I think we both see Jindal’s proposal the same way.
I think we (Conservatives) do win the issue with winable voters from the Sandra Fluke perspective. The “womyn” voters will never be won anyway.
The “Santa Clause” vote wants Obamacare. Giving the issue to them to preserve Obamacare is self-defeating.
This is the beginning of a long train of “discoveries” about the impact of National Healthcare on our freedoms. Contraception, abortion, sex-change procedures, euthenasia - we should hit hard on the fact that making each of these public makes it so that we all have to accept all of these.
We don’t want National Healthcare. Why should we want Jindal’s proposal to enable it?
I still don’t get what you are arguing about. The issue is not a winner for us. Even if it could be, far too many Republicans (think Akin and Mourdoch types) have no clue how to talk about these things without alienating huge swaths of voters. Either way, why not get government out of it and let birth control pills be sold ‘over the counter’. The less government regulates the better. We should be advocating for government to allow many if not most pharmaceuticals to be ‘over the counter’ anyway.
Jindal’s proposal does not enable government healthcare. It gets government OUT of regulating how people acquire birth control pills.