Contraception Controversy

          I had a piece written on the contraception brouhaha some weeks ago, but I’m not sure I understand the implications of the Administration position yet. Sebelius seemed to loose cannon a HHS decision that forces all insurance companies to pay for contraceptive services for women. Cue the protests from religious groups and libertarians outraged at Government intrusion into the free market.

          After all, Sebelius did loose cannon back in December and had to be reigned in. Would the Administration retract or moderate her decision? The longer they took the worse it would be for them, right? The Administration did moderate the decision after a fashion two weeks later. Sebelius framed the HHS decision as a national health issue. Opponents framed the decision as a religious liberty issue. Obama framed the decision in terms of personal choice. To me, the HHS & Obama’s decisions provided a different look at the same outcome. Women had access to paid preventive care, regardless of who they worked for. I don’t see a concerted attack on religion here, but probably over-reach by Government into the private sector.

          The problem is there isn’t much precedent for such mandates. Auto manufacturers had to install seat belts in all cars, but wearing seat belts is regulated by the states. Kids get mandatory immunizations to improve public health but they can opt out of them. So the “rights” questions and implications are murky to me at this point.

          Less murky is why the Administration took two weeks to speak up and permitted a firestorm of protest to ensue. Framing the decision in terms of choice and public health is favored by many women. Opposing choice on ideological grounds feels a bit regressive and repressive.

          This is a bit like campaigning in Michigan and saying nothing should have been done to save the auto industry. This is at a time when Ford is the number one car company in the world and has the record profit in their corporate history. We’ll call that position counterproductive. The auto bailouts and the contraception controversy demonstrates clearly the implications of being ideologically driven. The ideologue says because they are “right” success will come. The pragmatist says that was is successful is “right”. The Administration has positioned itself along populist lines and will probably reap the benefits thereof.

          The Administration allowed the two week period to stir up culture war fever and ensuing extremism. Regardless of culture warrior Santorum’s current partisan favor, social conservative issues don’t play well with moderates and independents, the majority of actual voters. So if a social conservative issue (s) could be stirred up, it benefits the Administration chances in November. The opposition appeared to cast themselves as paternalists clinging to vanishing values. The Administration decision was smart politics, if not smart policy.