Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Plan B Disgrace

[ 108 ] December 7, 2011 |

Shame on Obama and Sebelius. This isn’t like the compromises on reproductive freedom in the ACA, which were necessary to appease fanatical anti-choicers who were in a position to blow up the legislation. This is an indefensible decision that wasn’t in any sense politically necessary, and indeed might be politically counterproductive. Appalling.

…more from Jamil Smith, Charlie, Vanessa Valenti, Kaili Joy Gray, Sarah Posner, Amanda Marcotte, Lindsay Beyerstein, and Tedra Osell (who alas returned to blogging at the “right” time.)

..and Carmon:

But there is no honest public-health reason to force teenage girls to see a doctor before accessing emergency contraception. There are only political ones. (The morning-after pill will still be available at pharmacies without a prescription for women over 17.)

So what happened? Although it’s hard to believe that conservative voters would be particularly swayed by the president’s capitulation on this front, teen sex has always had a special place in paternalistic and politicized approaches to public health. It doesn’t matter that teenagers can, and do, get pregnant (or contract sexually transmitted diseases) just like women over 17. They still have to be “protected” by parental-notification laws about abortion or from comprehensive, scientifically grounded information about sex. Politically speaking, teenagers aren’t exactly a powerful voting bloc — but their terrified parents are presumed to be.

Comments (108)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Steve LaBonne says:

    It’s so mindfuckingly stupid on every level that maybe application of sufficient pressure could bring about a reversal. I hope so, anyway.

    • ema says:

      Forget about a reversal, and here’s why.

      Since 2009 the FDA has been under a court order to lift *all* restrictions on ECPs. Specifically, Judge Edward Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the FDA’s prior decision to limit access to Plan B was based on politics rather than science and ordered the agency to reconsider its decision*.

      The FDA has ignored the order so the Center for Reproductive Rights is taking them to court: On December 13, 2011, a Federal Court in New York will hear oral arguments on the Center’s motion for contempt against the FDA [for ignoring the court’s ruling]*.

      Today’s decision looks like a preemptive legal move against the lawsuit.

      *email from the Center for Reproductive Rights

  2. Uncle Kvetch says:

    The first link’s not working.

  3. Nathan Williams says:

    This is so weird. I would have figured the watershed moment would have been when it went from prescription to behind-the-counter, not from behind-the-counter to OTC.

  4. Matt Stevens says:

    The Obama administration has triangulated itself. Well done!

  5. witless chum says:

    Is it possible they’ve been talking to the dumbass writers from the Walking Dead? That makes as much sense as any other explanation.

    When the Democrats fuck over the left for political expediency, it bothers me and I wish they’d do it less, but I understand. When they fuck us over and gain no political advantage from it, I just want to beat my head in.

    • Perhaps Sebelius didn’t make this decision for reasons of political advantage, but because she thought it was the right call.

      She’s never exactly come across as a dyed-in-the-wool pro-choicer.

      • Steve LaBonne says:

        Than she’s a fucking moron. The risks of pregnancy to 11-year-old girls vastly outweigh any hypothetical risk of Plan B.

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          Yeah, if she was acting out of principle it’s even worse.

          • witless chum says:

            And she needs to not be running HHS in a Democratic administration.

            • Obama’s performance on appointments has been the weakest part of his presidency.

              (Before today, with Cordray), he hasn’t used them to strategically highlight differences with his opponents.

              He’s left too many positions open.

              He plucked too many red-state Democratic officeholders for his cabinet, handing seats to the Republicans.

              And he’s choices have been baffling. What makes Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas, particularly good as an HHS secretary?

              On reproductive issues, a Governor Sebelius was a force for women’s right, fighting back against a very powerful anti-abortion coalition in her state. As an HHS secretary, not so much.

              • rootless_e says:

                Sibelius has been a total rock star on health care reform.

                • You’re right. Duh.

                  He picked Sebelius because of the HCR bill, of course.

                  OK, bad example.

                • witless chum says:

                  Even so, I think Joe’s point is still true.

                  There are others who could have done that. There weren’t so many other Democrats who were going to win statewide office in Kansas.

                • BKP says:

                  This is an honest question that I’m afraid it won’t be treated as such:

                  What has she done?

