Compromise for Condoms?

Photo by Flickr user anqa under Creative Commons

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


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?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest