Henry James’ novella, The Aspern Papers, is about an unscrupulous obsessive who tries to deceive two vulnerable women to obtain the objects of his desire, the letters of a long-dead poet.
This, “The Aspirin Papers,” is about a group of unscrupulous obsessives who try to deceive all of America to fulfill their obsessive desire: a return to an ancient dreamtime when men ruled the universe and women, when not dutifully and passively prone before their masters, kept their mouths shut.
Reference is made, obviously, to the following comment from Foster Friess the Fabulous Plutocrat and Rick Santorum mega-contributor:
You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.
Friess was commenting on the wildly anachronistic dust-up over contraception, during which some Catholic bishops and other members of Friess’ all-male club decided that employers ought to have the right to deny insurance coverage of contraceptives to their female employees.
The scoundrel and narrator of James’ story, says, “It is not supposed easy for women to rise to the large free view of anything.” Friess & Company agree, I assume, and call upon science to confirm that “the large free view” is simply unavailable to womankind owing to the decumbency of their holy and true vocations, pleasing men and birthing babies.
Implicit in Friess’ statement is the belief that women are always there before their male superiors, their legs open and inviting. Depending upon circumstances, this is, in the Friess frame, either proper, wifely duty or such devilish temptation that it is too much to ask even god-faring men to resist. Therefore, steps must be taken. Here, ladies, please hold this aspirin in place with your knees until you are called upon.
Congressional Republicans are busy arguing that the issue is about religious freedom, not contraception. If a woman’s employer happens to be, say, the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is morally opposed to contraception, then said Church should be allowed to deny contraceptives to said employee. To require otherwise of said Church violates the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty. Pish posh. If that was true why did Congressional Republicans rush to file legislation giving that contraceptive-denying right to all employers?
And Friess, no stranger to Republican insiderdom, inadvertently let the cads out of the bag with his aspirin-between-the-knees comment. As I noted elsewhere, most arguments in America that claim our obedience to religious doctrine are mere comedy. We’re simply the best at ignoring these commandments. We are damn good at lying about it, too. Baptists are the best dancers. Catholics down more birth control pills than communion wafers. And Jesus’ pleas to aid the poor are taken about as seriously as an Ogden Nash poem.
Great heavens, this is 2012. Back in the 1960s a friend’s mom, rather scandalously at the time, pinned to her den wall a poster of the Pope pointing out toward the viewer like Uncle Sam. The caption read, “The Pill is a No-No.” That was 44 years ago. And the Pope’s message was being laughed at then!
Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce, who ran away with my World’s Best Blogger award last week when he quoted singer-songwriter Guy Clark (from “Rita Balou,” “You’d of thought there’s less fools in this world”) when writing about the new Virginia law:
…that requires women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion to have a probe stuck up in them so that they will be shamed like the sluts they are before God and the various meddling members of the House Of Delegates who believe that a woman’s place is in all those movies they watch for five minutes (or less) in their hotel rooms at the annual god-botherer’s convention in Atlantic City…
Anyway, Pierce has also worried aloud that the Republicans will ultimately prevail in this matter by shouting louder than the rest of us, a fear all-too-justified by recent history. By the time the election rolls around, the issue might appear to be over religious freedom and not the re-enslavement of women.
Already we see some Democratic strategerists suggesting the issue will pass when cooler heads (theirs) prevail and the debate returns to the economy, stupid. I hereby ask those tempted to vocally marginalize the progressive side of this debate to place an aspirin or maybe even an ibuprofen between their lips. (Ibuprofen, by the way was patented in 1961, the same year the FDA approved Enovid 5mg as an oral contraceptive, so the gesture would have some aesthetic symmetry.)
It is an issue the Right will use to turn out its base in 2012, and they will not quit shouting about it. If we don’t contest their poppycock, pardon, they’ll succeed in their rhetorical transubstantiation. It needn’t be said that public opinion is on our side on this issue. The proof of that lies in American beds. The issues are women’s health and equality before the law.



41 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Every four years the Rs campaign on the same things – God, guns, gays and those awful women. They are so obsessed with sex they can’t even talk about the very real problems we have. I think we have all had enough of women being the punching bags for these sleazy men. As a women I deeply resent the fact that my body is even being discussed – it’s insulting and degrading.