              • Furious Jorge says:

                He plucked too many red-state Democratic officeholders for his cabinet

                I agree with this, but I tend to see it as a reflection of Obama’s actual values than as a tactical miscalculation.

                Not sure if you’d agree with that or not.

        • The risks of pregnancy to 11-year-old girls vastly outweigh any hypothetical risk of Plan B.

          I disagree with the decision, too, but I don’t think this calculation quite gets at the issue.

          Isn’t one of the reasons to require a drug to be prescription-only a concern that it could be misused in a way that renders it ineffective (for example, people taking antibiotics for two days, feeling better, and stopping). An ineffective use of Plan B – for instance, taking it too late – would expose that 11-year-old girl to a greater risk of becoming pregnant.

          Which is pretty paternalistic and doesn’t take the plausible, real-world scenarios into account, but that’s pretty consistent with a soft-lifer position.

          • DocAmazing says:

            Leave gynecology to the gynecolgists, who have already weighted in on this.

            This was a plain-vanilla ass-kiss to the forced pregnancy crew. It cannot be expalined in any other way.

            • Judging the likelihood of the general public to follow usage instructions isn’t gynecology.

              But otherwise, yeah, she overruled the advisory panel to do this. They, not the ex-governor of Kansas, are the experts on this question.

            • It cannot be expalined in any other way.

              So you’re certain that Sebelius doesn’t actually disagree with you?

              Do you two go way back?

          • David M. Nieporent says:

            Paternalistic? That’s the appropriate attitude towards 11-year olds.

            Sheesh. Try to offer payday loans, and people will argue that the adult borrowers aren’t capable of making an informed decision. But talk about an 11-year old, and all of the sudden we should pretend that she’s an adult.

            • witless chum says:

              It’s almost like people think control of your own body is kind of a more fundamental right and should be judged by different standards than the right to usury.

              • DrDick says:

                Well, in Neiporent’s world, control of your (female) body is and should be subject to far greater limitations and regulation than usury, which is a God given right.

                • BKP says:

                  You two should attempt to not be so dense in your rush to disagree with someone.

                  Neiporent said that we should behave paternalistically towards 11 year olds. He also pointed out that we have paternalistic laws devoted to adults.

                  At no point did he endorse usury, and at no point did he argue that a woman shouldn’t be in charge of her own body.

                  What shouldn’t be over-the-counter if you are bringing out the “control of your body” argument in reference to 11 year olds. Are you about to make an argument for underage sales of cigarettes and liquor?

            • ema says:

              Of all the available OTC drugs, name one other instance of 1) a manufacturer of an OTC drug required to submit data on 11yo, 2) a HHS Secretary overruling the FDA’s decision on that data. [HINT: #2 is a trick question.]

              Bonus round: Paternalistically speaking, how many tabs of, for example, aspirin, does it take to put an 11 yo in the ICU?

            • (the other) Davis says:

              But talk about an 11-year old, and all of the sudden we should pretend that she’s an adult.

              I would venture that the risk of liver damage an 11-year-old faces from taking too much Tylenol is far greater than any risk an 11-year-old faces from using Plan B. Yet no one is out there suggesting that Tylenol should no longer be OTC.

              Simply put, the argument that we should be paternalistic toward 11-year-olds — but just as far as Plan B is concerned — is nothing more than special pleading.

      • Anonymous says:

        This is entirely Obama’s decision. No way does she act on this without his full approval if not at his behest.

        • Sort of like OWS crackdown, I guess.

          Why is the notion that the relevant cabinet secretary made this decision so implausible? It’s not like this was an issue that was burning up the media.

          • Rob says:

            Because huge decisions like this aren’t made with at least an OK from the White House.

            • “At least an OK” is a quite a bit different from “This is entirely Obama’s decision,” and “his full approval if not at his behest.”

              I haven’t disputed that he gave the OK. It seems extremely unlikely that he was blindsided by this.

              But that’s a long way from the what Anonymous was claiming.

            • UserGoogol says:

              I don’t know if it’s a huge decision. The FDA approves drugs all the time, and Sebelius decided to intervene in one particular drug. That particular drug happens to be one which treats a very important and politically delicate “medical condition,” but I’m not sure that necessarily advances it to “must ask Obama for permission” territory.

              Although I’d certainly concede that if Obama disapproves of this decision, he’s probably pretty pissed off now. It doesn’t seem like Obama’s style to fire someone for insubordination, but he’d certainly be annoyed.

