Women’s Lobby Loses Birth Control Battle, Wins Stimulus War

By
Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Feminist outrage is making headlines today as women’s groups react to President Obama’s last-minute move to to eliminate a portion of the stimulus package that would have made it easier for states to expand birth control coverage through Medicaid.

The loss of the birth control provision came as a blow to Planned Parenthood, which had lobbied forcefully for it.

Despite the news, as I reported today, there is still plenty of reason for the feminist lobby to be pleased — billions and billions of them, in fact.

The bill allocates billions of dollars for education, health care, direct aid to needy families and support for state governments to maintain social programs — all items on the feminist wish list. Stimulus money will create or preserve jobs for teachers, librarians, nurses, and childcare workers around the country.

The outcome of the House bill contrast with feminist fears from just a few weeks ago, when it seemed that stimulus job creation would be confined to the male-dominated construction and energy industries. But the bill allocates only five percent of the stimulus for infrastructure, according to The Boston Globe, a figure that shrank progressively as the details of the stimulus were hashed out:

“Priorities changed,” [Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.)] said. “Someone says, ‘How about food stamps, how about early childhood education?’”

We also haven’t seen the last of the Medicaid family planning expansion. The Senate is expected to take up a stand alone version of the family planning expansion next week.

Comments

8 Comments

ajm8127
Comment posted January 29, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

The removals of the family planning is a tragedy in the stimulus bill. Mr. Obama was trying to show he could be sympathetic to Republicans, and seemed to me to convey a desire to reach out across the aisle. Than ALL of the Republicans voted no.

They spoke volumes with that vote, basically saying, “You may want to work with us, but we don't really want to work with you.” They set a fiery stage for legislation in the future during the Obama administration.


Alon Levy
Comment posted January 29, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

I'm not sure why you're portraying it as a positive thing that the bill only allocated 5% to infrastructure. Saying that investment in infrastructure is bad because most construction workers are male is like saying that investment in education is bad because most professors and teachers are white. It doesn't make sense.


Porkchopicus_of_Borg
Comment posted January 30, 2009 @ 6:04 am

I think that the biggest tragedy is that the President and Democrats went along with gutting the proposed infrastructure expenditures in order to put in more tax cuts (and thereby win some Republican votes) — and then no Republicans voted for it anyway. I think that the House and Senate should just toss out most of the Republican-sponsored changes (since the Republicans aren't interested in the stimulus anyway) and push it through. There are clearly enough votes in the House and nearly enough votes in the Senate to pass Obama's original proposal in the first place. So chuck out the crap the GOP wanted in there and pass the plain-vanilla version.


Lindsay Beyerstein
Comment posted January 30, 2009 @ 7:09 am

What a straw man, Alon. Nobody is saying that infrastructure is bad because it creates jobs for men. I'm not against infrastructure investment and neither are NOW or Planned Parenthood or any of the groups I talked to. They argued for a balanced investment in social and physical infrastructure. 5% is a striking indication of how much lobbying pressure there was because the stimulus was originally sold as primarily an infrastructure package–but it turned out that there were more pressing needs in the states to maintain basic social services. The vested infrastructure interests sold infrastructure as a quick way to stimulate the economy, but it isn't necessarily, at least not compared to direct budget stabilization to the states.


Alon Levy
Comment posted January 30, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

The infrastructure vested interests aren't that strong. The mass transit lobby is tiny. The highway lobby is bigger, but right now it's severely cash-strapped, as well as image-strapped in the wake of the Big Three bailout. The construction unions are fairly big, but not compared to teachers' unions, Governors, the health care lobby, or the military-industrial complex.

It's not clear at all that “infrastructure isn't necessarily a quick way to stimulate the economy, at least not compared to direct budget stabilization to the states.” The numbers are conflicting. The main argument against infrastructure was that there weren't enough shovel-ready projects; the problem is that there is hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of backlogs and projects canceled for cost reasons. To me, much of the decision to lowball infrastructure looks like a combination of lobbying efforts, tax cuts to make Republicans happy, and additional welfare spending to make the Dean Bakers and Ezra Kleins happy.


Birth Control
Comment posted February 15, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

We need more birth control money, but the stimlus may not have been the right place to try and get it, to much of what “should” go to the programs specified will end up in pet projects.. Birth Control money should be included in a bill where it is one of the highlights and not just an add on.


louis vuitton wallets
Comment posted August 3, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

come on


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.