Every so often it is necessary to poke one’s head out from the local scene to watch what is unfolding nationally. If you had asked me in December, I would have told you I thought that President Barack Obama would lose re-election. But the last two months have really solidified in my mind that this will not happen.
I have said this before, but 2012 is basically 2004 all over again, with the parties reversed. In 2004, Democrats thought that they would defeat President George Bush. Even with the selection of liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, I honestly believed he would win, up until the networks took back their projection that Senator Kerry would win Florida, which was based on faulty exit polls.
The only chance that the Republicans really had to defeat President Obama was if the economy continued to stagnate. But the economy is finally starting to grow. If you are a believer that the economy is the end of the story with a national election, stop reading now, because you really have nothing else to add at this point.
The other factor playing into this is that I have never seen a weaker field of Republican candidates – in fact it mirrors the Democratic fields of 1988 and 2004. I said a month ago that Mitt Romney is the weakest Republican frontrunner I have seen – a few people disagreed at the time but I’ll be curious if they still do.
He cannot put away Rick Santorum, a right wing ideologue who has zero chance of ever being elected President nationally. He had to eke out a win in Michigan last week, he got a solid win in Arizona, but the landscape shifts south, favoring not only Mr. Santorum but also Newt Gingrich.
In the end, I still fully expect Mitt Romney to win the nomination, but barring some new development in the world, it ends there.
I know Republican partisans harbor hopes that they can nail Obama on inconsistencies and flip flops – you can’t. First, President Obama is smoother than Mitt Romney, who has a whole treasure trove of flip flops because he has really been two people – the liberal Massachusetts Governor and the more conservative national figure. Second, no one other than partisans really care if people are inconsistent anyway.
If the economy were in the tank, you would have a chance, even with a weak candidate.
But the other problem is that, while Democrats continue to flounder on their own, 2010 really masked the emerging demographic problems for Republicans, and that is they are increasingly a conservative party out of touch with mainstream America, much as the Democrats were in the 1980s increasingly a liberal party out of touch with mainstream America.
It turns out that even now; no one can fire up the national media better than Rush Limbaugh, especially when they catch him shoving large appendages into his mouth mistaking it for red meat.
My first response to the Sandra Fluke story was bemusement. My second response was thinking that, with all of the problems that this nation faces, the idea is absurd that we are worrying about either the funding of contraception or mocking someone for ridiculing it.
But the problem of Rush Limbaugh, I think, hits a little too close to home for many Republicans – many of whom do not wish to or cannot disavow him.
The problem is that we are not talking about abortion – which has real moral ambiguity even among those who support the right to abortion. We are talking about contraception. By a two to one margin in one poll, the voters favor the Obama administration’s position on this issue.
This is 2012, and let me tell you, people have sex in 2012, people use contraception in 2012. Like everything, of course, this is not actually about contraception but about the government funding of contraception through health care.
That is probably the point that Rush Limbaugh was attempting to make. The problem is that he made the issue about contraception rather than the government funding of it – and by doing that, he lost.
Sandra Fluke “goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?” Mr. Limbaugh ranted. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. The johns.”
Had he stopped there, I think it would have been bad enough.
“A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they’re going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that? I called it what it is,” he said. “So, I’m offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want.”
“So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal,” he said. “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
How bad was it? Sleep Train has sponsored his program for 25 years. That means that all of the other stupid, mean and thoughtless things that Rush Limbaugh has said, they tolerated if not condoned. But they pulled their sponsorship over this.
Another sponsor, Carbonite, pulled its sponsorship of his show, despite an apology by Mr. Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh would issue what for him is a rare apology, offering that he “chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation” and then said he did not “mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
That seems like a hollow apology, particularly since this guy has made his career based on person attacks. He got caught, he is apologizing that he got caught and could not defend himself.
In his apology, Mr. Limbaugh also said something very interesting that I completely agree with: “I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.”
I completely agree. And who chose to make an issue of this?
To illustrate the absurdity, Mitt Romney’s heath care legislation as Governor of Massachusetts, of course, had a provision for contraception. When he was asked his position on this matter, he said that he did not support the Blunt Amendment that would end funding of contraception and then quickly had to retrench after getting called on it.
The analysis on those projecting winners have President Obama winning and the Republicans trying to shore up congressional districts through pushing for social policy.
The problem that they have is that if we are talking about contraception in 2012, even if it is government spending on contraception, the Republicans are not going to win this one.
