House Republicans organized a hearing this morning on the Obama administration's policy on access to contraception, and the first panel was made up exclusively of men -- each of whom opposes the White House position. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was not amused.
"Five men are testifying on women's health," Pelosi said, adding, "Where are the women? Imagine having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel.
"Duh? What is it that men don't understand about women's health and how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you're having families but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would have heard this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel. I think the fact that they did not allow a woman on the panel is symbolic of the whole debate as to who is making these decisions about women's health and who should be covered."
When Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) warned this week of a Republican "male-a-garchy," he clearly had a point.
Also note, the witness Democrats asked to participate, before being rejected by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), was law student Sandra Fluke. She was excluded from the hearing, but the testimony Fluke was prepared to deliver has been posted online.
Leave a Comment:
Wow! Ms. Fluke is a powerful voice and offers compelling stories. No wonder Rep. Issa didn't want her appearing on an all-male panel. I hope TRMS finds a way to book her tonight if it covers the hearing.
Meanwhile, can you imagine the howls of protest across Capitol Hill if a Democratic committee chair scheduled a hearing on, say, prostate cancer or ED drug policies and only women were called as witnesses - and none of them had any quealification to discuss the issue?
rondon- the women were added AFTER the public outcry over no women
Yea, rich, you're right. The two women who testified this afternoon, both doctors, quickly flew in from Oklahoma and Michigan. They had them on "stand-by" just in case people noticed there were no women on the morning panel. Your liberal thinking mind is too quick for those dumb old conservatives.
Gosh, I thought Ugh and the Cavemen were some rock group... who knew they were senators?
I'd like to ask those "men" exactly how many children they have? And if they have less than 10 children, then I'd like to know exactly how did they not - "birth control"? So exactly how did their wives get their "birth control" - oh that's right they're "public employees - so does that mean that WE the PEOPLE should stop footing the bill for their wives contraception?
Just asking?
They like traditional, time-tested methods of family planning. Such as the hammer and anvil method.
Issa has only one son in college, so his wife Kathy must have used contraception, or
Oh, there are lots of historical examples of only children. One of the more common ways that happens is that Hubby spends a lot of time away from home and brings back some neisseria gonorrhoeae to share with his wife, who develops pelvic inflammatory disease. Scarring leads to infertility, and that's it for the baby production.
I no longer can have children but man, this issue ticks me off.
On Andrea Mitchell's show, Foster Friess (Santorium's millionaire) joked that he doesn't see the big deal. He said in his day, you just put an aspirin between your knees. I doubt many women would be amused at that.
I just saw the video with Friess. Having a lot of $$ doesn't make one wise. Friess is proof of that.
@Muggle - just look at the Pauls' both Ron & Rand....
Can anyone imagine having a panel on men's health with no men on it? As my Gram would have said, can pigs fly???
It was NOT a panel on women's health. It was a panel of religious leaders on the first amendment. No one is trying to deny women healthcare. The church is saying we should not have to provide contraception services, directly or indirectly, because it violates our long standing teachings. Women are free to get that service dozens of other places, just not from a religious institution that opposes it.
I actually listened to a large part of the panel testimony.
Also, there are two women on the panel. Here's is the information:
Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Oklahoma Christian University
Laura Champion, M.D., Medical Director, Calvin College Health Services
Source: http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1598%3A2-16-12-qlines-crossed-separation-of-church-and-state-has-the-obama-administration-trampled-on-freedom-of-religion-and-freedom-of-conscienceq&catid=12&Itemid=1
Do these religious institutions accept federal funding? If so then they should not be able to tell a non-member of there religion what they can or can't give them.
@RobDon, you choose to frame this as a hearing about religious freedom. I disagree. This is about the choices each woman must be free to make. I think this hearing is just another Issa-created sham.
Do you think these same religious institutions, who are opposed to birth control, would ever be opposed to Viagra? Shouldn't they be concerned that men may now be able to have a lot more sex than is "appropriate"?? Issa should call another hearing - this time only women on the panel.
