Big bird, BS and birth control
WASHINGTON — We shouldn’t be talking about this silliness—Big Bird, “bull—er,” or a girl’s “first time.” We should be talking about The Issues, we keep telling ourselves. But in the waning days of the presidential campaign, these are the issues—binders full of cultural issues that continue to divide us and by which Barack Obama hopes to win re-election.
It is no accident that the war of competing economic theories has devolved into the same old culture war, beginning with the debate about the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act. Ever since, the Obama campaign has strategically tried to push the Republican Party and Mitt Romney into a corner by advancing the war on women narrative.
That Obama has had ample help from certain outspoken players (Missouri and Indiana Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, respectively, to name the most notorious) has only made Romney’s challenges greater. But the war against women has always been a red herring.
Random comments by a couple of outliers provided wind for Obama’s sails. Akin’s remarks, that women don’t get pregnant when “legitimately” raped, was just idiotic and immediately dismissed by Republican Party leadership, including Romney. Yet Mourdock’s view, that a child conceived by rape is God’s will, deserves some perspective.
Obviously, he wasn’t endorsing rape. He apparently belongs to that sliver of pro-lifers who insist that even babies conceived of rape are worthy of protection. They, too, are God’s children.
Although most Americans, including those who are enthusiastically pro-life, support exemptions for rape and incest, Mourdock’s argument is not nonsensical. If life begins at conception, then one life is not worth less than another owing to the circumstances of creation. The embryo bears no blame.
Given this context, Mourdock’s argument is logical.
But we bend logic as needed. We weigh pros and cons and make difficult choices. Thus, most would resolve Mourdock’s Muddle as follows: Given the horror of rape and the consequences for the woman, we find for the woman. It is no good solution, certainly not for the gestating human, but it is acceptable to most. It is also certainly not a decision one should make for another.
Mourdock may have been indelicate in stating his position, but he is hardly a monster for believing that the definition of life, like the definition of rape, should not be parsed. As to Romney’s choice to not comment, why would he? This is the ultimate no-win—and the answer is meaningless except as a political point—which perhaps explains the media’s insistence on a response.
Romney’s position on the subject is clear. He supports exceptions for rape and incest. He also said early in the primary season: “Contraception, it’s working just fine. Just leave it alone.” So why are we still talking about it? This pseudo-debate is, as Joe Biden would put it, “malarkey.” Just possibly, a child could recognize the “bull—er” aspect to this non-issue, to borrow the phrasing of Obama during a recent Rolling Stone interview.
The contraception issue never would have come up but for Obama’s decision to force the hand of the Catholic Church. By placing religious institutions in the position of having to provide health insurance to pay for contraception as well as sterilization, which, agree or not, are against church teaching, Obama created the conversation.
Some church leaders support Obama’s position, but not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Nor do many religious institutions, including University of Notre Dame, that have sued the Obama administration on First Amendment grounds.
Obama reasoned correctly that he had the majority with him, especially among women and youth, for many of whom these debates seem antiquated to not-applicable. Hence, a new Obama ad by HBO “Girls” creator and star Lena Dunham in which she compares voting for the first time (for a man who understands women) to, you know, “doing it” for the first time. It’s … what it is: A message to young women that losing one’s virginity is top of the bucket list, but first you gotta vote for the president who will give you free contraception.
The same ol’ culture wars. But, of course, women have had access to birth control for decades and no one is trying to take it away. Anyone who suggests otherwise may have been spending too much time with Big Bird.
Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Oct 29, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
LaborParty, the fringe left can't stand the meer thought of a woman who wants to keep a baby and not kill him/her. This is a liberal issue that is going nowhere for your party because you are so far off base no one is listening. You may as well hum the new children's song about government taking better care of them then their parents.
The liberal party has "jumped the shark"
Oct 29, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama Suggests a "Secretary of Business" in a 2nd Term. Another last ditch effort for votes and stupidity as we already have a Dept. of Commerce and Secretary.
My choice: An overspending liberal set to spend more tax dollars duplicating yet another Dept. - or - a Governor who didn't take a salary and vows to Donate his President salary.
Oct 29, 2012 at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Elites in the U.N., enabled by Obama and Hillary Clinton, mean to create global governance to override American self-rule and independence.
Dreams in Obama book
And because they would be enumerated in a treaty, not an act of Congress, only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board.
The Republican House has no role in the treaty-making process.
It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is reelected to ALL Americans.
But here’s the shocker: he will invite the United Nations to also tax Americans directly.
Treaty on hold until after election.
The proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Hussein Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.
Oct 29, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, and also the fact that the person in Ca responsible for the reporting on the jobs is a big Obama donor. Such a coincidence!
Oct 29, 2012 at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm sure Wislady you are well aware that the last jobs report didn't include California. And the monthly will have to be adjusted just before the election next week.
Of course they will delay it. It's continued bad news for Obama.
Along with the mass Libya cover up by WH and enabled by media.
Evidence the media knows Obama is in very big trouble.
When you look deep into the independents -polls are in double digits for Romney, poll after poll-
Face polls of Romney up 2 or 3 is conservative. I believe Romney will win and win big.
Oct 29, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Outrageous: Labor Department May Delay Jobs Report?
By Eric Morath | The Wall Street Journal
"The U.S. Labor Department on Monday said it hasn’t made a decision yet on whether to delay Friday’s October jobs report, the final reading on the labor market before next week’s federal elections.
A Labor official said the agency will assess the schedule for all its data releases this week when the “weather emergency” is over.
Labor is scheduled to release the employment report on Friday, third quarter employment costs on Wednesday and weekly jobless claims on Thursday."
http://nation.foxnews.com/department-lab...
In quick order, Eric Morath of the WSJ does an "update" after seeing the negative kickback.
UPDATE:
Labor Department ‘Working Hard’ to Ensure Jobs Report Released on Time
By Eric Morath
"UPDATE: The U.S. Labor Department on Monday said it is “working hard to ensure the timely release” of the October jobs report, saying it intends to released the report on schedule Friday despite Hurricane Sandy."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/2...
Oct 29, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
"But, of course, women have had access to birth control for decades and no one is trying to take it away. Anyone who suggests otherwise may have been spending too much time with Big Bird."
This quote sums it up. However there has been a 'ramp up' on this diversion from the liberals. Recent ads and talk show callers suggest that Romney will abolish abortion.
Roe v Wade will not go away, no more than it did with Reagan, Bush the senior, or Bush the junior. All were accused during their campaigns with wanting to do away with Roe v Wade.
Why do I say diversion? Because, "it's the economy, stupid." (Dick Morris)
Oct 29, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
mjoe -- So you are now trying to play the middle -- what a laugh.
Oct 29, 2012 at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
No one is trying to take birth control away?!?! Uh, yeah, they are. And if God intended the life from rape to happen, then did God intend for the rape to happen? Let's not "parse" here...
Oct 29, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Slain SEAL’s father to Obama: ‘Better to die the death of a hero than it is to live the life of a coward’
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/29/slain-...
The worst part about Obama's administration is that he has lost what little creditibility he had left and that was very little.
Oct 29, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Neither Obama or Romney are great choices.
But, for me, Obama has much more credibility than Romney
Politifact found that Romney has LIED MUCH MORE than Obama
42 percent of Romney’s comments were lies.
28 percent of Obama’s comments were lies
(Total of all Mostly False, False and Pants on Fire rulings)
Romney appears to say whatever he thinks best suits his audience.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/...
Romney: Can't trust that extremist!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.