Not only is there no decency, there is no common sense here. If the economy continues to rebound it will be very interesting to see what the election map looks like come November.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]But the problem of Rush Limbaugh, I think, hits a little too close to home for many Republicans – many of whom do not wish to or cannot disavow him.[/quote]
I certainly disavow him – he does not speak for the Republican party…
Both the Republicans and the Democrats have a graceful way of stepping away from this completely ridiculous conversation about coverage of contraceptives. Unfortunately both sides seem to prefer stoking the controversy over ending the issue completely which could be done by simply telling the truth about the non contraceptive uses of the combination of drugs that we call birth control pills. Most birth control pills are combinations of the ovarian hormones estrogen and progesterone. The are most commonly prescribed for contraception, but have many other medical uses including: prevention of menstrual hemorrhage, prevention of disabling menstrual pain, treatment of endometriosis, treatment of polycyclic ovarian syndrome, prevention of ovarian cysts, treatment of severe acne, treatment of severe hormonally associated mood disorders,
And reduction in the lifetime risk of both ovarian and uterine cancer.
Would anyone including the Catholic church really forbid the use of these medications for these indications ? Would anyone dream of prohibiting the use of a medication that offered so many health benefits to a man even if it had the potential side effect of lowering his sperm count ?
Underneath the surface debate is the subtext that men can acceptably enjoy sex without consequences, whereas women must take responsibility for contraception, possibly out of pocket, and then we question her morals for wanting to enjoy sex without fear of pregnancy.
This is a more visceral subtext, I think, than the debate over religious views and practices. So many Catholics ignore the prohibition against contraception, that focusing on the religious point makes that debate seem so 20th century.
Conservatives cannot win the debate as it is currently framed, and I don’t think they can easily change it at this point.
[quote]A liberal, a conservative, a moderate, and a Mormon guy walk into a bar…
The bartender says, ‘Hey Mitt. How’s it going?[/quote]
I disavow Rush limbaugh… he is the Republican equivalent of Michael Moore…… unfortunately.
“I certainly disavow him – he does not speak for the Republican party…”
I was really referring to elected and public officials. Apologize for the lack of clarity.
Very funny Dr. Wu….have you heard this one?
“An illegal alien, a Muslim, and a Communist walks into a bar …
… and the bartender says, “What’ll you be having, Mr. President?”
“I disavow Rush limbaugh… he is the Republican equivalent of Michael Moore…… unfortunately.”
91 Octane, yep Rush went over the top on that one, kind of like Ed Schultz calling Laura Engram a slut.
Rusty49
Maybe you should forward that one to Rush. I’m sure he would appreciate it.
The Mitt joke is funny because it’s true. The Obama joke is funny because people actually still believe that crap.
actually, the limbaugh attacks remind me of Bill Maher, who regularly makes fun of his female political opponents sexually…. and yes, I can produce those quotes….
additionally, david letterman joked that Sarah Palin looked like a “Slutty Flight Attendant”…
If you had asked me in December, I would have told you I thought that President Barack Obama would lose re-election.
lol, did the vanguard just slip and make an admission it wish it hadn’t? i.e. the economy has only been on “recovery” for the last two months?
“The Mitt joke is funny because it’s true. The Obama joke is funny because people actually still believe that crap.”
actually, I’ll meet u and rusty halfway…. I’ll throw out the illegal alien part and ad in my own revision…
a peace activist, war monger, christian, and muslim walk into a bar……
Depends how you define recovery. Most economists argue that the recession ended somewhere in 2009. In terms of tangible political implications, I think that the economy has only recently began growing at the kind of rate that makes analysts believe Obama will win, I count myself in that group. I guess I fail to understand why you think that is an admission let alone one I wouldn’t want to make.
wow, the economy conveniently didn’t begin recovering until obama got elected, but the public just wouldn’t realize it until even more convieniently, obama began running for re-election…
isn’t it interesting how miracles fall in Obama’s lap.
or maybe we can use the more likely explanation: the economy hasn’t recovered, and has seen a bump in the last couple of months because of xmas…
Wow! Have you seen the polls out today from NBC. Obama leads by 10 against Paul in Ohio and that is the best number the 4 Reps have. in Virginia Obama leads by even more. This could be the end of the religious right and Rush although Rush will still have his angry white mail audience upset that they have little use for all that contraception beyond watching someone else use it on TV.
Octane: I think that’s unlikely, but we’ll know soon enough.