Yes, that seems inconceivable! Isn't it also saying something that all of the "representatives" of religion are men...a bit one sided! But even if the discussion focused on First Amendment rights, where's the balance in the hearing? If the First Amendment prevents laws enacted in favor of any One religion then every denomination should be welcome to exercise their opinion.....
I'm not framing it that way. The representatives who called and organized the hearing said that is the focus.
As to birth control versus viagra, the Catholic Church leadership have been critical of the drug and its use. But to understand the difference you have to understand the church's view of human sexual relations. It is to be enjoyed in the context of marriage but it is for the purpose of procreation. Birth control prevents that purpose.
I'm not saying they are right, or everyone should believe this way. But it is their view, their long standing view not something created in response to today's culture. In the Catholic Church especially, its members do not determine the church's position. Like any organization, not every member believes or adheres to its teachings.
I understand the vast majority (and that's an understatement if I've ever made one) want and use contraception. This still does not change the teaching of the Catholic Church.
There is a legitimate argument not that it will win the debate when all is said and done, but it is not a knee jerk reaction or a created position, at least from the church's standpoint.
And, Eileen, there are two women presenting before the council as noted earlier. See my link if you like. And everyone is free to exercise their opinion. Just like when the Democrats are in the majority, they choose who they think are relevant to their hearing and not everyone from every relevant demographics is represented when they are in charge either. Let's be fair with our criticism.
We get it RonDon but this is not the time to be elevating yourself to the "voice of reason." This is wrong on sooo many levels and people are extra angry right now. I mean who cares what the Catholic Church has had written on the books for hundreds of years.
History tells us that the Roman Empire was a time when male homosexuality was encouraged and believed to be the only form of real love and sex with women was only used for the purpose of procreation. Striking resemblence to today's attempt to "run the show."
Women with even superficial independence will not go along with this, whatever anyone wants to call it.
Maybe the incestuous raping of boys by the priests is an old hand-me-down from the Roman beliefs. And they want us to allow them to dictate to women in the 21st century how we should behave?
That's not religious freedom. What other sick secrets lie beneath the teachings.
This is a very old war between church and state being stirred up again. Look at the Sunni and Shiits. "You betcha."
Our constitution does, for one. It seems you don't care for the church at all (and that seems to be an understatement) and that's okay. That is one of the great things about our country.
As far as being the voice of reason, I'm always on the side of the voice of reason even when my emotions want to take me in the other direction. Anger, as you seem to indicate you are, can lead you to do things that are not rational or productive.
That said, I can respect you and your opinion even if I don't agree with it.
Funny RonDon, I believe Sharia Law says the same thing. Since the U.S. Constitution prohibits the promotion of one religion over another, are you all for Islamic Religious Freedom as well?
Frankly, it's ludicrous, not even Anton Scalia would allow religious law to trump U.S. Law. You folks are unAmerican jerks. If you want to live in a theocracy, try the third world.
There has long been conscience exemptions to certain federal and state laws, allowing the church and religious organization exemptions from their requirements.
Here's the most recent applicable Supreme Court decision stating that religious organizations are not subject to certain federal employment discrimination laws. It was actually a 9-0 decisions so not only did Scalia allow "religious law to trump U.S. Law" but all the judges did!
Here's a link:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school-v-eeoc/
Bwakfat:
While Robdon gracefully ignored you ignorant comment, I will not. Those of us who believe in a doctrinal religion are neither unAmerican nor jerks. Speaking for myself, I believe there are other reasons for living besides being on this earth. If you don't agree, fine. But, don't put down those of us who do.
The popular notion is to refer to polls to support the Obama compromise. But polls represent individual opinion. They don't represent the teaching of what some of us consider a higher authority.
I predict that somewhere around November 6, the Republicans will begin to figure out how important this issue is to the majority of women. For the Democrats' sake, let's hope they don't get a clue before then. Not that they're likely to.
I predict the administration will change course again or that the courts will intervene and correcting this first amendment violation, possibly regarding the mandate within the health care act.
Here we go again RobDon. It is not a first amendment violation unless you want to say that the churches are violating it.
RobDon, a first amendment issue would be like the forced sterilization that young mothers submitted to decades ago to qualify for children's welfare support from the southern states where they lived.
