The Freedom Bulletin

…and more about why birth control pills should not be free.

In the controversy about whether people who do not use birth control pills should be forced to pay for them, Republicans have generally been on the right side.

But, as Alex Koppelman at Slate points out, they are generally on the wrong side for supporting a Virginia law that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before being allowed to have an abortion. What makes this law particularly bad is that, “in many cases (most, in fact) that would mean having what’s called a ‘transvaginal ultrasound,’ in which a probe is inserted into a pregnant woman’s vagina to get the necessary image.” I believe that each person has the right to have an abortion either with or without looking at an image of the unborn baby. But for everyone who has an abortion to be forced to undergo such a degrading procedure is even worse. No one who believes in human dignity should support such a requirement which, in Koppelman’s words, ”clearly violates that woman’s liberty, not to mention her person.”

It would be a great thing for the Republican Party if they strove to become the party of liberty, not just on certain issues but on all issues.

It is right of them to view the debate about insurance coverage of birth control pills in terms of religious liberty, not in terms of medical and reproductive choice. After all, contrary to what the majority of people seem to think, no one is debating about whether people should have access to contraception. The debate is about whether people who use birth control pills should have to pick up some or all of the cost (either by actually paying the full cost or merely paying a co-pay or co-insurance), or whether they should be free, in which case the cost is evenly distributed among all of the people who purchase health insurance (which, since the Affordable Care Act requires essentially all people to purchase health insurance, equals essentially all people).

In this sense, and as many people of both parties fail to notice, the controversy is just as much an economic one as it is a “culture war.” Whether something should be paid for collectively or by the people who use it is an important issue to discuss. It is currently being discussed, for example, at hearings held by the MBTA to get the public’s input about whether the public transportation system’s budget woes should be solved by fare increases, service cuts, advertising revenue, tax increases, and/or cutbacks in other areas of the state budget.

For some reason, when a budget debate involves anything related to sex, instead of just public transportation, liberals try to frame the issue in terms of men oppressing women. Contraception is an issue that applies to both genders equally, and I object to it being treated as a women’s issue. It is women and not men who physically take birth control pills, but there are other methods of contraception, like vasectomies for example, that men physically do, and in any case, the ability to have sex without having a baby is equally important to men and women. It would really surprise me if, as has been implied, men would prefer a world with no birth control, where they would be unable to have sex without worrying about becoming a father against their will.

Additionally, I have personally encountered people who say that they are outraged and furious at the few politicians who dare to oppose the requirement that birth control pills be covered for free. This makes no sense. Unfortunately, on this particular issue, the liberal side is winning. With the Obama administration’s new policy, we went from a nation where insurance companies can choose whether or not to cover birth control pills, to one where they will be forced to cover them. Not only will birth control pills be covered, but they will be covered with no co-pay, something that cannot be said of medications that actually treat medical conditions, such as antibiotics, high blood pressure pills, asthma medications, or chemotherapy. This is, to say the least, a move in the direction that liberals would want. But as (most, but not all) liberals apparently find horrific, there are some people who disagree with this shift in policy and – gasp! – have the audacity to express their views. If liberals act as if they are being oppressed and trampled on when they are winning, I would hate to see how they react when they actually lose a policy battle.

The Republican Party should fight back against this inaccurate, illogical rhetoric by standing up for liberty on all fronts, including freedom of religion, freedom to make your own medical decisions, freedom to live your personal life the way you wish, and, as is forgotten by many people in the birth control debate, freedom to keep your own money and spend it the way you wish.

Famous journalist, TV personality, and author Anne Sinclair officially started her new job today as editorial director of the French version of the Huffington Post. Sinclair, of course, also happens to be married to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was the world’s most well-known rape defendant until the charges against him were dismissed and continues to be a major news story as he faces additional scandals. At a press conference today, Sinclair said that her site will not have any particular political viewpoint but will “give people space to talk.” The site’s founder, Arianna Huffington, said that Sinclair’s triumph over adversity ”gives hope and courage to every other woman,” and that DSK might even become a guest blogger.

Sinclair has faced criticism from people who doubt her ability to be neutral and wonder how her site would cover news about her husband. One even said that Sinclair ”is no longer a journalist. Ever since she compared the DSK affair to the Dreyfus affair, she is an interested party.” This is an interesting question, but ultimately I don’t think that Sinclair’s support of Strauss-Kahn should disqualify her from a job in journalism. First of all, do her critics think that if she threw her husband under the bus, that would make her neutral about his case? That wouldn’t make sense; no matter how she chose to react to her husband’s scandals, the fact that she is his wife means that she is affected by his legal struggles to some extent. If Sinclair’s critics take their reasoning to its logical end, the only conclusion they could come to is that anyone who has any relationship with a person in the news, or has expressed an opinion about any event in the news, is disqualified from being a journalist. That would disqualify almost everyone in the world. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone who is partial about a particular subject in the news to have a career in journalism but simply avoid covering that particular subject. This is what, for example, WCBV TV reporter Gail Huff does with respect to her husband, Senator Scott Brown, and what Sinclair says she will do with her husband: “It goes without saying that we will cover all news topics that come up whatever they might be. I’m not saying I would write the article but it will be covered and in the most professional manner possible.”

