Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

McCain Opposes Contraception -- Pass It On

By Katha Pollitt, TheNation.com. Posted July 22, 2008.


He's voted against contraception for more than 20 years, and yet doesn't even care or know enough to explain why.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Katha Pollitt

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I realize it's not as world-shaking as the caricature of the Obamas on the cover of the New Yorker, which has the high-end media in a total tizzy. It's probably not even as important as the raunchy joke Bernie Mac told at an Obama fundraiser last week, which was bumped from the tizzy list by the New Yorker story. But can't the commentariat take a break from itself and let the world know how much John McCain opposes birth control? Vastly more people rely on contraception than read the New Yorker or know Bernie Mac from mac 'n' cheese. They might like to know that when it comes to contraception, McCain is no maverick.

Here's the story. Last week, Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard who has been helping McCain look bright-eyed and estrogen-friendly, told reporters that women wanted more choice in their health care plans; for example, it bothered women when plans covered Viagra but not contraception. Big mistake! McCain had voted against a bill that would have required plans to cover birth control if they covered prescription meds at all, like, um, Viagra. McCain's nonresponse when queried about this by a reporter was astonishing. As posted on YouTube, he squirms and grins and smirks (Viagra! Embarrassing!) and fumfers about evasively. "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he manages to splutter, "because I don't recall the vote. I've cast thousands of votes. ... It's something I've not thought much about."

So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception that he voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it that he doesn't even remember how he voted. That's the way to show American women you really care.

This is not a trivial issue. There's the basic unfairness of not covering these essential, even life-saving drugs and devices so fundamental to women's health and well-being, and the added insult of denying coverage while men are lavished with cut-rate erections. And there's the craven submission to religious extremists that moves the politics of that denial. It's a pocketbook issue, too: A year's worth of contraception can cost a woman $600. That's a lot of money. Is it too much to expect the next president of the United States to understand that? Now that every politician in America prides himself on knowing the price of a gallon of milk and talks like he's just finished doing the week's shopping for a family of 10?

The story heated up the blogosphere, but a Nexis search at the beginning of this week found only 61 mentions in print and on TV, and most of those were passing references in stories about McCain's bad week (Phil Gramm calling Americans "a nation of whiners" obsessed with a "mental recession" got most of the attention) or focused on the effect that Fiorina's off-message remark will have on her vice presidential chances.

Where is the discussion of the real issue, which is that for more than 20 years John McCain has voted against contraception every time it came up and -- now he tells us! -- doesn't even care or know enough to explain why. Women -- and men -- need to know where he stands on this issue so basic to health and human flourishing if they are going to make informed decisions in the polling booth. But so far the media has refused to present McCain's anti-contraception record as a big, coherent story that tells us a great deal about who he is and what policies he would pursue in the White House.

Maybe the New Yorker could do a cover about it. Then the media might find it interesting enough to discuss.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: contraception, mccain, birth control

Katha Pollitt is a columnist for The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why?
Posted by: Jo1028 on Jul 22, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why doesn't some enterprising journalist ask him to explain why he's voted against contraception for over 20 years? We all know he's clueless with a Tailhook fly-boy attitude toward women who can't remember whether he has a position on use of condoms for AIDS prevention. But still, why doesn't someone ask the question?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why? Posted by: bbfmail
» RE: Why? Posted by: ranchero42
typical beaurocratic fossil
Posted by: cyr3n on Jul 22, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course he supports viagra.. how else are his fellow republicrats' interns supposed to get laid.

I'm personally sick of prescription medication used to regular women's cycles being referred to as "birth control" or "contraceptives". There are lots of women who use these hormones to aid their bodies in naturally eliminating ovarian cysts. Even if the advertised purpose is birth control, these drugs are TREATMENTS for real problems that would otherwise require surgery! They should absolutely be covered by health insurance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: typical bureaucratic fossil Posted by: john mont
Just because Mac was a Naval officer,
Posted by: donl51 on Jul 22, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...doesn't necessarily make him all that smart,especially to be Prez. look what's in office today!!!,so he doesn't believe in contreception but doesn't know why,or care,either do many of your pro-lifers out there protesting abortion,except maybe for one thing....they're almost always very religious!!....I'm thinking ''future cannon fodder '' for more wars!!think about it ,really does make sence doesn't it?...pro-life is really short lived!save the fetus today,really doesn't matter who takes care of it,or how well,or even if its educated at all,it'll end up in the service for a future war which this empire will surely start somewhere!!....the armed service of today is no where close to how it was when my father was in,or even later when I was in it!!....it's a war machine!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MCCAIN SUCKS UP
Posted by: shd1230 on Jul 22, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John McCain turns out to be the worst kind of suck-up-to-the-right-wing hypocrite--an old fool besides. Does he really think that women of childbearing age are going to vote for him--or does he think they don't count?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MCCAIN SUCKS UP Posted by: Bright Penny
» RE: MCCAIN SUCKS UP Posted by: luzmejor
Beyond Birth Control....
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jul 22, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember McCain was the subject of torture...and he is apparently a sadist because he seems to enjoy the idea of men with erections paid for by health care and no where to put them because the women can't get contraception and tell them all "no"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disgusting record of misogyny, all around
Posted by: helenwheels on Jul 22, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McLame hates women, pure and simple. He also doesn't give a rat's ass about women's reproductive rights and doesn't need to know anything about it except that his christofascist voter base wants him to be against womens' reproductive rights.