A first amendment issue would be like having to submit to a trans-vaginal scope even if the patient and doctor disagree.
A first amendment issue gives you the right to act like a di** on this blog.
Cute and so intellectual, Sal.
As to your erroneous point, the President has acknowledged that the First Amendment is a part of this discussion.
I guess you think he is acting like a di**, also.
Shhhhh....facts will just confuse them.
Yes- the religion is infringing on our 1st amendment rights! The President knows this!
I believe the main point at issue here is that no woman was "allowed" to sit on the first panel "hearing" testimony that directly affects them. The reason for that oversight hasn't been properly addressed yet, and it remains unanswered.
What? The argument has changed from "they should have had women on the panel" to "oh, I didn't know they had women testifying on the second panel...well, they should have had the women on the FIRST panel! Yea!"
That's absurd.
Yes again the individual has religious rights, too Rob. You have still not made the case for why the individual's religious rights are less important than that of the church.
What's "absurd" is that a bunch of guys comprised the first panel, that not a single woman was "allowed" to participate, and that sleight has yet to be adequately defended. How odd do you suppose it would have looked if only women had sat on those panels? Do you not think that men would raise the issue as well? I'm quite certain they would have been screaming "foul!", and loud enough to be heard several blocks away.
Condescending and rude, but that's expected. Let's see who takes the bait.
*WhrrrrrrrWhrrrrrrrWhrrrrrr* (siren sound) I hereby issue a citation to Sal for name calling. Bad Sal!
RobDon, I have to agree with Newsblog and Mouzer on this. Why is it okay for the Church to push their beliefs on their employees--Catholic or not? And Darrell Issa should have tried a little harder to find a woman religious authority (Where are the nuns?) figures on the panel. It would have at least given the perception of credibility to the panel. I'm sorry, but some men just don't get it.
There were two women of "religious authority" on the panel. One was a VP at a Christian college and the other an MD, a medical director.
The church or the religious institution is not violating anyone's rights. That is the case. They are not stopping anyone from doing anything. They are not forcing anyone to do anything. This has been through the courts even. Here's an article on their most recent decision that is relevant and it was a 9-0 decision so no one can claim court bias.
Here's a quote and the source:
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-contraception-20120131,0,5324593.story
I know I can be hard headed, opinionated, and even wrong (oh, my) but I'm on pretty firm ground here, I think.
Yeah you might actually want to try reading up on the court case, Rob.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_bars_narcoleptic_lutheran_teachers_suit_against_church_school/
Neither is the state. The state is not stopping the Church from operating as a private services institution. But the church IS violating the rights of it's employees to gain access to health care as per the health care law.
The major religious voice in this debate has been the Catholic Church. Again, where were the nuns? Bring on the nuns! Viva la nuns! And, what Mouzer said.
Uh-uh. Sorry. This panel was not about women's health, remember? It was about the first amendment and the "principle of religious liberty." I could probably accept a witch doctor being accepted as a religious authority if you twisted my arm enough and said witch doctor could mend it upon breaking. But, the medicos are not authorities on religious liberty. Likewise, the Church is not the authority on women's health.
The key to your correct statement is "per the health care law." And the church is contending that the health care law violates the Constitution. Only one side will be deem right in this debate.
Microgeek, the MD, medical director did so at a religious institution, so she was their to talk about this specific mandate and it's violation of religious liberties.
RobDon your argument is specious and with no merit, when 28 states already have this mandate with 8 states have no waiver for Churches as a whole. So there is no trampling of the 1st Amendment rights here. Oh as a side note this also apart of Romney care which Scott Brown voted. So to sum it all up you do not have a logical argument. Just Saying!
Mouzer:
Here's the case for a religious org over ruling the choice of an individual. Polls show most people favor making MJ legal. The govt says MJ will be illegal. So, is the govt ignoring the people's choice? The premise is the govt sets rules regardless of what certain individuals may think. If you violate the law, you suffer the consequences.
The same with the Catholic Church The Pope defines the rules and the Bishops enforce. If you choose to go against the "law", you suffer the consequences.