          • dangermouse says:

            I guess we’ll know in a few days after Sebellius reverses the decision or resigns.

            Or doesn’t do either of those things.

            • The thinking here is that anyone who takes an action that isn’t at the behest of the President gets kicked out of the administration?

              That people don’t delegate decisions to those below them, or back up their people when they make a decision?

              Such that failing to fire someone indicates that their actions were actually carried out under orders?

              You’ve clearly never held a position of responsibility in a large organization.

  6. david mizner says:

    This is unpossible. Obama only fails to champion liberal principles when Congress forces him to.

    • Hey, David, I really liked your comments on Daily Kos about how utterly irrelevant it is that Obama is using the bully pulpit.

      Is there anything you actually believe?

      • So, are going to just let the charge sit there, or are you going to make a lot of noise, so that I’ll post the links?

        Take your time. Either way works for me.

        • david mizner says:

          please post the links and please blockquote. I like to read my own stuff.

          • OK.

            Speaking for myself, I’d rather (37+ / 0-)
            people here recognize the importance and political value of such words — and celebrate OWS’s role in helping bringing them about — without pretending they mean much of anything absent action — or short of action, a call for remedies.

            He isn’t even on record supporting what’s needed, let alone pushing for those things.

            • david mizner says:

              Thanks. I missed the part where I said his rhetoric is “utterly irrelevant.” I guessed you made up that part. Also missed the part that contradicts anything I’ve written over the last three years.

              • You miss a lot of things.

              • Tell you what: you go ahead and spin however you want.

                I’m content to let your interestingly-timed embrace of nuance speak for itself.

                • david mizner says:

                  Wow, you put in lot of effort to reveal your own dishonesty.

                • Letting your words speak for themselves, to an audience familiar with your previously-stated positions, isn’t actually a lot of effort.

                • I missed the part where I said his rhetoric is “utterly irrelevant.” I guessed you made up that part.

                  Wow, you put in lot of effort to reveal your own dishonesty. – Mizner, 4:45

                  This is unpossible. Obama only fails to champion liberal principles when Congress forces him to. – Mizner, 4:07

                  Impressive, David. It only took me 38 minutes to get you to completely reverse yourself on the use of hyperbolic language to portray someone else’s argument.

                  Not bad, but I think I can do even better next time.

      • david mizner says:

        ?

        Actually I said his born again fake populism is political valuable but doesn’t mean much if it’s not connected to action. I’ve never been a big bully pulpit guy (more of an anti-anti-bully puplit guy) and certainly have never argued that nice rhetoric means a lot when it doesn’t jibe with actions.

        • I’ve never been a big bully pulpit guy

          Do you imagine that nobody has ever read your comments before?

          Right, yesterday I wondering (25+ / 0-)
          about the one real thing in his speech about fighting the banks. Turns out it’s tied to the SEC’s request for stiffer fines–”weak tea” in D-Day’s words.

          There are real things the President could be and should be doing to counter the power of the banks. He’s not doing them.

          by david mizner on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:55:32 AM PST

          • I love this sudden nuance.

            Suddenly, moving public opinion and Congressional votes – the uses to which you attributed the bully pulpit – are not “real things.”

            • david mizner says:

              Well I fully acknowledge that this kind of rhetoric is better than his previous rhetoric, which embraced deficit hysteria. It would be still if he backed up this general populist rhetoric with a call for necessary actions — like the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall — and better still if after he is reelected he fought for them. It’s not so hard really. Support liberal policy; fight for liberal policy.

      • bay of arizona says:

        How about you defend Obama’s decision to go back on his campaign promise regarding medical marijuana, and going further than Bush did in siccing the IRS after legal dispensaries in California?

        Congress passed no new laws, and the DEA can re-schedule pot without legislation.

        Going back on topic, is there any doubt that if the FDA made a non-progressive decision you would say that it is an independent agency and Obama is SO POWERLESS to do anything about it? Funny how he only has power to push the conservative agenda.

        • I haven’t the foggiest idea how you managed to read an assertion that Obama was “powerless” into what I wrote.

          Since I’ve never written a single word about Obama being “powerless” to take executive actions, I think there is an enormous amount of doubt that I would suddenly do so in the cases of the FDA.

          I’ve made actual arguments. If you ever feel up to addressing them, have at it.

        • Obama’s decision to go back on his campaign promise regarding medical marijuana

          You mean the promise not to prosecute under the CSA dispensaries that comply with state law? The one he’s kept?

          Maybe you should make more of an effort to know what you’re talking about before you get yourself worked up into such a lather. Or perhaps avoid the lather altogether. There’s a thought.

    • rootless_e says:

      Do you call yourself a “liberal”? Or are you speaking ex-cathedra as a socialist who can understand the confused rationale behind liberalism?

  7. rea says:

    I suspect my reputation here is of a fairly die-hard Obama defender, and I’m comfortable with that. This decision by the Administration, however, makes no sense.

  8. Name says:

    This will gain Obama no votes whatsoever. The people who would be pleased by this decision are not going to vote for him no matter what he does. The people who will be alienated and demoralized by this are his core constituency.

    It absolutely boggles the mind. What is he thinking?

    • What is he thinking?

      If I had to guess, I’d say “I don’t want to set off a big media event by overruling my HHS secretary on a reproductive rights issue right now.”

      Given Sebelius’ soft-lifer rhetoric over the years, it seems more likely that she made the call and he stayed out of it, than that this came down from the Oval Office. It would also fit in with his discipline in not getting distracted from his messaging strategy during election campaigns.

    • Agreed. I can’t see a single vote being gained by this. The only plausible explanation is that Obama is just dying for some Brooks/Douthat praise.

      • bay of arizona says:

        According to JfL, he is at the mercy of the all powerful HHS Secretary and can do nothing at all.

        • Where was that, exactly? Could you quote it?

          I’d probably remember saying something that directly contradicts what I believe, and what I’ve written on this thread.

          • Rob says:

            Its what you said in the post right above here. The Cossacks work for the Czar.

            • Here’s “what I wrote above this.”

              If I had to guess, I’d say “I don’t want to set off a big media event by overruling my HHS secretary on a reproductive rights issue right now.”

              Given Sebelius’ soft-lifer rhetoric over the years, it seems more likely that she made the call and he stayed out of it, than that this came down from the Oval Office. It would also fit in with his discipline in not getting distracted from his messaging strategy during election campaigns.

              Nope, nothing about “powerless” there. Not a word suggesting it was out of his power. A completely different argument, that has nothing to do with his power.

              The Cossacks work for the Czar.

              This cliche is a response to the statement “If only the Czar knew.” There’s nothing in my comment about Obama not knowing about this decision, either.

              My statement about Obama’s motivation isn’t really that opaque. Why are you pretending it is?

              • Uncle Kvetch says:

                If I had to guess, I’d say “I don’t want to set off a big media event by overruling my HHS secretary on a reproductive rights issue right now.”

                If that’s really the thinking behind Obama’s inaction, it doesn’t even make sense on a strategic level.

                Seriously, a “big media event”? Yes, I’m sure the pundits would be positively breathless with excitement over the Growing Rift in the Obama Administration. It would be the talk of le tout Washington for, oh, maybe a whole week, until some other bright shiny object came along. Would anybody else really give a shit? How could the benefits of avoiding an ephemeral media tizzy outweigh the very real costs of pissing off the base?

                • That makes some sense.

                  But I think that works both ways.

                  People on the intertubez sometimes have a distorted vision of what is “the base,” and how (and how strongly) the actual Democratic base would respond to something.

                • Uncle Kvetch says:

                  People on the intertubez sometimes have a distorted vision of what is “the base,” and how (and how strongly) the actual Democratic base would respond to something.

                  Point taken. But still, “President overrides his HHS Secretary!” is so inside baseball that it’s hard to imagine anyone outside the Beltway really caring.

                  If there’s pragmatic calculation at work here, I think it’s more about this issue being the kind of thing that’s so easily demagogued by the right…OMG, now he’s putting 13-year-old girls on the pill! I can already see the all-caps emails that my dad and his friends will be sending each other. Now, people like my dad wouldn’t vote for Obama in a million years anyway, but I can kind of see this kind of thing working with some low-information swing voters, if it’s not countered effectively.

                  But that’s hardly a justification–quite the opposite. It just means that once again the default stance is a defensive crouch.

                • You make a good point about the hullaballoo and its causes.