“Underneath the surface debate is the subtext that men can acceptably enjoy sex without consequences, whereas women must take responsibility for contraception, possibly out of pocket, and then we question her morals for wanting to enjoy sex without fear of pregnancy.”
Bingo. I think this is precisely the issue for a large majority of the social conservatives. Throughout this debate, when I’ve listened in to conservative radio programs or television shows, I’ve heard countless people on the side against various insurance-provided contraception plans basically saying, “If you are going to be sexually active, you need to take responsibility for those actions.”
The subtext is, indeed, “If you -women- are going to be sexually active, you need to take responsibility for those actions.”
I would argue that being on various forms of contraception is the responsible thing to do, and regarding the insurance coverage argument: aren’t most of these women “paying” for contraception via their healthcare coverage? I know that any contraception that I would currently get via my health insurance is at least partially paid for out of my own pocket in my contributions every month toward my health insurance (the rest my employer pays).
I think a lot of it really does go back to the regressive notion that a woman should not be able to have a healthy, enjoyable sex life without the “punishment” of children.
Octane: For one thing you would have to account for January and February, which I think are after the holiday season:
[quote]Employers probably added more than 200,000 workers for a third straight month in February amid optimism about the U.S. expansion, economists said before a report this week.
Payrolls increased by 210,000 last month after rising 243,000 in January, the most in nine months, and 203,000 at the end of 2011, according to the median projection of 55 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. It would mark the strongest three- month stretch in almost a year. The jobless rate probably held at an almost three-year low of 8.3 percent. [/quote]
Source: Business Week ([url]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-04/payrolls-to-rise-again-u-dot-s-dot-economy-preview[/url])
Its a Terry Schivo moment brought to you courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.
This whole contraception debate was a trap set by Obama for the Republicans and guess what? The Republicans took the bait like a 300 pound tuna on a 400 pound test line. Obama will give them rope as long as they want to struggle reeling them in until they come up flopping furiously all hook, line and sinker on election day.
At least Mitt Romney knows better but he is stuck tacking towards this insanity to win the nomination hoping the general election against Obama won’t be over before it begins. Sorry Mitt, the rest of your party is channeling Johnathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Great stuff in the 18th Century not so much in the 21st.
[quote]A liberal, a conservative, a moderate, and a Mormon guy walk into a bar…
The bartender says, ‘Hey Mitt. How’s it going?[/quote]
And Mitt responds, “Fine. I’ll have a milk.”
David Frum warned Republicans in 2009 about the party being taken over by the likes of Limbaugh. Too bad his warning went unheeded.
[quote]The Mitt joke is funny because it’s true.[/quote]Really? A Mormon going into a bar? I guess it could be plausible if no other Mormons were present.
David, had [b]a[/b] joke involved a Hispanic, a foster parent, an overweight person, would you have found it funny? Personally, I found it amusing, as did my oldest son. However, I’m not sure you believe humor equally applies across ‘protected classes’…
hpierce: [i]David, had a joke involved a Hispanic, a foster parent, an overweight person, would you have found it funny? Personally, I found it amusing, as did my oldest son. However, I’m not sure you believe humor equally applies across ‘protected classes’…[/i]
Humor about typically less powerful or more negatively viewed groups usually doesn’t work because it often comes across as mean. It’s hard to laugh at something that comes across as mean. You can poke fun at Mitt Romney with more latitude, because he’s rich and powerful.
[quote]Would anyone including the Catholic church really forbid the use of these medications for these indications ? Would anyone dream of prohibiting the use of a medication that offered so many health benefits to a man even if it had the potential side effect of lowering his sperm count ?[/quote]
I know this is a bit off topic, but I winced when I read this. Birth control pills can have side effects, not the least of which is infertility…
Also the point of the Mitt joke was it was a number of contradictory characteristics embodied within one person.
Elaine,
“Birth control pills can have side effects, not the least of which is infertility”
Please site your evidence for this. Birth control pills do not, I repeat, do not cause infertility. This is a common misconception based on failure to differentiate coincidence from causality. There are two common circumstances that cause people to believe this. The first is duration of use. Many women start using the birth control pill in their late teens and early twenties. If they then continue the use of the pill until completion of their career, or until they find the right man in their mid to late 30’s and then attempt conception, they are much less likely to conceive than they were at an earlier age. This is age dependent and not an effect of the birth control pill although the pill is frequently blamed.
