Morning Mix: Republicans Go Crazy Over The Pill


Culture warrior and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is having a good moment. Tuesday’s caucus sweep settles the question of which candidate social conservatives support AND the entire Republican party has whipped itself into a frenzy over birth control pills. Seriously.

I understand the Bishops don’t like contraception, and I understand practicing Catholics do, but I think there’s a solution here: universal single payer. Just a thought.

You know who is not having a good moment? Newt Gingrich. This is likely the most coverage he’s gotten since Tuesday night.

How hostile is the cultural climate toward women? So hostile a group of sitting U.S. Senators launched a Women’s Rights Commission to push back against this re-incarnation of Hawthornian Puritanism. If you haven’t done so, take some time and read The Scarlet Letter. It’s astonishingly on-point.

Republicans are freaking out in Wisconsin too. Billionaire election-buyers Charles and David Koch’s Americans For Prosperity just made a big ad buy praising Walker’s union busting, sinking $700,000 at this time.

It says a lot about how important these policies are to folks like the Kochs by how hard they fight back. And the Kochs are fighting back hard in Wisconsin.


Photo from nateOne via flickr.


Shannon G.
Shannon G.4 years ago

"same group is trying to enforce wages for wait people to be $2.13/hr"

Really? I was a waitress for years and took home on average about $25 an hour for the hours that I worked from tips. I worked Wend-Sat and made more then I would have if I worked 40 hours a week at a corporate job. There were nights that I actually took home over $200 bucks for 4 hours of work. These tips were considered income and I was taxed on them. This was not a guaranteed wage, however most of the time I was tipped appropriately for the service that I provided to my customers.

If the hourly wage for wait staff is increased there are a few things that you can expect to see. First of all, the cost for eating out will increase for all consumers as the dining establishment will have no choice but to pass the increased cost of labor off to their customers. Second of all, the wait staff will see their tips go down as people will figure that the hourly wage is higher and there is no need to tip 20%.

I am not saying that I fully support the opposition to raising the wages of those in the business but I do believe that raising the wage will not have the end result that everyone seems to think it will.

What does this have to do with birth control?

Eugene Windchy
Eugene Windchy4 years ago

National Public Radio 9-16-11 on Solyndra, Bush, Obama:

If the first consideration of Solyndra came during the presidency of George W. Bush, that means that the application for the loan guarantee came after the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed. Clearly, this type of loan guarantee program was not a Bush Depratment of Energy (DOE) priority. The fact that Solyndra submitted a loan application does not mean the Bush White House or DOE approved the program or did more than accept the application and shuffle the paperwork a bit. And the DOE emails mentioned above appear to confirm that is all that happened.

It only became a White House priority after Obama took office. As the same ABC news report above goes on to note, "The Solyndra loan was so central to this strategy that the administration initially planned to have Obama personally announce it, and later sent the president to the company's solar panel manufacturing facility in Fremont, California to celebrate its work."

But the Obama White House's attempt to blame the Solyndra mess on the previous administration underscores how opportunistic and selective they've been when it comes to crediting Bush.

Eugene Windchy
Eugene Windchy4 years ago

The Bush Admin considered the Solyndra proposal but did not fund it

Deborah L.
Deborah L.4 years ago

Michael A: if you are referring the Solyndra mess as an Obama thing you would be mistaken. G.W. Bush is the one who signed it into law between 2006-2007. But many people keep that lie alive and unfortunately the less informed drag this up, failing to thoroughly research what they are talking about before they know the true facts.

For some strange and perverted reason the Republican/GOP/'s are obsessed with womens vagina's and uterus's. Instead of working so hard to deny women medical treatment these incompetent congress critters need to work on jobs that pay enough to support more than 1 person as now this same group is trying to enforce wages for wait people to be $2.13/hr and also want to destroy minimum wage, yet they want to force more unwanted babies that people cannot afford into existence. Insanity at its finest.

Michael A.
Michael Anda4 years ago

Do you speak of the same corporate sugar daddies at Solyndra who picked America's pockets to the tune of $535 Mil, or a different bunch? Maybe woman's suffrage wasn't such a good thing after all. :J

Sa F.
Sandi F.4 years ago

Republicans are outing themselves daily as hypocrites and frauds. The GOP wants to do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal of the week, while at the same time criticizing anyone else who does the same thing. It used to be a Republican was someone who preached fiscal conservatism and social neutrality.

Today Republicans manipulate their message to include whatever gives them and their corporate sugar daddies more money and power. If today, a position benefits them, it is moral and the right thing to do. If tomorrow, the exact same process is used to benefit someone or something they do not support, then it is time to bring on the outrage. Hypocrites and frauds are very good at bringing on the outrage.

And, of course, to disagree with them is certainly "a war on" something or other they are deeply concerned about. The degree of moral hypocrisy the Republican leaders and their followers have reached is really amazing to watch.

Shannon G.
Shannon G.4 years ago

And Myron, I happen to agree with your argument about plural marriage. It is because of faith that someone believes in this marriage type and should be able to practice their faith accordingly. As long as the marriages occur between "Consenting" adults I dont have a problem with it. The problem I do have is with those who practice "plural" marriage and use their faith as a justification for marriage to someone who is not of the age to consent. Just cant really think about plural marriage without the name Warren Jeff's coming to mind.

Shannon G.
Shannon G.4 years ago

Anne, where in the constitution does it say that the government has the legal authority to mandate someone provide a good or service at no charge? You obviously have read it and claim that I have not so please lead me in the right direction. I have copy sitting right next to me and fail to see it.....perhaps instead of making broad based assumptions on the reading material of a person you no little about, perhaps you should so a little reading yourself.

And Myron, the commerce clause does not give legal authority to mandate a good or service at no charge. The commerce clause is abused by the government-ask private citizens who have been told that they cannot grow a garden or wheat field because it "could" interfere with interstate commerce. The commerce clause prevents states from imposing duties, tariffs, and other protectionist measures against one another. Later, the Civil Rights act was passed under the commerce clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors

No where in history has the federal government taken such overreaching authority to force the citizens of the US to purchase a good or service OR mandate a company to provide it for free.

Mark S.
Mark S.4 years ago

Republicans worrying about a legal drug instead of worrying about the economy. Sounds like their speed. Idiots!!!

Myron Scott
Myron Scott4 years ago

...This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....

Reynolds v. United States, Chief Justice Waite, 1848