Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

GOP’s newest demented crusade: War on mothers

Posted by on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM
  • 144 Replies

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/11/gops_newest_demented_crusade_war_on_mothers/

Quote:

A Bush and Romney economic adviser compares having a baby with buying a Porsche. They can’t be this dumb, can they?

 

Conservatives continue to be outraged by the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that basic insurance policies cover maternity and newborn care. When Rep. Renee Ellmers, the chair of the House GOP Women’s Policy Committee, asked Kathleen Sebelius “Has a man ever delivered a baby?” she was introducing her party’s best new argument against Obamacare. Forget “death panels;” now we have “birth panels,” which force Americans to pay for the continuation of the human species whether they want to or not.

You would think the supposedly “pro-life” party would be happy to put the power of the government behind keeping pregnant women and unborn babies safe and healthy. We should never let her lack of access to prenatal and newborn care make a woman decide abortion is a better choice, right?

Wrong. In fact, the right’s campaign against maternity coverage has only gotten more strident. Just Monday morning, Harvard economist and George W. Bush Council of Economic Advisors chair Greg Mankiw argued against such coverage with the worst analogy yet:

But having children is more a choice than a random act of nature. People who drive a new Porsche pay more for car insurance than those who drive an old Chevy. We consider that fair because which car you drive is a choice.  Why isn’t having children viewed in the same way?

Oh boy. Maybe Mankiw needs to read E. J. Dionne’s latest column, “What’s the Matter with Motherhood?” Dionne is a Catholic liberal with a long history of advocating that pro-choice liberals should try to find common ground with anti-abortion folks on issues like maternal and child care, women, infants and children nutrition programs and other supports to make sure women are never forced to have an abortion for economic reasons. But in the last decade liberals can’t find conservatives in Congress to collaborate with on those issues.

Indeed, Dionne found that conservatives are tying themselves in knots arguing against the ACA’s maternity-coverage provisions. In the National Review, Deroy Murdoch takes a novel gay-rights approach. “How about lesbians who do not want kids, and are highly unlikely to become pregnant accidentally?” Is the National Review now going to champion the rights of lesbians? Don’t hold your breath.



The battle over the ACA’s baseline insurance provisions exposes the bottom line of the modern GOP: I will defend to the death your right to be gouged by your insurance company, so you can either go bankrupt when it doesn’t pay your medical bills, or go the ER and stick taxpayers with the bill. All the angst about changes in the private insurance market reveal why overhauling the insurance system has been so problematic, forever: it’s heavily premised on gambling and wishful thinking. Some people gamble that they won’t get sick, so they go without insurance entirely. Or they hope they won’t need hospitalization, so they go with cheap plans that cover almost nothing. Of course, when those people bet wrong, society covers their costs via emergency room visits, or they pay themselves and many go bankrupt.

On the issue of maternity care, specifically: Women who buy policies that don’t cover it are gambling that they won’t become pregnant, or that they can pay full freight themselves if they do – and plenty of them bet wrong. Of course, Mankiw’s response would presumably be something like the 1970s TV detective Tony Baretta’s: Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Clearly the far-right’s antipathy to maternity care coverage comes from their determination to restore the husband-headed nuclear family: If a woman wants a man to share the cost of her maternity care, well, she ought to marry one. Otherwise, she’s on her own.

Mankiw doesn’t come from the social-issue wing of the party; he was Mitt Romney’s economic advisor. So he’s arguing in terms that make sense to his top 1 percent cohort: comparing the decision to have a baby to the decision to buy a Porsche. Are people still wondering why Romney lost last year?

This battle is exposing the rightward drift of even “reasonable” conservatives. They are increasingly uncomfortable with the government helping to level the playing field for corporations and their customers. At its base, “insurance” represents a private-sector approach to social risk-sharing and cost-sharing. Private companies have figured out how to make money helping people avoid certain kinds of catastrophes like illness, along with floods, earthquakes, burglaries or car accidents. Along the way they’ve also figured out how to game that system to pay out as little as possible to the insured while maximizing their premiums.

The Affordable Care Act has tried to work with that existing private system, but make it a little bit less like high-stakes gambling and more like, well, insurance: In which you’re insured that you’ll get what you need, and what you’re paying for, when you need it. That Mankiw is making common cause with a wingnut like Renee Ellmers shows the way social conservatives and plutocrats have found common ground in the modern GOP.


 

by on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
SageAdvice
by on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

 

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM
15 moms liked this

I don't get it, the right wing should want maternity care covered - they are anti- choice. So their plan is to force women to have children they don't want and to have to pay out of pocket because they can't get insurance to cover maternity care.

The only rational thing if one were actually anti-choice would be to support universal maternity coverage and Birth Control - anything else is clearly an actual war on Women.

tanyainmizzou
by on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Having a child is a choice and choices should cost more.

pansyprincess
by Silver Member on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:50 PM
15 moms liked this

So, they the GOP doesn't want them to have maternity care, but doesn't want them to make the choice to terminate, and doesn't want to help take care of the child they forced the mom to have when she couldn't afford it and didn't want it anyway, and then will mock her for being in welfare.  Seriously, WTF?


Quoting tanyainmizzou:

Having a child is a choice and choices should cost more.



mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM
7 moms liked this

 

the disorder that these people have is called cognitive dissonance

Quoting pansyprincess:

So, they the GOP doesn't want them to have maternity care, but doesn't want them to make the choice to terminate, and doesn't want to help take care of the child they forced the mom to have when she couldn't afford it and didn't want it anyway, and then will mock her for being in welfare.  Seriously, WTF?

 

Quoting tanyainmizzou:

Having a child is a choice and choices should cost more.

 

 


 

tanyainmizzou
by on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM

You would have to ask them.

Quoting pansyprincess:

So, they the GOP doesn't want them to have maternity care, but doesn't want them to make the choice to terminate, and doesn't want to help take care of the child they forced the mom to have when she couldn't afford it and didn't want it anyway, and then will mock her for being in welfare.  Seriously, WTF?


Quoting tanyainmizzou:

Having a child is a choice and choices should cost more.




mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM
2 moms liked this

 

But the right wing wants to take that choice away so which is it. I'll wait while your head explodes. Let me guess you are against insurance covering BC as well.

Quoting tanyainmizzou:

Having a child is a choice and choices should cost more.


 

tanyainmizzou
by on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:54 PM
3 moms liked this

I hope you are having a good day because I am not going to engage your predictable childish attacks.

I think insurance should cover it because they choose to not because they are forced to.

Quoting mikiemom:


But the right wing wants to take that choice away so which is it. I'll wait while your head explodes. Let me guess you are against insurance covering BC as well.

Quoting tanyainmizzou:

Having a child is a choice and choices should cost more.




momtoscott
by Platinum Member on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:54 PM
2 moms liked this
I don't get the analogy with cars at all. Are the cars the children? How do you know in advance if your pregnancy is going to be a Chevy or a Porsche?
mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Nov. 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Really you don't think regulations should require that Insurance cover basic medical care for women - but in the same breath you think women should be forced to have children they don't want?  Again what you suffer from is called cognitive dissonance. Loo

Quoting tanyainmizzou:

I hope you are having a good day because I am not going to engage your predictable childish attacks.

I think insurance should cover it because they choose to not because they are forced to.

Quoting mikiemom:

 

But the right wing wants to take that choice away so which is it. I'll wait while your head explodes. Let me guess you are against insurance covering BC as well.

Quoting tanyainmizzou:

Having a child is a choice and choices should cost more.

 

 

 


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN