Blogs Comment On Supreme Court Vacancy, Antiabortion-Rights Democrats, Other Topics

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "History Says GOP's Court Fight Will Be Futile," Steve Kornacki, Salon's "The Numerologist": Republicans' immediate response to the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was "hardly a surprise," including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) pledge to use the confirmation process to derail President Obama's nominee, Kornacki writes. However, "history says it will be just about impossible for the GOP to thwart whomever Obama tabs as Stevens' successor -- unless some sort of personal scandal erupts," Kornacki argues, noting that Robert Bork is the only Supreme Court nominee in the last 25 years to be defeated in the Senate. "Otherwise, recent nominees who have been targeted on purely ideological grounds have all survived," Kornacki says, adding, "There's no reason to think Obama's nominee to replace Stevens will fare much differently." Republicans hold 41 Senate seats, "so it would take 10 Democratic defections to upend [Obama's] pick," and "recent history shows that a nominee only loses support from members of the president's party when some sort of personal issue crops up," Kornacki writes (Kornacki, "The Numerologist," Salon, 4/9).

~ "Bart Stupak's Departure: The End of Pro-Life Democrats?" David Gibson, Politics Daily's "Disputations": Gibson discusses whether antiabortion-rights Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) announcement that he will not run for re-election is "a win for antiabortion groups" or "at least a measure of vindication for conservatives after what they saw as the huge setback of the health care passage." Stupak already faced a primary challenge from former Charlevoix County, Mich., Commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who supports abortion rights, Gibson notes. "While a Saltonstall victory in the primary -- and the general election -- would please pro-choice activists to no end, Democratic sources say the party is more likely to push other candidates who would have a better shot at winning in November in a district that tends to be pro-life and blue-collar," he continues. However, "it is also possible that so many bridges had been burned between pro-life Democrats and pro-life lobbies after the health care vote that Stupak's retirement is only the recognition of a chasm so wide it was unlikely to be narrowed any time soon," Gibson adds. He also writes that Stevens' retirement makes it "likely that abortion rights will flare up again as a central issue during a confirmation hearing this summer, giving Democrats and Republicans more incentive to use abortion as a wedge issue, and more fodder for the fall campaign" (Gibson, "Disputations," Politics Daily, 4/10).














~ "The New Health Care Fight: Abortion Coverage in State Exchanges," Sarah Kliff, Newsweek's "The Gaggle": A "new, state-level battle over abortion coverage has just begun," Kliff writes, adding that it comes "courtesy of Section 1303" of the health care reform law (PL 111-148), "which reiterates states' rights to regulate abortion coverage among their insurers." Although the provision "actually does not give states any rights they didn't have before, ... in the world of abortion politics and policy, it was important for two main reasons," according to Kliff. "First, it drew scrutiny to a relatively dormant area of the abortion debate: insurance coverage," and "[s]econd, it restated the existing laws regarding insurance regulation in a way that homes in on abortion, giving those who oppose abortion rights a specific clause to attack." American United for Life is "[l]eading that charge," she adds. The effect of "opt-out bills ... will vary from state to state," Kliff says, noting that Missouri "already has a law barring nearly all abortion coverage in private insurance," meaning that it is "unclear what an additional opt-out law would do." However, Tennessee has "less stringent laws on abortion coverage, meaning a new law could shape the plans sold on the exchange," Kliff states (Kliff, "The Gaggle," Newsweek, 4/12).

~ "The Long and Short of President Obama's SCOTUS Nominee Lists," Michael Scherer, Time's "Swampland": The White House is "not tipping its hand" as it considers possible nominees to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, Scherer writes, adding that there are "no [official] short lists or long lists." However, "there does seem to be some consensus among outside groups who track this process" that Solicitor General Elena Kagan, U.S. Appeals Court Judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano are top contenders, according to Scherer. He also posts an "unofficial list of other names from one outside group that is keeping a close eye" on the nomination process. The list includes a "high number of non-judicial, judicial nominees," such as Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D), Attorney General Eric Holder, and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Scherer writes. "Obama has long spoken of his awareness of the world outside of the law as a key factor in his decision making process," he adds. According to Scherer, Obama said in his statement on Stevens' retirement that he will seek a nominee with "a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people," among other qualities (Scherer, "Swampland," Time, 4/9).

~ "A Question of Values: The Real Abortion Debate," Naomi Cahn and June Carbone, Huffington Post blogs: "Politicians do not like to talk about sex," but "[t]hey most emphatically do not like talking about women's reproductive needs," according to Cahn and Carbone. Every time the issue of contraception arises, "a determined group in Congress changes the subject to abortion," they write. "Contraception is about women's real needs," they write, adding, "It is time we change the subject back." Cahn and Carbone note that Medicaid pays for 40% of all births in the U.S. and that the rate of unintended pregnancies among the nation's "poorest women is four times that of the middle class." Nonetheless, last year, when Obama proposed the "extension of contraceptive services to women in the hospital giving birth at government expense," Republicans "succeeded in using the term 'family planning' to send coded messages to their base," and the proposal was dropped from the economic stimulus package. To ensure "women's issues are taken seriously," Cahn and Carbone suggest that "[e]very time a member of Congress says the word 'abortion,' we say, 'Where do you stand on preventing unwanted pregnancies?" They add, "[W]e should make members of Congress vote as often on provisions that would help women's lives as they vote on pointless abortion measures that will not change the outcome of a single pregnancy." They conclude, "Let them either vote for effective birth control or explain, clearly and loudly, that what they really want is pregnancy as the price of intercourse. It is time to talk honestly about sex" (Carbone/Cahn, Huffington Post blogs, 4/9).

~ "What a D.A.'s Actions Reveal About the War on Contraception," Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check: "The War on Contraception, which is usually fought undercover for fear that the anti-sex agenda of the anti-choice movement might make them less popular, is going mainstream in the U.S.," according to Marcotte. She notes that a Wisconsin prosecutor has warned teachers that complying with the state's new sex education curriculum could lead to an arrest for contributing to the delinquency of minors. She adds that now "some members of Congress" -- such as Minority Leader John Boehner (D-Ohio) -- "are experimenting with putting forward arguments that assume that contraception funding can be presumed immoral and disgusting." According to Marcotte, "'Protect life' is now an unambiguous euphemism for 'punish female sexuality with forced childbirth.'" She writes that during the health reform debate, Boehner contended "that use of contraception, ... is so controversial that an entire health care bill should be repealed to curtail the behavior." Marcotte adds, "This is an assault on the rights of women of all ages to have sex for pleasure without fear of pregnancy, except for those who are wealthy enough to pay for family planning services out of pocket" (Marcotte, RH Reality Check, 4/13).


Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.


© 2010 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.