Additionally, as she has since she decided to stick with DSK, Sinclair faces criticism from so-called feminists who are in reality not feminists at all. People have referred to her as “undignified,” “shockingly weak,” “very very sad,” a “doormat,” a “terrible role model,” “an embarrassment,” and a “depressed woman with no respect for herself” who is “under submission.” They speak constantly of DSK’s “victims,” and what he “has done to other women.” They describe the prostitutes that DSK allegedly slept with as “vulnerable young women run controlled [sic] by pimps.” Most offensively, some even write that Sinclair “needs an appointment with a psychiatrist.”

In addition to the fact that it is wrong to disrespect the presumption of innocence, hideously offensive to claim that someone is mentally ill for making different choices than you, and bizarre to call someone weak and cowardly for defending an unpopular individual against an attacking mob, these comments are simply anti-feminist. It is anti-feminist, for example, to demand that all woman have the same standards and value the same things in a husband. It is anti-feminist to assume that in rape cases, women always tell the truth and men always lie. It is anti-feminist to treat sex, unless proven to be non-consensual, as something that men “do to” women. It is anti-feminist to treat women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection, to assume that prostitutes are controlled by pimps, and to assume that Sinclair is weak, submissive, and controlled by DSK instead of being an autonomous and independent person.

In actuality, Sinclair and DSK are a couple that feminists should approve of. Instead of her staying home and being financially dependent on him, she is the wealthier one, and both are intellectual equals who have their own identities, their own lives, and (until DSK’s was unjustly destroyed) their own highly successful careers. Anne Sinclair is brave, independent, strong, intelligent, and feminist. People who make comments like the ones above are sad, undignified, and weak.

Because of her courage and her very impressive resume, Sinclair more than deserves this job. Congratulations, Anne, and the best of luck in your new endeavor.

To mark her comeback, Sinclair gave an interview to the French version of Elle magazine, in which she explained a little bit more about her ordeal, her idea of feminism, and why she supports her husband. Some of the best quotes:

• “To be an object of speculation, of permanent harassment to know what is happening in my home, has something about it that is Orwellian, totalitarian.”
• “There are trashy newspapers in the U.S., like everywhere, and violations of privacy. But, in regard to the big media, the press is demanding, precise, and hardworking.”
• On her presidential ambitions, or lack thereof, for DSK: “I wasn’t keen on the idea of candidacy. Power? I’ve seen it too close up to find it fascinating. As for the role of First Lady, it doesn’t exist in France. All that leaves me totally cold.”
• On her new job: “It brings me great pleasure to resume my career, in the euphoria of participating in something new! … I think that I can still bring something to this field. What makes me nervous is the launch of a journal, that it wouldn’t be ready in time, the stress, all that. But my return to the spotlight, as you say, it already happened, no? … But it’s true that the professional spotlight is always more pleasant.”
• On people who say that she should leave DSK: “Well then, leave your husband if you want to want to leave him. That’s your problem.”
• On accusations that she is condoning violence against women: “It’s unacceptable because there was no violence. If there had been, the prosecutors would have pressed charges. They didn’t. Violence horrifies me – verbal violence too.”
• “I, too, felt a great violence when certain self-proclaimed feminists unleashed themselves on me. I am a feminist, I always have been; I always will be. I have been part of all of the battles, on abortion, on equality at work, on the dignity of women here and elsewhere, on the role of women in public life. I think I have done at least as much as packs of ‘feminists’ for the advancement of women in men’s fields.”
• “Unconditional support does not exist. One supports if one has decided to support. Nobody knows what happens in the intimacy of couples, and I deny anyone the right to judge mine. I feel free in my judgments, my actions, I decide about my life in all independence. I am neither a saint nor a victim; I am a free woman.”

Sources: Elle.fr, The Telegraph, Daily Beast

The other day, I found this great article by Celia Larkin at the Irish Independent, explaining why Anne Sinclair deserves respect:

“Shame on those who criticise the readers of Terrafemina for selecting Anne Sinclair, Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s wife, as France’s Woman of the Year. Shame on those — particularly women — who condemn her for staying with him.

It’s outrageous, this idea that if a woman, of her own free will, stays with someone widely regarded as a sexual philanderer, then she must have something deeply wrong with her. Anne Sinclair is a smart, decisive woman. Not a victim. She is not a person whose future career or financial security depends on the man in her life. She is truly an autonomous individual who has chosen to stay with the man accused of sexual misconduct. An affront to feminism? Not at all.”

Read the rest at the Independent.

I completely agree that self-proclaimed “feminists” are wrong to look down on Sinclair and that, in general, a lot of people who call themselves feminists have anti-feminist ideas about the DSK case. Some people argue that Christine Lagarde, Strauss-Kahn’s replacement as boss of the IMF, should have won the Woman of the Year poll because she achieved success without relying on the men in her life. But the same thing is true of Sinclair. She was a highly successful journalist before she even met DSK, is more wealthy than he is, and was better-known than him for much of their 20-year marriage.

To be a feminist means to fight against stereotypes and social rules that treat men and women differently, such as the belief that women are weak and vulnerable and should be protected and doted on by men. To assume that any man who is accused of sexual assault is automatically guilty is anti-feminist (and wrong), because it is based on the assumption that women are inherently vulnerable to rape, and men are inherently predisposed to be sexual aggressors. On the other hand, for a woman to financially support her husband, help him with his career, and bravely fight on his behalf when almost everyone else condemns him, is exactly what feminists should respect and admire.

Sometimes it seems like there are more and more bad things happening in the world with respect to individual liberty – from the medical system to gun control to surveillance cameras to tax increases – and certainly a great deal of The Freedom Bulletin is dedicated to pointing out and fighting back against these injustices. But I thought it would be cool to point out some of the good things that have happened in the past week or so, some of the small and not-so-small victories for individual liberty:

Cuba legalized the purchase and sale of cars last Wednesday.

The town of Northampton, MA might allow households to have up to 12 chickens instead of just 3.

One week ago, New York eliminated the requirement for people to take eye tests when they renew their driver’s license.

Australia decided to allow women to serve in all roles in the armed forces, including on the front lines, which is a great decision in my opinion because only people’s abilities should determine what jobs they are allowed to do, not their gender.

The King of Saudi Arabia decided to allow women to vote and run for office in future elections.

Several states are relaxing their alcohol laws. For example, Atlanta might repeal its ban on alcohol sales on Sunday, and people touring the Jack Daniels distillery in Tennessee might be allowed to sample the whiskey.

Massachusetts is (hopefully) getting close to allowing casino gambling. The state senate is debating a bill to allow three casinos and a slots parlor after the house passed a similar bill.

The Death With Dignity ballot initiative in Massachusetts is getting a lot of publicity lately. Dr. Marcia Anell wrote an excellent opinion piece about it in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Governor Deval Patrick signed a bill reforming Massachusetts’s alimony laws yesterday. The bill, overall, will decrease the amount of alimony people have to pay to their ex-spouses, limiting payments to a set amount of time based on the length of the marriage.

This bill, while it doesn’t go as far as I would, is a step in the right direction. I don’t think there should be such thing as alimony or spousal support at all. The way I see it, no adult has a right to be financially supported by another adult, and there is no reason why one person should be required to continue financially supporting another just because they have in the past. If one person agrees to financially support another, fine, but this is a favor, not a right, and the giver has a right to withdraw it at any time.

I’ve heard many supporters of alimony argue that stay-at-home spouses contribute just as much to the marriage as those who have jobs, and that they are making a big sacrifice by giving up their careers to take care of the house and/or children. Yes, housework does require some time and effort. But in my experience as a single person who both takes care of my house and has a full-time job, commuting to my job and spending the day in an office is way more tiring and time consuming than doing the cleaning, cooking, shopping, and laundry that I need to do. If I could choose between working full-time and not having to do any chores around the house, or doing all the chores and not having to work, I would definitely choose the second. Each type of work is work to some extent – I’m not trying to say that spouses who stay at home do nothing but sit around all day. But having a job – unless you have an unusually easy job – is simply more time-consuming and stressful than working around the house. For one spouse to be the breadwinner and the other to stay at home is just not an equal division of labor.

And yes, staying home for a long time is an impediment if you decide to go back into the job market at a later date. But it’s not exactly a sacrifice to receive the material goods you need for free, instead of having to work for them. Plus, unless someone forced you to stay at home, you don’t have a right to demand restitution for this because it was your own choice.

For one spouse to be allowed to live off the money of another is a windfall that they did nothing to earn. Even if someone freely chooses to do such a favor – and many people are pressured into it against their will – they should also be free to change their mind and stop the financial support at any time. Alimony punishes people for doing a favor for their spouse, and rewards people for having received financial support that they did not earn. If anything, the spouse who received the financial support should have to pay alimony as a way of repaying the favor that they received!