                  But I disagree with It just means that once again the default stance is a defensive crouch. This depends on thinking that they would be afraid of losing the fight. I maintain that the political calculation is about having the fight, and its distraction from the messaging effort they’re currently in.

                • Uncle Kvetch says:

                  Fair enough.

                • Murc says:

                  What the hell, you two? You are NOT ALLOWED to have a nuanced, hair-splitting discussion about political strategy that ends in mutual understanding of the others points.

                  I am disappointed in the both of you. Your mothers must be ashamed.

                • Murc,

                  Your mother should be ashamed, but she’s grinning every time I slip out the window.

                  :-P

                • Uncle Kvetch says:

                  What the hell, you two? You are NOT ALLOWED to have a nuanced, hair-splitting discussion about political strategy that ends in mutual understanding of the others points.

                  [stares at ground, shrugs, kicks imaginary pebble]

  9. dangermouse says:

    Oh boy, another Joements megathread.

    Over/under until he starts calling people idiots? Alternately, how about a pool on his total comments for the thread? I’m gonna bank that one at oh, let’s call it an even hundred and twenty.

  10. Joe the Obot says:

    I blame Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald for this.

  11. rootless_e says:

    I love David Mizner’s political program of rallying the masses around the slogan “Obama really does suck”. The only puzzling thing is that such a program and such a stirring slogan have not already caused the overthrow of capitalism and the worldwide establishment of a people’s government. Oh, wait, I forgot: the masses are deluded by false consciousness! Phew.

    • bayville says:

      still sleepwalking through another apologia- post defending the Great O’Criminal in the White House, eh rootless?

      Chapter 24,223.

      Mizner’s the problem: his pessimism, cynicsm and the fact his ’01 VW doesn’t have the required Obama/Biden sticker prominently displayed on both bumpers.

      Once again you’ve diagnosed the problem – it’s Nader and Hamsher’s fault, I’m sure.

      • rootless_e says:

        I plead guilty to thinking that what people say and do has an effect and that a political ideology made up of equal parts whining and unearned self-esteem has a negative effect. The hilarious defense of the fake-left, that their Harold Camping style predictions of doom, their bitter embrace of powerlessness, and their strenuous efforts to help the GOP all have no effect – so they are blameless- is symptomatic of an ideology based on watching cable TV and wishing for a place in the green room.

  12. Shame on Obama and Sebelius.

    Yes. It is shameful.

  13. bayville says:

    This isn’t like the compromises on reproductive freedom in the ACA, which were necessary to appease fanatical anti-choicers who were in a position to blow up the legislation. This is an indefensible decision that wasn’t in any sense politically necessary, and indeed might be politically counterproductive.

    You and Joe should wait for the Obama press release and talking points to come down through the food chain.

    When that comes down from above, you two will spend the next year convincing us Rubes how 11-dimensional and irrelevant this decision actually is.

    • …and yet we didn’t.

      And yet, no matter how many times people like you write this boring comment, it never seems to work, and we keep writing our own thoughts.

      Some – not you, obviously, but some – might draw a conclusion from this the eightieth or ninetieth time it happens.

  14. jeer9 says:

    I fail to see why anyone is shocked by the administration’s behavior on anything at this point. Liberals/progressives have nowhere else to go, and Newtie is rising in the polls. He knows you’ll vote for him. There is no penalty. The alternative is too scary.

    • rootless_e says:

      Nobody is shocked. What we have is the same people who have been “disappointed” since 2007, registering even more fake shock.

      • DocAmazing says:

        Try “disgusted”.

        • rootless_e says:

          whatever. “Still disgusted” is a great slogan for the fake left.

          • jeer9 says:

            And the “real” left is … ?

            • rootless_e says:

              My theory is that it has been raptured. In any case, it’s not really evident anywhere.

              • jeer9 says:

                Octopus disappears into inky cloud of black. Try again.

                • rootless_e says:

                  Well, you could read Rorty’s “Achieving our Country” for a start. I think Keynes/Galbraith/Social-Democrat economics destroyed the underlying rationale of the socialist critique of capitalism but then also weakened the political base of the New Deal coalition which also fractured under racial and gender role tensions. A unionized workforce that relied on racial discrimination, an unpaid female workforce, and a war economy was not a real force for progress. And so, without a mass base, the intellectual “left” became something dependent on universities and corporate media for funding and turned into a caricature, a paid jester acting out the part of social justice movement. That’s why what passes for “left” critique these days is a pastiche of unrelated indignations -often accepting wacko Bircher economic theories or reduced to bemoaning the end of the golden age of Jim Crow and Cold War.