Men seem obsessed about this birth control thing.
Women just do it.
No it isn’t. The issues you have are free drugs, and religion’s special place in the Constitution. In short, this is another version of “Gimmee!”.
Employees pay for the insurance that covers contraceptives and other drugs.
Couldn’t you give us at least Sunday off from your constant whining about how wrong we are? You are obviously not a woman and couldn’t care less about women. Go away.
Yes, the patriarchal pose simply assumes second-class status for females as if their bodies, health and lives can be discussed like, I dunno, highways or tax policies. It is degrading. It must also be loudly condemned.
Good Sunday Morning Glenn and boy is your topic the the talk of the country!!
I just want to know when are these jerks going to start thinking with their Big Head and stop listening to their little head????
The Rapture can’t get here soon enough for me.
Oh really? Then it should be easy to buy another plan more to their liking, letting the employer follow his conscience.
Oh, shooter, what a hooter….You really never give up or make sense.
I know a story from the 60s similar to the aspirin: When dr. was asked about the pill, he explained at length, laboriously and disfavoringly, the complicated biology involved. Then proceded to advise the “old Swedish method” that no one had ever heard before. So he patiently explained that method worked effectively for women when they only needed to keep their feet in a bucket….Would I lie to you?
I’m guessing both heads are equally inarticulate….
Shooter, individual policies cost much, much more than group plans, so employees don’t really have such an option. If I were you, I’d take two aspirin…
Ah, that’s part of the confusion. Most economists would argue that employer-provided “benefits” are usually in lieu of wages and salaries, which would, over time, be higher if no benefits were provided; employees actually “pay” for such benefits via lower wages/salaries. The employer is the accounting agent. All the more reason to see this as a matter of insurance regulation, not something the employer should limit because of the employer’s beliefs. In all else, I agree with you, Glenn.
Thanks for the important amplification on the point, scarecrow. You are exactly right.
The neglected fact is that an insurance plan that assumes availability of contraceptives is cheaper than a plan that precludes that, because it must cover more costly conditions. So the “cost” of birth control” is actually lower. If you view this as an employer expense (never mind it’s not), then the requirement to cover this actually lowers the employer’s costs.
So if the rule says, the employer can claim the policy doesn’t cover it, but the insurer tells the employee it does, the employer gets the advantage of a lower-cost policy for its employees — or the insurer prices it incorrectly and pockets the difference.
Speaking of aspirins, I need two after watching a portion of Santorum’s speech in Ohio yesterday, where he attempted to expand this fight. Incredibly, he attacked the new heath care law’s mandate that insurnce policies provide for free pre-natal testing.
In the Ohio speech, Santorum said this:
I have to say that the extremes of Santorum et al are more and more challenging to talk about or write about because they seem such bizarre fantasies. Even repeating what they say stretches credulity, ’cause how could a human utter such nonsense?
Does the employer write off healthcare benefits as a tax deduction? Of course they do. Doing the Obama “let’s just call it something different” isn’t going to fly.
Every healthcare benefit differs from place to place. Some exclude this, and some exclude that, or maybe there’s no healthcare benefit at all. It’s the employers preference.
If the employee wants contraception, there are myriad ways to make that happen. But the conscientious objection of the employer comes first. And as always, employees are free to change jobs.
My biggest surprise in the nonsense spouted by Friess was that he didn’t refer to Andrea Mitchell as “Little Lady”
Read that Santorum stated that Protestant religions have gotten away from the Bible. Not exactly how to win friends. I wonder if he is saying that the Catholic Church is not a Protestant religion or that Catholics are just special.
LMAO!
Any employer could say that his/her religion does not agree with certain things, even if he is an atheist. Nothing in gov’t at any level should be run by religion.
This may come as a shock, but employers are allowed to do that. It’s their business, literally.
With you on that, RC. Except if it ever came, there might be a lot of disappointed Fundamentalist a**holes that would make good on the promise.
It is an employer expense because the employer pays in employees stead because the insurer is prevented from cherry-picking which is in the collective benefit of the employees. If you had a mandatory union, your assertion might be more accurate.
