Dukes & Wonks

guest blogger: anonymous1

The debate over the “Blunt Amendment” has caused much controversy and has played a major role in the Republican Primary.  This bill, proposed by Republican Senator Roy Blunt, would allow religious organizations and employers to deny coverage of birth control if it goes against their moral beliefs.  Most Republicans support the bill, arguing that it is needed in order to protect people’s freedom of religion rights.  On the other hand, most Democrats oppose the bill as it would infringe on women’s privacy. However, the right to privacy is strangely not mentioned in the constitution. So the question remains, should women and couples have the right to obtain birth control? If the bill is passed, many will not be able to afford birth control and will have to rely on less effective forms of contraceptive.
Continue reading ‘Let’s Be Blunt, Romney’

Posted in Campaigns & Elections, Health Policy, Political Parties, Presidency

guest blogger: anonymous3

“Nothing is more powerful than an idea…whose time has come…whose time is now…”

This quote may be recognizable to the more than 110 million people worldwide who viewed the “Kony 2012” video, which went live on March 5th. The 30-minute video, which highlights the efforts of non-profit organization, Invisible Children, sought to raise awareness about warlord, Joseph Kony, who has been accused of abducting children and forcing them to fight for his Lord’s Resistance Army. As is typical of modern social media, the mini film spread like wildfire. But, as Facebook posts and tweets prompted masses of people to join the Kony 2012 movement, many critics like CNN opinion writer, TMS Ruge, believe that the video “created the wrong buzz” and likely ignored some larger political issues at hand.
Continue reading ‘“Kony 2012”: Unprecedented backlash?’

Posted in Interest Groups, Media & Politics

guest blogger: zoocracy

Want to save the world?  Check out this website!  Watch the video about how donating to All For Africa will help African villagers and battle global warming by building these fantastic, environmentally friendly palm oil plantations. They have Bill Clinton as a supporter and everything!

BUT WAIT, how can you be sure you are getting the whole message when you see ads like this?  Propaganda is ever present in media and politics.  A common strategy is twisting information and only sharing some of the truth.  For example, All For Africa mentions creating jobs and income for people living near these plantations, but most of the jobs will in fact be temporary and not even go to local village people, only bringing more people to these areas, according to SAVE (a nonprofit that says it promotes wildlife conservation and biodiversity).
Continue reading ‘Climate Change or Climate Control?’

Posted in Environmental Policy, Interest Groups, Media & Politics

guest blogger: ffr

Over the past couple of months the Obama administration has adopted a rule requiring employers to provide “free” birth control (the employee’s health insurance pays) to all of their employees. This rule provides an exemption for “religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith” but not for religious employers who employ people of other faiths. In other words, the rule also mandates that Roman Catholics and other religious affiliated hospitals and colleges provide birth control through the institutions’ insurance companies. Although this policy has gained the support of many women, as well as a large majority of Democrats, there is a large opposition to this new controversial issue.

One major opposition towards this rule is caused by its requirement for religious institutions to provide free contraception. Among the largest opposition groups are men, although there is also a significant number of women against free contraception in regards to religious institutions as well.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News, under Republican pollster Bill McInturff, conducted a poll asking whether the government should mandate that Roman Catholic and other religious affiliated hospitals and colleges offer birth control paid by the institutions’ insurance companies. Results showed that American’s were opposed—although only by a small plurality—45% to 38%, with women split down the middle with 40% approval and 40% disapproval.

When the poll asked more specific questions such as whether these religious institutions should provide birth control such as the morning after pill, the opposition rose 49% with women’s opposition rising as well to 46%.

However, in the same poll, when asked if employers should provide overall free birth control the respondents favored the rule 53% to 33% (with women specifically approving 58% to 28%).

Surprisingly enough, Catholics who were surveyed generally approved of employers providing free birth control, but opposed the requirement of Catholic institutions to provide such means of contraception.

Obama’s attempt to create a new birth control law is a perfect example of how the executive branch can create administrative laws and policies through bureaucratic decision-making.

Administrative laws are laws that govern administrative agencies of government (i.e. bureaucracies). Therefore, bureaucracies are required to carry out any policies that the president creates through administrative laws—thus creating new public law.

But will religious organizations be able to challenge this upcoming policy through freedom of religion in the First Amendment and the free exercise clause?

As displayed by this poll, Obama’s attempt at a new birth control policy is unquestionably a very controversial issue both among Republicans and Democrats, as well as women and men, and will most likely be taking a prominent role come election time.

Posted in Bureaucracy, Gender & Politics, Health Policy, Presidency

guest blogger: jat

As consumers of information, we have it a little rough. When we are searching for information on a candidate or a proposed bill, we can’t accept everything we read at first glance.

For example, in the Washington Post article, “Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility”, the bias becomes evident with the word “archaic.” By using the word, the author is portraying the conservative view of birth control as outdated. She might strengthen her argument by explaining why some people consider birth control to be wrong, rather than using negative phrases like “smug fecundity” and Republicans’ “broods.” More people would be open to the author’s opinion with just these two changes. Of course, by asserting her opinion, the author is automatically succumbing to her bias.
Continue reading ‘Analyzing a Liberal Stance’

Posted in Gender & Politics, Health Policy, Media & Politics

guest blogger: ffr

On February 16, there was a Capitol Hill hearing discussing whether or not president Obama’s new birth control mandate violated religious freedoms. Interestingly enough, a panel of nearly all men was testifying on the issue. Take a look at the video clip below from The Ed Show (up to 1:32):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/46436137#46436137

How can men go about trying to influence decisions about women’s health in regards to abortion and birth control? Men cannot become pregnant, men do not have to carry a baby for nine months, and men cannot be put at risk because of a pregnancy. The only thing men are responsible for involving pregnancy is getting women pregnant.

To have this panel of all men discuss the Obama administration’s rule mandating insurance coverage of birth control seems both outrageous and irrational. Where is the woman’s voice? This is, after all, a women’s health issue. Men do not solely deserve a say in what women do with their body without, in the very least, consulting with women and their wants first. Perhaps it would be more reasonable if there were collaborations of both men and women, rather than a panel consisting entirely of men.

Continue reading ‘WoMEN’s Health?’

Posted in Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, Congress, Health Policy