Two Republican Senators support Obama contraception compromise

Perhaps no surprise to anyone here that the two Senators also happen to be women. May I conjecture that being able to get pregnant makes you more sympathetic to the case for birth control access?

Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME) — both of whom have sponsored legislation requiring insurers to offer contraception benefits in all health plans — are in favor of the new compromise, which would allow religiously affiliated colleges, universities, and hospitals to avoid providing birth control.

Via Think Progress.

Join the Conversation

  • Sam Lindsay-Levine

    Your conjecture is correct, but the effect is much smaller than that of age or political party affiliation. (

  • John

    I think being able to make the choice probably makes you more likely to support the option to have a choice. If men could legally choose to make their partners go on the pill, I think you’d see more male support for contraceptives.

    • Sam Lindsay-Levine

      Or, to name a clearer and less horrifying parallel, if there were a reliable reversible form of male contraception, something we’ve discussed here on Feministing several times in the past.

      • John

        The parallel I was originally going to make was support for male infant circumcision. Except for MRAs of whom I am one, some concerned moms and a smaller amount of concerned dads, there is little support for banning the procedure. Even among feminists, I’ve found the vast majority personally opposed to male infant circumcision, but I’ve yet to see even one support banning it. It may also be a communication issue and I may not have recognized a call for a ban, but each time I specifically ask about a ban, I get a hedge response such as I don’t believe that is the most effective approach to ending male infant circumcision. It would make sense to me if it was opposed for being unnecessary and dangerous but the danger is downplayed and it’s almost exclusively opposed as a violation of bodily autonomy. How does one support keeping a choice legal, when it infringes on the bodily autonomy of another? Feminists support keeping their right to have a choice, even though almost universally they would choose not to exercise it for ethical reasons. You can see how even enlightened people protect their choices.

        That’s why I looked at feminism and rejected it. Either many feminists have failed to meet the standards of feminism and their positions are not being called out by other feminists as non-feminist positions or feminism itself hasn’t lived up to the ideals that it set. One notable exception I found was some comments on a Feminists for Life piece, where self identified feminists were attacking Feminists for Life as having a non-feminist position. I have no problem pointing out that misogyny is a non-MRM position. The MRM doesn’t need fake MRAs. Sorry for the rant just something I had to say. If it doesn’t survive past moderation, I completely understand.

        I still have respect for feminists. I found there is a lot of overlap between the two movements. Some feminists I’ve met have actually started to agree. No one wins when half the population loses. I didn’t want and don’t want to hijack the thread, but I wanted to keep things in the realm of the currently possible. The horrifying example was the best I could come up with and stay on topic, but I have heard about a pill for men. Does anyone know where they are at with that?

  • Shelly

    They’re both my senators. *nods* They’re both a bit more centrist to me (particularly Senator Snowe)

    Generally, yeah, your conjecture is correct.

    • John

      “A Republican-led appropriations bill in 2001, passed by a GOP Congress and enacted by President Bush, included a mandate that federal employee health insurance plans include contraception and birth control coverage.”

      Unless there was a bunch of women in the GOP congress and in the Presidency back in 2001, I’d say that people who have the choice tend to support having the choice.