So, on the one hand we have the administration championing to right of women to get access to contraception (even to the point of them getting it free of charge) and on the other hand we have one of the two main GOP candidates saying things like this (as quoted by Doug Mataconis earlier today):
Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.
Sure, the linkages to abortion and religious freedom will resonate in some quarters, but ultimately does anyone think that this kind of conversation is going to do anything other than redound positively in the president’s direction? Is the semi-casual consumer of political news going to hear anything other than “Obama is for ensuring access to contraception while some of the Republicans want to allow states to ban it?”
This is not much more an observation for the moment, but I have to admit this is how things are shaping up. Certainly this is the kind of thing that has to make Republicans cringe when they consider an Obama-Santorum matchup.
Of course, if Romney is the nominee, this issue will shift (at least on the GOP side of the discussion). Along those lines see TPM: Blunt: Contraception Mandate Not ‘Only Litmus Test’ For Presidential Candidate.