McCain Opposes Contraception -- Pass It On

By Katha Pollitt, TheNation.com. Posted July 22, 2008.

He's voted against contraception for more than 20 years, and
yet doesn't even care or know enough to explain why.
I realize it's not as world-shaking as the caricature of the Obamas on the
cover of the New Yorker, which has the high-end media in a total tizzy.
It's probably not even as important as the raunchy joke Bernie Mac told at an
Obama fundraiser last week, which was bumped from the tizzy list by the New
Yorker story. But can't the commentariat take a break from itself and let
the world know how much John McCain opposes birth control? Vastly more people
rely on contraception than read the New Yorker or know Bernie Mac from
mac 'n' cheese. They might like to know that when it comes to contraception,
McCain is no maverick.
Here's the story. Last week, Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of
Hewlett-Packard who has been helping McCain look bright-eyed and
estrogen-friendly, told reporters that women wanted more choice in their health
care plans; for example, it bothered women when plans covered Viagra but not
contraception. Big mistake! McCain had voted against a bill that would have
required plans to cover birth control if they covered prescription meds at all,
like, um, Viagra. McCain's nonresponse when queried about this by a reporter
was astonishing. As posted on YouTube,
he squirms and grins and smirks (Viagra! Embarrassing!) and fumfers about
evasively. "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed
answer," he manages to splutter, "because I don't recall the vote.
I've cast thousands of votes. ... It's something I've not thought much
about."
So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception that he voted against
requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so
indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it that he doesn't
even remember how he voted. That's the way to show American women you really
care.
This is not a trivial issue. There's the basic unfairness of not covering
these essential, even life-saving drugs and devices so fundamental to women's
health and well-being, and the added insult of denying coverage while men are
lavished with cut-rate erections. And there's the craven submission to
religious extremists that moves the politics of that denial. It's a pocketbook
issue, too: A year's worth of contraception can cost a woman $600. That's a lot
of money. Is it too much to expect the next president of the United States
to understand that? Now that every politician in America prides himself on knowing
the price of a gallon of milk and talks like he's just finished doing the
week's shopping for a family of 10?
The story heated up the blogosphere, but a Nexis search at the beginning of
this week found only 61 mentions in print and on TV, and most of those were
passing references in stories about McCain's bad week (Phil Gramm calling
Americans "a nation of whiners" obsessed with a "mental
recession" got most of the attention) or focused on the effect that
Fiorina's off-message remark will have on her vice presidential chances.
Where is the discussion of the real issue, which is that for more than 20
years John McCain has voted against contraception every time it came up and --
now he tells us! -- doesn't even care or know enough to explain why. Women --
and men -- need to know where he stands on this issue so basic to health and
human flourishing if they are going to make informed decisions in the polling
booth. But so far the media has refused to present McCain's anti-contraception
record as a big, coherent story that tells us a great deal about who he is and
what policies he would pursue in the White House.
Maybe the New Yorker could do a cover about it. Then the media might
find it interesting enough to discuss.