Which gets to the first amendment issue. Govt cannot mandate how people exercise their religion. You may not agree, and many Catholics disagree with certain teachings, but that's how it is. The Church is free to maintain it's stance on this issue
Dang social media crap! How the heck are we supposed to stifle Edith now?
Good show and obviously it was (ahem) no fluke they chose you!
I love the fact that Ms. Fluke brought up PCOS. It is common in anywhere between 10%-25% of women, and oftentimes not diagnosed until the woman is trying to get pregnant. It has a variety of symptoms, most of which can be treated with birth control, such as irregular or absent menses, high levels of testosterone, painful cramping, and acne. But none of those men standing in the discussion are likely aware of it. Indeed, when a portion are celibate men by choice, when would they have had the chance to learn about female health issues such as PCOS?
Ahem... I am not so sure they are celibate. There is a well known "house of ill repute" one block away from K street where really kinky things are for sale.
I just called Issa's office and told the person on the phone how angry people are about what's going on. I said that in particular people were offended by having no women on the panel. She said that there were two women on the panel and then hung up on me.
Call 1-202-225-3906 if you care to add your opinion- not that Issa cares but maybe it will help in some small way.
She should have never hung up on you, but she is correct. Here's the information:
Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Oklahoma Christian University
Laura Champion, M.D., Medical Director, Calvin College Health Services
Source: http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1598%3A2-16-12-qlines-crossed-separation-of-church-and-state-has-the-obama-administration-trampled-on-freedom-of-religion-and-freedom-of-conscienceq&catid=12&Itemid=1
You've got to admit, if you see this as a women's health issue, that two women doctors are qualified to speak on that issue even if you disagree with their position.
I called and received the same response, but could here phones ringing in the background. Sure he's getting an ear full. I also posted on his FB page along with many others.
If anything is correct it is that there should not be this ridiculous panel in the first place.
Then that argument should be made. There are two posts here decrying the fact that no women are being heard from when the truth is the committee has two women doctors on the panel.
I did not see this hearing and only made my comments based on the photograph, but I meant that as far as religious leaders go...the representatives are overwhelmingly men and does that lead to a balanced perspective? In the second panel, there were two women but they were not religious leaders. The Democratic side should have prepared better with who would represent their side of the argument...and if the hearing was about the constitutionality of the law...then they should have questioned constitutional authorities as well as religious leaders, but as is often the case, these hearings are poorly planned, but RobDon, the right was better prepared to state their case.
Eileen, thanks for the recognition that the posting and the photo are misleading.
But, the Democrats hands were tied. It was not that they did not prepare. (Hold on everyone, I'm sticking up for the Democrats) It is that they are in the minority. That's just one of the difficulties of not being the majority in the House. Both sides use it to their advantage. Been that way.
Ditto the "ovarian cysts" from Ms. Fluke's statement. A few weeks ago, my sister had to go the emergency room because of this condition. I do recall that she had previous problems in undergrad and was put on the pills because of it. Thanks, GOP, for silencing my sister's voice...
Excellent points raised. She should be on Rachel Maddow's show.
any female catholic that ever used contraceptive care but still sides with the bishops and the GOP is a hypocrite. If she ever used contaceptive care then she should side with president obama. Period. Any catholic man that went along with his catholic's wife use of contraceptive care who sides with the bishops and the GOP is also a hypocrite because he went along with his wife using contraceptive care but now he seeks to inhibit other women's access to it.
Will any of this be remembered in November?
Repealing bad laws will take a clear majority at both the federal and state levels. Better start getting people registered. Shucks I forgot, they made that next to impossible.
It is the churches who are violating the first amendment not the other way around!
Ahh but they have gotten through the wall of separation!
It's hard not to go completely bullistic over this non-issue. This conservitive religious stuff is so ridiculous and tedious. When a woman's right to choose what is right for her becomes a political circus and threatens to take away the very freedom and liberty this Country stands for it becomes more than just a domestic issue. It is Treason driven by a group of lewd testosterone pre-occupied hand-jobs. Don't tread on me!!! Mind your own business and quit trying to take governmental control of women't rights. You are definately in a no-win situation here. I will never, never give up my right to choose.
