Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
"Obama Admits Waging War On Men"
Submitted by BendStraps on Sun, 2014-04-06 20:45
Article here. Excerpt:
'While the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of the Obamacare contraception mandate, the real goal of the provision appears to have very little to do with providing affordable birth control.
After combing through Obama administration documents in the Federal Register, National Center for Public Policy Research Chairwoman Amy Ridenour said the administration’s official justification for the policy is very different than the reasons often stated publicly.
“While the president went out in the East Room and gave a speech saying that the purpose of the HHS mandate is to help lower-income women afford birth control, in the HHS documents themselves, they talk about something else entirely and that is that the purpose of the mandate is to reduce economic and social disparities between men and women,” Ridenour said.
“This is an official legal document. They do not talk about the need to help lower-income people afford birth control. They do not say things like birth control may only be $9 a month, but if you make $9 an hour that’s a lot of money. No, what they talk about over and over and over again is gender disparity. It sounds like a women’s studies class,” she said.
...
Ridenour said the proof of the mandate as a wedge issue between the genders can be seen in the fact that women’s contraception services are fully covered, from contraceptives to abortion-inducing drugs to sterilization methods such as tubal ligation. However, the mandate provides no coverage whatsoever for men when it comes to condoms or even vasectomies.
She also said the low-income argument falls apart in light of what the mandate does and doesn’t do.
“A billionaire woman would be covered, and a very, very poor man would not be covered. Income has absolutely nothing to do with this. Gender and, frankly, feminism has everything to do with it,” Ridenour said.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Hmm, don't see Obama saying that... quite...
... but typically, stating actual motive is political suicide so I don't imagine he would. Nonetheless, what we're seeing here not just with the ACA but many other policy priority issues is a desire, as the article points out, to curry as much favor with women voters as possible.
At some point, the Dems realized women took the trouble to go vote more than men, and in particular, white women did so (possibly because the women's husbands were out working all day and the missus had plenty of time to visit the local polling booth). This is why when you see who benefits greatest from policies not just under Dem. party leaders but GOP ones too, it's typically women as a class. Both parties are scared $hitless of feminists, but even more of losing financing for their many candidates' election runs. However just because a voter is female does not mean she automatically votes Demo. Anyone think Ann Coulter votes Dem? Doubt it.
But it's a numbers game. If they can get just 65% of the female vote and another 35% of the male vote, that gets them 50% of the general pop'n, a bit more in fact since adult females outnumber adult males but not by that much. Since there are so many Dems concentrated in populous areas of the US or account for much of the population of major US population centers such as the New York City megalopolis line extending from New York down into Maryland (running through PA and NJ), add Los Angeles and its 'burbs, and then San Francisco/Silicon Valley, the result is NY and CA come out as solid blues. These two states alone deliver a large number of electoral votes to the Dems right from the get-go due to their high populations. However, the Dems have by the opinion of the pop'n become detached from "middle America" (you know, the so-called "fly-over" states), so it's bad enough that now, the US looks like two blue parentheses around a big red word, when looking at a blue/red map of voter habits and loyalties.
I think, all the above aside, it is simply likely not to change until failing to consider men's interests starts to endanger the Dems' (and/or GOP's) chances of getting and holding power. Power is the end game, always has been, always will be. The Dems used to be all about "the working man", the populist party, etc., but not in any hurry to name females as party officials. In the 1970s, they saw feminism as their brass ring to long-term security of office in the WH and Congress. It sort of kind of has worked out for them, but in a very tentative way. I think once they start paying the price at the polls, they'll come up with a different tune
Why needlessly provoke men?
"the mandate provides no coverage whatsoever for men when it comes to condoms or even vasectomies".
I have heard it argued that there was no reason to require that insurance companies cover vasectomies, since most policies already do so. Also, condoms are inexpensive, and widely available, so there was no need to require that coverage, either.
This may be true, but, politically, it seems foolish. After all, if vasectomies are already covered, anyway, then the cost of mandating their coverage would be quite small. And yet, doing so would help to defend the administration from charges of unequal treatment, based on gender.
It's not as if we had a choice between requiring birth control coverage for women, and requiring vasectomies for men, or condoms for both. There is no reason that all three could not have been done.
Which makes me wonder about the political calculus involved. Do they see some gain, not just in pandering to women, but in provoking men? Is there some constituency that sees riling men as proof of the president's support of them?
Yes, there is
"Is there some constituency that sees riling men as proof of the president's support of them?"
Feminists. So many that the political powers that wants their votes are happy to be seen as unsympathetic to men's issues.
Is it legal?
Is it legal to sell a policy the buyer cannot use?
One of the provisions of the ACA is that single men and women who can't have children are required to have maternity coverage and contraceptive coverage. The idea is that this will lower the cost for women who do have babies and use contraceptives. You see, it was unfair that women paid more for health insurance, largely because of the costs of having babies. (In many cases, dad actually paid for the coverage, but never mind that.)
Now, unless a single man can use his maternity coverage for any pregnant woman he wishes, he is legally required to buy insurance and legally barred from making a claim against it. A single man will not get pregnant. A man can also not use BC pills. So men are now expected to pay for insurance they cannot legally use. That used to be called insurance fraud. Today, it's the law.
And if he wants condoms, he must buy those himself. If he wants a vasectomy, he must pay co-pays and deductibles. Ditto for Viagra: it is not mandated by ACA and co-pays and deductibles apply. But women complain it's unfair if they have to pay co-pays and deductibles for a product that costs $15-20 a month. And I wonder: if Hobby Lobby loses because the Feds have a "compelling interest" in preventing unintended pregnancies, does that make all employers responsible for preventing pregnancies among their female employees? How is such a legal responsibility met? If a woman gets pregnant, do we fine the employer?