Compromise for Condoms?

Photo by Flickr user anqa under Creative Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In government health care reform debates, abortion coverage is the third rail. Should some abortion be implicitly, if not explicitly, covered? Should Congress promote the use of contraception? And if abortion were covered, would Barack Obama’s mother have had one?

Those hoping for compromise on the issue suffered a setback yesterday when Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was “booted” from Democrats for Life, the anti-choice arm of the Democratic Party, for sponsoring legislation that would have supported the use of contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

In a statement last week, Ryan said, “I can’t figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don’t be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem.”

As Atrios writes, Ryan’s effort seems like a good faith attempt to find common ground on the abortion issue, but the anti-choice movement proved once again that it is against “any sex without a good chance of ‘consequences’ for the woman taking part.”

Neither health care reform bill in the House or Senate mentions abortion explicitly. But the discussion raises a larger question about DC compromise on social issues. Since he began his campaign for president more than two years ago, Barack Obama has been consistent in advocating “common ground” on divisive issues like abortion. But the anti-choice rejection of contraception indicates that common ground on this particular issue may be impossible.

Can conservatives, for example, accept compromise on health care if it includes contraception or (gasp!) abortion? And will liberals accept compromise without it?

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate