Perhaps a certain state legislator now wishes he had studied the classics.
In the 2,400 year old play Lysistrata, the women of Athens tried to affect men’s political decisions by refusing to sleep with them. With parallels to that ancient Greek drama, a Virginia state legislator, Republican Delegate Dave Albo, found his wife uninterested in his amorous entreaties after seeing a news clip.
What Albo’s wife saw was a report on a bill requiring some women seeking abortion to have a sonogram with an internal probe. Speaking at the Virginia legislature, Albo sadly announced that the legislature’s doings impinged on his most personal activities and could “make sure there is one less Republican in this world.”
While the women of Lysistrata couldn’t vote, today’s American women can — and their (and men’s) voices on this and related issues will go beyond the bedroom to the ballot box.
An indication that pro-reproductive rights forces would be heard from this year came about a month ago, when Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that it would be dropping a grant to Planned Parenthood. This decision came after hiring a vice president who had run for office in Georgia, promising to cut Planned Parenthood. Public reaction was swift and intense, leading to this individual’s resignation and a change in policy.
In Virginia, the rationale for the sonograms was said to involve informed consent, but this rang hollow. Of what did women seeking abortions need to be informed? These women know that they are pregnant. No law should force them to have and pay for a medically unnecessary procedure.
After the Obama administration faced criticism for requiring that insurance offered to employees of Catholic hospitals include free birth control, it responded with a compromise acceptable to the Catholic Hospital Association, Catholic Charities and insurance companies. Refuting those who compared the policy to requiring Jewish delis to serve pork, religious leader Rabbi David Saperstein held this analogy “fails to distinguish for-profit consumer relationships from employer-employee relations.” Just as employers can’t prevent employees from buying certain foods, they shouldn’t be able to control portions of their health insurance packages, especially when these decrease medical costs.
Surely it’s striking that nearly five decades since the Supreme Court ruled states couldn’t restrict contraception, some politicians criticize birth control itself. Rick Santorum said it is “harmful to women” and pledged to address “the dangers of contraception” if elected president. Candidate Santorum also decried coverage of prenatal testing.
Evidence suggests that these issues hurt Republican candidates. As the birth control issue has arisen, women increasingly see Romney less favorably. Sixty-one percent of Americans support mandating contraception coverage for groups affiliated with religious groups, including 61 percent of Catholics. Women especially support the policy, with 66 percent in favor.
Governor LePage recognized these are not good issues for Republicans. In an interview at the National Governors Association, which received national publicity for LePage’s call for a “fresh face” to be picked as the presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention, the governor refused to be drawn into a discussion about contraception.
But in the last Republican debate, candidates not only strongly criticized the Obama administration’s policy, but tied birth control to a lack of morality. Mitt Romney said, “This isn’t an argument about contraceptives, this is a discussion about, are we going to have a nation which preserves the foundation of the nation, which is the family, or are we not?”
On birth control pills, Ron Paul said, “But sort of along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don’t see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don’t blame the pills.”
In a time when birth control is widely practiced by people of all religions, this is indeed a time to review the classics — not only Lysistrata, but also Homer’s words from the “The Odyssey.” Ulysses, who wandered for a decade after the Trojan War ended, “suffered much … but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly.”
Should Republicans continue on this policy path, they will detour down a road taking them away from most citizens.
Amy Fried is a professor of political science at the University of Maine. You can follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/ASFried and on her blog, pollways.com.



You folks on the Left/Liberals really do love abortions. Are there any abortions that the Leftists don’t like?
What people really like is freedom. They also like being left alone to make their own decisions. You do not have to like my decisions, you do not have to agree with my decisions, as I do not have to agree with yours. Whether liberals love abortions or not is of no concern, what is of concern is that people make their own decisions and you mind your own business.
That would play well, if liberals who love abortion would allow others to make their own decisions. But they don’t. They use the power of government to coerce employers to cover contraception…So you being able to make decisions about your life is good, but an employer making decisions about his company is not good?
Please, are you really equating insurance coverage offered by a company with a woman making a choice a personal as reproductice choices are? All the government has said is that if you offer perscription coverage to your employees you cannot leave out contraception coverage.
Oh, so you get to determine which choices are important and which ones aren’t? I happen to think if an employer is paying part of a health plan premium, or is using her clout as a group purchaser to get a reduced rate on a plan, it is up to her what is covered in that plan. That choice may be important to her. If her employees don’t like the coverage, they can get their own plan. See–that’s choice all around for everyone. No coercion anywhere!
Do you have any idea of the difference between the cost and coverage of an employer-sponsored health plan and one paid for by private individuals?
And so, if an employer is a Christian Scientist and doesn’t believe in medicine at all, s/he doesn’t have to provide health benefits?
Not as much as the rite seems to love un-planned pregnancy.
The Virginia story rings hollow. Apparently sonograms are used routinely to determine how far along the pregnancy is, and to screen for potential complicating factors, before an abortion is performed. Mandating that one be performed amounts to legislators chasing an accelerating train. It’s already gone by….
Nobody can tell me how Santorum’s position on birth control affects reality. Ms. Fried admits that the vast majority of Americans support using birth control. Santorum can say whatever he likes, believe whatever he likes, but he can do nothing on this issue. So people are running around ranting because he might like to discuss the “dangers of contraception”? Since when are Americans supposed to shut their ears to free speech? It’s okay for the governmental agencies to mandate that contraceptive manufacturers notify their patients of potential harmful side effects of contraception, but it is not okay for a political candidate to discuss it openly? I would think, in the interests of women’s health, that we would want to discuss the effects of contraception. Good or bad.
The question that is burning with me is since when is the family the foundation of this nation? What is Romney talking about? The foundation of this nation is squarely on the individual unit, not the family unit. All happy families may be alike, but you don’t have to be a part of one in order to participate in the nation’s core political processes.
No, sonograms are not routine. It is an attempt to deter abortions by cost and by trying to force a woman to get attached to the fetus.
From Lena H.Sun in The Washington Post:
Despite the controversy over what type of ultrasound would be
required in Virginia’s bill, both abdominal and vaginal ultrasounds are,
in fact, used by most abortion providers. They are the most accurate
tool for determining the development stage of a fetus, doctors said.
“It’s pretty much common practice,” said Willie Parker, a doctor who
performs abortions in the Washington region and Philadelphia.
Abdominal ultrasounds are the most common. The vaginal ultrasound is
mainly used in the earliest stages of pregnancy, between four and six
weeks, when an abdominal ultrasound is unlikely to produce an image.
If an abdominal ultrasound is unlikely to produce an image prior to 4 to 6 weeks then one could be quite certain that the woman is in the very early into the first trimester and thus within her right to obtain an abortion. A doctor would have no need to determine the developmental stage as it obvious from the image on the abdominal ultrasound. The proposal mandating a vaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion is nothing more than an invasive and intimidating action.
Dating the pregnancy is not the only reason to perform an ultrasound. They are also performed to rule out the presence of an ectopic pregnancy.
Yeah, we’re going to pretend we’re in dreamland and that’s the reason for requiring ultrasounds? Get real.
What is real is that people get upset about this stuff. What are they afraid of? That a woman will see what it is she is aborting? That she might then change her mind? It is odd that people who are all for education and choice want to make sure women are not educated to make an informed choice. Let’s just tell her it is a bunch of cells she is casting off–like dead skin. Don’t let her know that it has a heartbeat, that it responds to stimulus because it has a sensory system…
Then say that’s what you’re doing. Don’t make up all these lies and excuses as to why this kind of legislation is being pushed for. It’s ridiculous.
I agree.
What is the medical purpose of a mandated vaginal ultrasound prior to having an abortion?
These are not standard practice ultrasounds used for monitoring a pregnancy. They are chiefly used to diagnose gynecological issues.
According to the National Institute of Health, vaginal ultrasounds are used to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy–one that has implanted outside the uterus. The presence of an ectopic pregnancy can be ascertained before the abortion is performed. Apparently, it is becoming increasingly common to use this tool.
The medical purpose of a mandated ultrasound…is most probably an attempt by a pro-life sympathetic legislature to change a woman’s mind about the abortion once she sees the heartbeat of her fetus. Which is a political purpose, and not medical. But you can’t claim it is an undue burden on a woman when it is an increasingly common diagnostic tool in use at abortion clinics.
Dear flat_lander: few if any persons of any political persuasion like abortions. But what IS true is that most of the strongest opponents of abortion–generally right-wing Republicans–also oppose the very safety net common in (other) advanced countries that leads to far fewer deaths of newborns in Canada and Europe than in America. Indeed, most opponents of abortion LOVE the military and support huge funding for weapons of death and destruction. They’re too consumed by their own self-righteousness to see the obvious hypocrisy here. That’s the real inconsistency, “pro-life” evangelists.
” ‘Candidates do not have to check their religion at the door of the
offices they seek. But they need to understand that they serve people of
other faiths and of no faith. Resorting to religious language that sets
people of faith against each other harms political discourse and sows
religious discord,’ said J. Brent Walker, executive director of the
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, in a statement.’ ”
from Religion and Politics Don’t Mix, Major Religious Groups Tell Presidential Candidates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/religion-politics_n_1291624.html?ref=religion