The second circumstance is women who have never established regular periods because they do not ovulate on a regular basis. The birth control pill is frequently prescribed for these women to prevent a medically dangerous and potentially precancerous or cancerous overgrowth condition of the lining of the uterus. When these women then go off the birth control pill, they frequently have problems with infertility. Again, this is not due to the pill, but rather to the underlying condition ( lack of ovulation ) for which they were placed on the pill.
Birth control pills do have side effects, but infertility is not one of them.
The common side effects are nausea, headache, breast tenderness, mild acne, all of which tend to resolve with continued use.
More serious side effects include blood clot formation including stroke which is very rare ( as a matter of fact it is more common during pregnancy than with BCP use) and gall stone formation.
Overall, as a medication, birth control pills are very safe and have far more advantages than disadvantages.
If you would like to learn more about this, I would be more than happy to provide information based on many years of studies.
To medwoman: See [url]http://ezinearticles.com/?Can-Birth-Control-Pills-Cause-Infertility?&id=1302449[/url]
[quote]In some women, however, pharmaceutical birth control methods has been shown to adversely affect or destroy the cervical fluid needed for conception. Usually, but not always, this fluid is regenerated once the woman goes off the pill. If the fluid is damaged or not regenerated, there is a possibility that conception could be impacted.
However, the biggest danger of using pharmaceutical methods of birth control is that it makes the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases much easier which can absolutely increase the chances of infertility.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1302449%5B/quote%5D
Elaine: I have to question the source you have provided.
The article cites no sources or studies.
From the author bioline it reads: “Richard Corcoran is senior writer for http://www.infertilitycausestreatments.com which specializes in providing information on fertility, herbs for infertility, and fertility problems that couples may be experiencing.”
It looks more like a site that offers herbal over medicinal remedies, but going to the website offers no information about the author and limited info about the group.
Will this do?
[url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/3/258.full.pdf[/url]
Also read this:
[url]http://fertstert.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/parity-and-subfertility-effects-of-continuous-oral-contraceptives-on-fertility-are-important/[/url]
Elaine: I think citing from a peer reviewed journal is preferred, so yes.
The one problem is that the article is nearly 15 years old. I have no idea the state of the research and whether that article is considered accurate or has been since discredited. There is that inherent danger in cherrypicking studies that confirm what you believe, particularly older studies.
“There is that inherent danger in cherrypicking studies that confirm what you believe…”
I’m sitting at my chair laughing at my computer screen not believing that David actually said this.
I am rather amazed that in 2012 we are even debating contraception at all.
Elaine
The pertinent conclusion from the first study you cite : “In this large retrospective study, after allowing for the short-term suppression of fertility following ces-
sation of oral contraceptive use and excluding women with signs of menstrual or hormonal disorder, we found a small, statistically nonsignificant, increased risk of ovulatory causes of delayed fertility for ever users of oral contraceptives. There was no statistically significant trend of increasing risk with increasing duration of use and younger age at first use. Eighty- eight percent of the cases reported an eventual preg- nancy by 1993, suggesting that absolute fertility was not impaired.
I would stress that the authors specifically state that ” there was a small, statistically no significant increased risk of ovulatory causes of delayed fertility for ever users of oral contraceptives. this is a long winded way of saying that birth control pill use was not found to adversely affect fertility.
They then reiterate this in their last sentence ” …absolute infertility was not impaired.”
With regard to the second article you site:
” Given the small and certainly transient contribution that prior oral contraceptive pill (OCP) use appears to contribute, this is unlikely to play a substantial role in the decision of when to intervene.” ( Meaning when to intervene in terms of infertility evaluation)
The commentator is specifically addressing the fact that while BCPs had been felt to transiently affect return to a regular ovulatory statue, this is negligible for women without pre existing ovulatory function within 3 months of discontinuance of BCP use. Since the generally agreed upon definition of infertility is one year of adequate sexual exposure in a woman under the age of 30 not using any means of contraception, and six months for a woman over the age of 30, it becomes apparent that a delay of three months to full ovulatory status does not meet the definition of infertility. Even if one were concerned about the three month potential ovulatory lag, the solution is very straight forward. Simply tell the woman to discontinue use of BCP three months before the first month in which she would find conception acceptable.
There are many myths that still surround the use of birth control pills. The very studies you site, even with their limitations of the retrospective nature of the first study and the small sample size of the second , do not support your assertion that birth control pills cause infertility.
Oops, should have read “ovulatory state”. I must be getting sleepy.