This issue could be the best thing to happen for the country. If the Republican nominee espouses the evangelical positions on the social issues, it could be construed as a national referendum on these social issues. If the Republican loses, the anti-contraception and anti-abortion fervor could abate. The failure of evangelicals to help win the presidency might discourage the state and federal politicians who are trying to pass more laws from doing so, especially if the defeat is very big and traceable to women voters.
The question is do these institutions accept funding from the state? If so then they have no right to tell another woman what they can and can't do with there body and if they don't like issuing contraceptives stop accepting federal funding and use the money in the collection basket
THANK YOU for posting Sandra Fluke's statement!
Does a Gay Fetus Have Any Rights? In light of the silly yet frightening debates on contraction and religion, you may want to check out the piece I did a while back for Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-gerdy/does-a-gay-fetus-have-any_b_840968.html
Actually this isn't about religious freedom or contraception. It's about deregulation, and whittling away at the ACA. Why do you think they moved from the religious exception to the more general "any employer with a supposed moral issue?" Issa knows this is all for show, as does that odious RobDon dork who is doing as he's been told by whoever has hired him to troll here. So, while everyone screams at each other about birth control and bibles, the GOP scumbags are hoping to get Obama to back down. He's smart enough not to, and Pelosi won't let him. Don't call Issa, call Obama and Pelosi and tell them to stay strong. Also, laugh at how stupid the GOP is to try to sneak more deregulation in with such a losing topic for them. Not to mention, find a way to get the Mittster to come out forcefully against contraception in general. Those sound bytes will be all that's needed to bury him in the fall.
Wow, what a great presentation, and how dare Issa say that this young woman was not "qualified " to speak on such matters. As women , we should double down on this issue the way we did with the Komen incident.We can do it!Call Issa @1-202-225-3906 if you wish to add your opinion!
A sham hearing when only one side is presented, even if we pretend this isn't about birth control. No employer should be exempt from following the law with regard to its employees. First amendment rights belong to the individual, not to the church.
Dems should be celebrating the fake issue created by the Bishops and now being used by the Republicans. If this continues as an issue, the Dems should go all out in districts and states that are not so solid for the Republicans. I predict that there will be more than the usual number of upsets if contraception is an issue. And that includes the Senate where Republicans are in a good position to take control.
The Bishops are complicit in this "fake issue" with the Republicans in order to paint President Obama as anti-Religious Freedom, which ultimately exposes him as secretly being anti-American. The Birther outcry failed, but it had a long run and will linger in still-doubting minds. The efforts to out President Obama as a Muslim have wasted the Democrat's time with damage control. The Bishops are really, really angry with the repeal of DADT, the passing of Gay Marriage Equal Rights laws, and the continued existence of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights. Foolishly, however, the Bishops have targeted contraception as the great American eeevvil. They didn't do their public opinion polling first. They just assumed that the masses would accept their outdated decrees. They will not succeed in the latest effort to maim the Affordable Care Act, one contraceptive at a time.
And the congressional ratings continue to go down below historic levels.
We only need watch the news of the day to see why.
The GOP has focussed so long and hard to appeal to the right wing extremists that they have turned into right wing eextremists. They no longer need to pander to the base , the elected officials are the base. Many of the GOP official are true beleivers which is a complete disaster for a politician.
Like a dog chasing a car they suceeded and it is running over them.
I called Issa's office and was reminded that two women were in fact on the panel.He was a little short with me, when I asked him why Ms.Fluke was not allowed to speak.He did not have a an answer for me.I reminded him that this was an issue where many women should have been on that panel, and that contraception should not be used as a political football, as Ms.Fluke says. I hope others will call too.
I did and they hung up on me!
Who's following the money on this issue? It seems to me that the health insurance companies have a huge interest in denying contraception coverage in that they will have to pick up the tab. I think this is just another smoke screen being thrown up by Big Insurance to keep the real issues off the screen. It would be interesting to see how much $$ is at stake for the insurance companies.
Contraceptives are a lot cheaper than obstetricians and paediatricians.
Thank you for stating the obvious. The voice of common sense in the wilderness.