                • jeer9 says:

                  I have read Rorty’s Achieving Our Country, though I didn’t get out of it quite what you imply: that the Left is mired in a hopelessly fractured economic strategy founded upon incoherent allegiances which have ossified into an empty cultural critique.

                  A couple of quotes:

                  But if their patience (the New Left) had not run out at some point, if they had never taken to the streets, if civil disobedience had never replaced an insistence on working within the system, America might no longer be a constitutional democracy. Their loss of patience was the result of perfectly justified, wholly sincere moral indignation … (69).

                  A battered and exhausted Left, a Left too tired to experience rage when only rage will work, and too chastened by knowledge of the results of revolutions elsewhere to urge a revolution in America, is not the same as a Left that has sold out or become discredited (70).

                  Those thoughts about the New Left seem to very much capture the spirit of OWS, a movement which is not going away and which has already significantly altered the political conversation. While OWS has been reluctant to clearly state the changes they would like to see, I hardly see their activities as “a pastiche of unrelated indignations.” Our current mess derives from a party that has sold out and no longer represents its constituents’ interests.

                • DocAmazing says:

                  Jesus, Jeer9, why bother responding with actual points? rootless sure isn’t.

                • rootless_e says:

                  Since I can’t reply to your reply, I’ll reply here. What Rorty pointed out was that the “left” has become a refuge for academic pissing with no ties to any popular movements or any positive message. The message of the modern left is “we’re fucked” – something that history has shown not to be an effective message for building a popular movement.

                  As to the silly complaint that the Democrats don’t represent their constituents interests, I merely need point out to you that the Democratic primary process is open. Dissident candidates can easily stand for election and can win. One of the remarkable features of the modern “left” is that it seems unable to come to terms with the fact that Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieus constituents DONT AGREE WITH THEM. Even Sherrod Brown’s constituents are not in step with The Nation and you have congressional districts where Democratic voters are economically progressive and anti-choice bigots. To build a popular movement you have to go out and convince people. Just pretending to represent the majority might be good for self-esteem, but it’s pretty useless.

  15. Murc says:

    I would suggest that instead of her Slate piece, people get the pure, uncut stuff straight from Amanda.

    The Slate piece has been cleaned up for, well, Slate.

  16. bobbyp says:

    Interesting back and forth…could it be that Obama actually agrees with Sibelius on this matter?

    That Rorty book sounds interesting, too. Anybody have a spare copy?

    • Bill Murray says:

      but didn’t Obama “guarantee scientific integrity” in federal policy making? According to the NY Times

      The idea, the president said in remarks before an audience of lawmakers, scientists, patients advocates and patients in the East Room, is to ensure that “we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10obama.html

      • ema says:

        Unless the decision has to do with ECP in which case scientific integrity is out and the old, reliable “how I feel about it in my tummy” is in:

        Obama says as a father of two daughters, the government should “apply some common sense” to rules when it comes to over-the-counter medication.

        Sure, the FDA does not require studies on 11 yo for any other OTC meds but who cares when feelings are involved:

        Obama says Sebelius was concerned a 10- or 11-year-old could get the medication, which could have an adverse effect. Obama says “most parents would probably feel the same way.”

        Because, clearly, Sebelius’ concerns trump scientific evidence:

        FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg made clear that the decision is highly unusual. She said her agency’s drug-safety experts had carefully considered the question of young girls and she had agreed that Plan B’s age limit should be lifted.

        “There is adequate and reasonable, well-supported and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential,” Hamburg wrote.

  17. BKP says:

    I have a feeling I am going to be overjoyed by the voter enthusiasm and turnout we see in 2012.

  18. [...] in fact, maintains very real gains for women’s health and equity. The Obama administration has made bad decisions on these issues before, but this isn’t one of those times. If the argument is that core [...]

  19. [...] (largely consisting of assumptions that feminists are total sellouts, because after all they just loved that recent Plan B decision) based on a transparently erroneous premise. Is Obama wrong because he caved and did a 180? Or is [...]

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site