Elaine
I am sorry I didn’t get to this last night. A very well balanced peer reviewed and current as of 1/12 summary of oral contraceptives can be found on Up to Date, which many of us in the field use as a starting to point to access original studies and to review a concise summary of findings. I reviewed the “side effects” section on BCP this am and would call your attention to the following paragraph:
Post-pill amenorrhea — It had previously been thought that women who used oral contraceptives were at risk of developing subsequent irregular menses or amenorrhea (lack of periods implying lack of ovulation). However, data suggest that the incidence and endocrinologic findings in women with amenorrhea occurring after the use of cyclic oral contraceptive regimens are the same as in women with spontaneous amenorrhea [6]. This appears to be true for continuous pill regimens, as well, as illustrated in a report of 187 women using the continuous pill for one year [7]. After stopping the pill, the median time to return to menses was 32 days, and spontaneous menses or pregnancy occurred at day ≤90 in 185 of 187 women (98.9 percent).
Comment in parenthesis is mine for clarification.
We’re coming to the day when Grover Norquist seems really tame:
A South Carolina county requires GOP abstinence pledge ([url]http://www.politicalshake.com/2012/03/05/buckle-that-chastity-belt-a-south-carolina-county-requires-gop-abstinence-pledge/[/url])
[quote]I am rather amazed that in 2012 we are even debating contraception at all.[/quote]
My comment was not meant as a discussion of whether contraceptives at all were okay or not, but a warning that birth control pills do have certain risks, whereas other birth control methods are safer. I advised my children to go the safer route. Now they have come out with birth control pills that allow a woman to only have 3-4 periods a year. Again I wince at this, wondering what the potential side effects could be – altering the body’s natural rhythms…
[quote]The one problem is that the article is nearly 15 years old. I have no idea the state of the research and whether that article is considered accurate or has been since discredited. There is that inherent danger in cherrypicking studies that confirm what you believe, particularly older studies.[/quote]
In other words, any article peer reviewed or not, that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notion of what is right and relevant has been cherry-picked?
To medwoman: I’m not going to go toe to toe w you on this one – I’m not a doctor and don’t pretend to me. IMO the articles indicate the possibility of infertility problems, and you yourself concede birth control pills do have other possible side effects. I am advocating that women think about that, and at least consider opting for safer contraceptive methods than the birth control pill…
“In other words, any article peer reviewed or not, that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notion of what is right and relevant has been cherry-picked?”
I’d call that a radical interpretation of the text. The problem is that your first article was written without sources, your second is 15 years old – without knowing the literature we cannot evaluate whether the article has been accepted in the field or is an outlier.
“We’re coming to the day when Grover Norquist seems really tame:
A South Carolina county requires GOP abstinence pledge”
This is getting to be beyond ridiculous. The GOP wants to take this country back, alright…right back to the 17th century (if not the 11th, with that nifty little chastity belt the link depicts).
[quote]California GOP spokeswoman suggests pundit is a ‘slut’ ([url]http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/03/california-gop-spokeswoman-suggests-pundit-is-a-slut.html#storylink=misearch[/url])
California Republican Party spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns suggested on Twitter on Friday that a pundit who criticized Rush Limbaugh for calling a law school student a “slut” is herself one, touching off a flood of criticism on the social networking site.[/quote]
There’s often a point where it’s better to say nothing.
I have another issue with politicians taking stands on public and private health issues without a thorough understanding of the issues.
One point that I have not heard made during all the controversy about contraceptives is the one that is most important. The true comparison of the safety of birth control pills is that their safety needs to be compared with the safety of the condition they are meant to prevent. And yet, I have heard almost no conversation about the risks to the woman’s health of a pregnancy. Pregnancy itself is associated with a higher risk of stroke,
High blood pressure associated conditions, gestational diabetes, and bleeding problems. Because of the multiple potential complications associated with pregnancy, it is actually statistically safer for a woman of any age to be on the birth control pill than it is for her to be pregnant.
Choosing to leave the important potential benefits ( sometimes lifesaving for those few women for whom pregnancy can be predicted to be life threatening) of birth control pills as well as their non contraceptive uses out of the conversation short changes women’s health care and in my opinion has no place in a political debate. I do not expect that politicians will have the ability to master what it has taken me close to 40 years to master and countless hours of reading the literature to remain up to date. What I do expect them to do is to defer to the experts on these issues and to leave medical decisions where they belong, between patient and doctor.