Dispatches From The War On Women: Keep Women Out Of The Economy?


Welcome to Dispatches, your round-up of the latest news from the frontlines of the War on Women. Have a story from your state or an idea on how to push back? Share them here and fight back against the War on Women.

Today is the third and final day in the arguments in the constitutionality of health care reform. The first two days brought some tough questions but I’m still not convinced that Chief Justice John Roberts will vote against the bill.

A study released by the University of Michigan shows that women who have early access to the pill have increased wages through the course of their lives. The case is not complicated. The pill allows women to finish college without the interruption of an unplanned pregnancy and reap the economic benefits that flow from it. When you look at it in terms of the culture wars though, a problematic question rises to the surface. Are conservatives opposed to contraception because they are opposed to women having the ability to chart their own economic destinies?

In Texas, reporting critically on the state’s abortion politics got one reporter fired.

One Wisconsin Senator has some helpful advice to women who can’t afford contraception. They should Google “what if I can’t afford birth control?” Gee, thanks.

Women voters will be crucial in the 2012 election, which is why both the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign are working so hard to win women over.

Madonna and Roseanne offer their thoughts on the presidential race so far.

The Obama administration will begin to allow lesbian couples partner benefits and US Customs will begin recognizing same-sex partnerships. These are significant steps in the right direction.

A big victory in Idaho as lawmakers abandon their push for mandatory ultrasounds. Thanks to all the hard work by Robin Marty and the entire Care2 community who made that happen.

Come back tomorrow for another round-up of the latest news and commentary on the War on Women. So long as the battle rages, we’ll cover the latest, so please check back!


Photo from stephendepolo via flickr.


Samantha Richardson

The US is crazy for how extreme they are with wanting to condemn women who use contraception or need abortions. The fact that women already earn less but have to pay more for health coverage is insane, and then places like Texas want to fire people for having different opinions?! I have experienced the insanity of Texans first hand, but the ignorance and refusal to see another's point of view is staggering.

Ken W.
Ken W5 years ago

All you gals out there just tell him No Loveing To Nite I bet somethings will start changing fast !!!!! LOL

Marilyn L.
Marilyn L5 years ago

Thanks Jessica, I like Dispatches.

Danielle K.
Danielle K5 years ago

Cynthia, as much as I hope to see a female U.S. president in my lifetime, I would rather have progressive males in charge than women who want to set other women back 50 years. If it's a choice between someone like Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama, I'm picking Obama because he is far more likely to fight for the rights of all women while Bachmann and her ilk would set us back years, if not decades.

So let's amend that to a PROGRESSIVE woman in the White House.

ANA MARIJA R5 years ago

Thanks for keeping us up to date ...

Alice H.
Alice H5 years ago

What I don't get is that it is clear we have a jobs problem, and an education problem and a public health problem and these guys think the best thing that they can do is make it harder for women to get birthcontrol? How is this going to solve any of our problems? It will not solve our jobs problem, it will not ensure more people get more education or or better health care and it sure as heck isn't going to save any money as children are substantially more expensive than birthcontrol.

Edith B.
Edith B5 years ago

James K. I tried to send you a green star, apparently I all ready sent you one this week. Mercedes L., I was able to send you one. Your comments are very informative and on target. Thanks.

James K.
Mike Kelly5 years ago

These guys on the right sure are big, strong, brave, manly-men, particularly when they are defending an obscenely wealthy drug addict who got out of serving in the armed forces because he had a large boil on his ass, even as he now advocates sending the youth of the middle class and poor off to fight and die to protect the property of billionaires.

The poor fellow, that shall remain anonymous because his name has here been changed to Rush Limpblob, now spends his time seated in a huge cushy chair (don't want that ass to re-fester) behind a locked door, where he can feel safe. From his secure lair he can safely yell disparaging epithets such as "slut' and "prostitute" at defenseless women without re-injuring his old war wound or aggravating the deafness that inflictED him after that time when he was so loaded on oxycontin he didn't realize how loud he had turned up the volume on his headphones. At least he can't be fired for his comments. After all he's not yelling bigoted comments at a black NFL quarterback or anything serious, like the time he was fired from ESPN.

The big, macho republican manly-men whose comments can be read here, fawn over the every word of His Largeness keeping him safe from the onslaught of logic, reason, and critical thinking of the women of the world. Real republican heroes, every one.

Mercedes Lackey
Mercedes Lackey5 years ago

FACT, not hearsay

Republicans aren't giving up on the issue. They appear to be intent on using the power of government to force the vast majority of Americans who have no problem with birth control to pay for a small minority's personal beliefs through higher insurance premiums.

And the simple fact is that it costs insurers a lot more to cover a population without offering that population birth control than it does to pick up the cost of contraceptives. What will insurers do if they have to pay extra not to cover birth control? They will, of course, pass the extra costs onto the rest of us through higher premiums.

Mercedes Lackey
Mercedes Lackey5 years ago

FACT, not hearsay

It costs significantly more to insure a population without offering contraception because the cost of unwanted pregnancies is so high – higher, in fact, than the cost of planned pregnancies, which are associated with lower risk of complications. For the cost of the average childbirth in the United States, you could cover a woman's birth control pills for approximately 293 years.

According to a study by the Washington Business Group on Health and the employee benefits consulting firm William M. Mercer, “It costs employers 15–17 percent more to not provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans than to provide such coverage.”