So while eliminating lifetime alimony is a good start, I hope alimony laws are changed even more in the direction of equality and justice.

Photo by Stephen Jaffe/IMF

Andrea Peyser at the New York Post seems to have something against not only Dominique Strauss-Kahn, but also his wife, Anne Sinclair. Because Sinclair has stood by her husband through all his trials and tribulations, Peyser calls her a “dingbat” and a  ”pathetic doormat” (more than once) and asks “If he could possibly respect her…Can any man respect a woman who allows herself to be used, and reused, like a wrinkled Kleenex?”

As someone who has, admittedly, only been watching this case in the media, I have a lot of respect for Anne Sinclair, and I would imagine Strauss-Kahn does as well. He did publicly thank her after his charges were dismissed, saying, “I am most deeply grateful to my wife and family who have gone through this ordeal with me.”

In addition to being the wife of DSK, Sinclair is a famous journalist in her own right, as well as the granddaughter of Picasso’s art dealer. The two were married in 1991 when they were about 42 years old, and they have no children together, although both have children from previous marriages. Although DSK has a well-deserved reputation for being a womanizer, he has, to his credit, been honest about this to the public and to his wife – warning her before they got married that he was an “incorrigible skirt chaser” - and she doesn’t seem to mind too much. Over the years, Sinclair used her wealth to help finance her husband’s political career and purchase various expensive homes for them to live in, and she came to his rescue when he was arrested in New York, posting his $5 million bail and finding a luxurious townhouse for him to stay at while under house arrest. She has been perhaps his most stalwart supporter, proclaiming his innocence when he was first arrested, appearing at his side at every court hearing, and voicing her anger at the people who turned their backs on him.

I don’t see what’s wrong with any of this. Many people look down on Strauss-Kahn because of his numerous affairs, and possibly also because his and Sinclair’s relationship does not fit the popular (and anti-feminist) ideal that a man should protect and provide for his wife. Successful in her own right and much wealthier than her husband, she seems to love and accept him the way he is, regardless of what the public thinks of him. In other words, she seems to think for herself instead of submitting to society’s ideas of what men and women should be like.

I’m not sure why Peyser equates this with being a “pathetic doormat” and “allowing herself to be used.” Would it be better to mindlessly go along with what society tells women they should value in a man? Quite the contrary. Anne Sinclair is a very admirable person. She is more of a feminist than the hordes of people who automatically condemned Strauss-Kahn as a rapist, and far more intelligent, classy, and respectable than a mean-spirited tabloid columnist like Andrea Peyser.

…is the Obama administration’s decision to force health insurance companies to provide free birth control and preventative services for women, as well as this editorial in support of it by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The new policy requires insurance companies to cover, with no co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles, a variety of services including contraception, sterilization, checkups, domestic violence screenings, STD and contraception counseling, HPV testing, gestational diabetes screening, breastfeeding counseling, and breastfeeding equipment. The reasoning behind this, Sebelius writes, is that women “have unique healthcare needs” and “are more likely to need preventive healthcare services.”

Feminism is the belief that men and women should be treated equally. Although many people extol how good the new policy is for women, it is anti-feminist to give women special attention and care and to make generalizations about how many health services they need. It is sexist to cover gender-specific health services for women but not men. It is also sexist to cover gender-neutral health services – including checkups, STD counseling, sterilization, contraception, and domestic violence screening (men can be abused too) – when women use them but not when men use them, as the new policy seems to do.

This brings me to another reason why “free” birth control is wrong: as I explained earlier and will repeat only briefly, it is unfair. The purpose of health insurance is to cover catastrophic medical expenses that cannot be prevented. Using birth control, becoming pregnant, and even going for a checkup are choices that people can make, and are therefore inappropriate for insurance. There is a completely free way of preventing pregnancy; it is called abstinence. Sex is important to many people, but that is not a good reason for everyone to be forced to subsidize it. After all, guns are important to many people (and protected by the Second Amendment), but I have never heard anyone suggest that every American be provided with a free gun. News articles and scholarly research are important, but the Obama administration has not announced any plans to force websites to provide these for free. Why is sex considered worthy of subsidizing, while research and the right to bear arms are not? Birth control, STD testing, and breastfeeding equipment are all goods that people should be free to purchase if they would like, but there is no right to get them for free.

Fairness demands that people have the option of purchasing health insurance plans that do not cover services related to contraception, STDs, or pregnancy, and gender equality demands equal insurance coverage for both genders. Despite what so-called advocates for women think, providing “free” birth control (and all the other free services included in the Obama administration’s policy) is both anti-feminist and unjust.