit cathartic to jump on the anti-Rush bandwagon, I think we've lost what is a legitimate concern for right-wing types: why should birth control be subsidized by taxpayers and not by users of birth control?

Limbaugh's tirade came on the heels of an earlier discussion that was kicked off by the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius when she announced that women needed to be granted free birth control coverage by insurance companies, and that there would not be a religious exemption granted for religious-owned organizations that did not primarily serve a religious clientele. Catholic Church members and social conservatives pointed out that this was an unprecedented government infringement on the separation of church and state. But too often their concerns were blown off as just the same old anti-choice womyn-hating bluster by establishment media.

There are legitimate concerns about government overreach and freedom of religion at the heart of these debates, and I think these concerns need to be acknowledged and addressed.

However, I also think that the concerns of Liberals aren't getting the proper amount of attention. Advocates of free birth control for women are not advocating taxpayer-funded guilt-free sex for sluts. Their concern is the relationship between cost and access to birth control, especially for the poor, and that by expanding access to birth control, poor women would be able to define their own economic destiny more easily. But no one is making this argument. Those who should be making this argument are too often making the argument that Conservatives are bullies and pigs and should be ignored.

One thing all of us Americans should be able to agree on is that the right of an individual to be able to choose things in life (religion, career, products and services) should be preserved whenever pragmatic. That's why it's so annoying to me to see these arguments where the Conservatives are the only ones who are pointing out the government infringement on an individual's right to choose, be it a pious employer or an outraged taxpayer. By choosing to upbraid Rush Limbaugh, liberal media types leave the link between lack of money and lack of choice unexposed, which is surprising considering the success that Occupy Wall Street had in raising awareness at the advantages that wealthy people have in a capitalist society.

And just in case Liberals are thinking that they don't need to address these arguments because the public is on their side, they should really take a look at this recent New York Times / CBS poll (page 22) that shows that 51% of Americans believe that not just religious organizations but all employers ought to be able to opt out of offering insurance that covers birth control if it violates their conscience, compared to just 40% that say employers shouldn't be able to. The numbers go to 57% / 36% when only religious organizations are counted.

We may be winning the Battle of Rush Limbaugh, but we are definitely losing the War of Insurance Coverage for Birth Control (note: we'll probably need to come up with a better name for this war).

Hey, haters! The Inaugural Speech Didn't Suck!

Look out, America, Barack Obama's at the wheel now!

Unlike a lot of commentators, I thought it was a great inaugural speech. Maybe they were expecting the best speech of their lives, perhaps a speech that would make sweet, sweet love to the English language as Daily Show correspondent Aasif Mandvi said. But what we got was something that I was hoping for; a polite implicit castigation of the policies of former president George W. Bush.

He started out by listing all the big problems in our country today; job losses, health care costs, oil-dependent energy policy, et cetera. Then he started with the hope spiel, which all along has been an implicit put-down of the fear politics of former president Bush. Obama made sure to proclaim an end to the "recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Always an expert at reframing the debate, Obama put the big government vs. small government argument to rest by saying we need a government that works; and he pleaded for a new era of transparency to replace the shadowy dealings of former Lord Cheney and his minions. And then he said probably my favorite line of the whole speech, "The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." Take that, tax cuts for the wealthy!

Of course this was a good line too: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." This is about as flowery as a statement of rejection of torture and illegal wiretapping can get. Obama went on to make the case for diplomacy over brute power using history and pragmatism as a reference. "Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Speak softly, even if you do have a big stick.

As a president, Obama must now make tough statements directed at unfriendly nations just like former president Bush was fond of doing. But even Obama's tough statements are tempered with moderation. Take for instance the sentence that is now banned in China: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." If former president Bush was the one speaking, he probably would have stopped after "history".

Then Obama wrapped it up basically by saying we shall overcome if all nations can see we share a common respect for humanity, and that we shall prosper by taking responsibility for our actions, and let's keep gettin' better, America! So while it was maybe not an epic speech, it served its purpose of turning the page on the Bush administration and uplifting a nation that has taken a few punches over the last 8 years.

So now the real business begins!

Reframing the Debate: Alberto Gonzales Resigns

With two sentences in an otherwise routine speech, President Bush completely changed the complexion of the discourse on the legacy of outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Last month, after it was announced that Alberto Gonzales was resigning his post of Attorney General amid several different scandals, the President delivered a statement from the Waco airport bidding his close friend and ally an official good-bye. Slipped into the speech, right after recognizing Gonzales's family and right before tapping Paul Clement to temporarily succeed him, Bush gave his opinion of the Justice Department scandal:

"After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position, and I accept his decision. It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

This was clearly meant to be a jab at those who consider the Attorney General to be a servant of the public and the Constitution, and not just of the President. The "unfair treatment" referred to months of congressional testimony given by Gonzales where at different times, he inconsistently claimed innocence, ignorance, or executive privelege regarding the U.S. attorney firings and the Terrorist Surveilance Program. His perjurous testimony did indeed create, among other things, a "harmful distraction at the Justice Department", especially when considering the trouble he got former aides Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling into, among others.

Bush calls Gonzales "talented and honorable" and claims that he has a "good name". He even called him "Judge Gonzales" to make him sound more unbiased and dignified, even though Gonzales was obviously no longer serving on the Texas Supreme Court. Bush paints a picture of a noble and just hero who tragically fell victim to unfounded accusations from corrupt politicians looking to score political points. But when so many members of both the House and the Senate, including both Democrats to Republicans, from liberal members like Russ Feingold to conservative members like my state's junior senator Tom Coburn, come together in such a bipartisan manner to express dissatisfaction with the actions of one individual, well, your hero cred goes way down. Just another example of "reframing the debate", a tactic expertly and frequently employed by George W. Bush.

As an aside, I agree that the original scandal of the executive branch firing U.S. attorneys, government employees who work at the discretion of the President, was a little bit of political mud-dragging. After all, it may be a black eye to fire someone not for performance reasons but rather for political affiliations, but it's still legal for the President to do. It's really the manner in which the scandal was handled that I have objection to, first with the refusal to meet with members of Congress on the record, then to the refusal of congressional subpoenas, and then with the outright absurd claim of executive privelege, and finally to the lies and contradictions in testimony. Really, if there was nothing to hide, why try to hide it so much?

- QP