Arianna Huffington wrote more specifically about his horrific record here:

Unmasking McCain: His Reactionary Record on Reproductive Rights

When you look at all of it together, his nasty rape joke (because rape is funny, right?? RIGHT??) and calling his wife a trollop and a cunt in public, and then you cap it off with his assault on womens' reproductive rights for the past 25 years, how can anyone NOT come to the conclusion that the man is an utter, out-and-out misogynist?

For the life of me, I can't find anything redeeming about that miserable creep. What a walking failure of a human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another sign that we've sunk into fascism
Posted by: helenwheels on Jul 22, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been referring to Lawrence Britt's list of characteristics which make up a fascist state for a few years now. It keeps becoming more and more relevant, frighteningly enough.

I bring it up because #5 on the list refers to this very subject, which is basically eroding the rights of women to the point where they are second class citizens, which has to happen in a fascist state. Remember how women fought for the vote, then for everything else, and how we were starting to progress so well in the 70's and 80's? Then.... the backslide and the uber-assault began. And it hasn't stopped. Tie in the rise in homophobia as well, and you really start seeing Britt as pretty well on the mark.

#5 on Lawrence Britt's list of signs of a fascist regime:

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

Read the whole list here. Warning: May make your hair stand on end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Viagra vs. The Pill
Posted by: Crazy H on Jul 22, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't get the connection.

Viagra is a treatment for a medical condition - it fixes something that's not working properly.

But being fertile is not a medical condition -it's a normal, healthy condition. I can't think of any other case where an insurance company is compelled to pay for "treatment" of healthy individuals.

Don't get me wrong - I fully believe that it's in society's best interest to make contraception cheap & readily available. I just don't see where anyone's rights are being trampled if an insurance company doesn't cover it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Viagra vs. The Pill Posted by: Crazy H
» condoms aren't covered Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Crazy H Wrong on The Pill Posted by: Jest2007
» Gotten pregnant lately?????? Posted by: magiquarian1969
» what is viagra for Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: what is viagra for Posted by: Crazy H
» Treatments Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Treatments Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Treatments Posted by: wrdqn
» RE: Treatments Posted by: Crazy H
» Insurance Companies Posted by: benzene
» RE: Insurance Companies Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Viagra vs. The Pill Posted by: brilliantatbreakfast
» RE: Viagra vs. The Pill Posted by: Crazy H
» Women on Viagra? Posted by: bizeeb
» Crazy H Wrong on The Pill Posted by: Jest2007
» RE: Viagra vs. The Pill Posted by: Duncable
» RE: Viagra vs. The Pill Posted by: JSquercia
Obama Campaign: No Prosecutions for Bush/Cheney Crimes
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Jul 22, 2008 10:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the "reform"? What happened to "Change you can believe in"?

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical Rightwinger, A Roofie Implies Consent.
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 22, 2008 11:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heaven Forbid that a woman would reject the seed of the patriarchal order. If John McCain joins the 21st Century (in progress as we speak) then there might actually be a campaign. So sorry George Carlin is missing this one. We need a sharp wit to keep the "invisible friend" crowd at bay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thumbs down to contraception...
Posted by: zipper696 on Jul 23, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is McSame's nod to the "Repeal Roe -v- Wade and Save the Babies" crowd.

He has held back from saying, this time around that as Prez he would repeal RvW, but has made clear that any appointments to the Supreme Court on his watch would be of "like minded" jurists.

Funny how they claim to support smaller government and to dismantle the few remaining checks and balances of Federal Law but have no problem in criminalising a woman's control of her own body.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Absolutely disgusting
Posted by: Infamous on Jul 23, 2008 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's great, "cut-rate erections". Is McCain going to pay for all those welfare babies that result from his refusal to fund contraception and his insistence on backing medically dependent male potency?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I guess he's not Posted by: guerillaTHOUGHTterrorist
» RE: I guess he's not Posted by: Infamous
» RE: I guess he's not Posted by: ranchero42
Poor fool,
Posted by: paula.c on Jul 23, 2008 4:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not think he knows or remembers what's going on or what he has said in the past. We need a pro-choice president who is intelligent and wise.

VOTE FOR OBAMA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

zgregz
Posted by: zgregz on Jul 23, 2008 9:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What you are witness to in regards to john Mccain is the stereotypical sociopath. I know this sounds harsh, but republicans in general don't wish to pay any taxes -- this was most evident in the 2000 election when Bush "bought" millions of votes. Instead of direct payment, (which would have been more honest) he gave the upper strata the tax money paid in by all taxpayers. A sociopath may care about family, but only to the extent those close relatives support their place in society and life. It can be a stretch to empathize with someone else's suffering, but normal people can put themselves in the shoes of "the other." The fact that Mccain would not support the improved GI bill, and has been uninterested in supporting the soldier other than with copious amounts of lip service, points out he is unable to identify even with his compatriots -- this I think the best indication of his sociopathic personality. I would not hold my breath waiting for him to empathize with women and their specific concerns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]