Wages are an employer expense too. Health insurance is part of a compensation package every bit as much as wages. Tax breaks and the pooling of risk make employer provided health insurance a good deal for employers and employees. Employers are able to provide a benefit worth much more to their employees than paying them the equivalent amount of wages.
Please believe me. When you think of the cost of labor, you have to think of compensation, not wages.
How far would you care to take this exquisite line of reasoning. If a member of the Society of Friends owns a business, this person clearly believes in non-violence. Can this person decline to collect income tax, or the portion of income tax that goes for defense from her or his employees?
You might also think about the implications of the fact that every Catholic hospital in America gets a significant amount of federal revenue. Some of this revenue is raised from people who would rather not give their tax money to an institution that would let a mother and fetus die rather than abort the fetus. Do we get to withhold our taxes from these institutions?
The insane intrusion of all relgions into our gov’t at any level is causing the cost of healthcare to skyrocket. It’s creating a new disease called Present Traumatic Stress Disorder for a clear majority of adults in the good ol’ U. S. of A. Health care of some sort is a right, from cradle to grave, in our country. The questions are how and who pays for it and where and when it is delivered. Emergency room, clinic or doctor’s office answers the where and how. The who pays and when is just as easy to explain. We all do answers the who and the when is in our bills, policies and taxes. Clearly spelled out, too. The efficiency of best practises is universally understood to be SinglePayer or Medicare For All. Any affinity group who purports to call itself a spiritual or religious or, for that matter, atheist organization and who doesn’t understand the simple math and morale tenet of this type of citizenship should be kicked out of the country. The charge is on the books in every state and in the Bible: malacious and willful neglect of the feeble and those unable to care for themselves. Women make up about 51-52% of our country so I’m pretty sure they’re included in this. The Pope is a German living in Italy and his bishops, et al, should be stifle themselves or be charged with meddling in our countries affairs. Same for all the other people whose dead leader lived in Mecca, Jerusalem or only in their fables and myths. Or lives nowhere at all. Mine happen to live in Sequoia Nat’l Forest. Anyone got a problem with that?
No, it is not a right. It’s a benefit where it occurs.
Saturday Night Live’s takedown of Foster Friess’ “apology” for the aspirin “joke.”
Healthcare is optional, taxes aren’t.
You call it cost, I called it expense. Is that a disagreement?
However, some more clarifications: The insurance company “pools the risk”, not the employer. The employer saves the employee and the insurance company negotiation costs. Tax breaks are the government incentive to offload what would otherwise be done bureaucratically. It prevents the insurance company from cherry picking, gouging, and encourages the employer to be fiduciary for the employees.
If there weren’t the persuasion, it’s not likely that wages would rise to meet the current premiums, let alone the gouged ones. I guess my main trouble with the counter-factual “it’s not an employer expense” is the implication that the free market would work better. It didn’t.
Your constant thumpin’ is causing me to lose my place and train of thought while I reread The Eight Beautitudesfor the ten thousandth time. It’s something I do every Sunday in lieu of going to church and mixing with the cultured herd.
He’s incorrigible and should be institutionalized.
Well, thank goodness the Democratic Party is standing up defiantly in defense of women’s rights. Surely they’re going to fight back against the Republicans. Any day now.
Yep, just any old day now. Any. Day. Now.
Oh, right. Democrats fight? (Against anyone but liberals?) Whatever was I thinking?
See Shooter is acting under the conservative mindset that employers own their employees, and employer rights outweigh their employees’ rights.
The problem is: the South still wants slavery, instead of democracy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/19/1065048/-You-don-t-own-me?detail=hide&via=blog_1
That was a great DK diary post. Thanks for linking to it here, judibrowni!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/19/1065048/-You-don-t-own-me?detail=hide&via=blog_1
Lincoln’s modern day Republican arguments to free the slaves:
Uh, we really can’t do this – it’s too expensive, and will hurt the “job creators”.
Slavery? You’re comparing employment to slavery?
How bizarre. An employee isn’t shackled. An employee is a party to an employment agreement. Why are you injecting a race-based emotionally laden metaphor that is wholly inappropriate?
S0…Socialized Medical Care (mandatory of course) is the answer.