Men in Black

[paft.livejournal.com]

Here is a picture from today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the Obama administration's birth control mandate:



The first row are the allowed witnesses.

All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.

That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.

Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.

I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.


Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

*

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I've always been puzzled at the intellectual self-contradiction inherent in believing simultaneously in the ideal of small government and yet also believing a government big enough to actually, seriously regulate/ban abortion won't use those same powers elsewhere. It almost rivals that of the totalitarians in terms of sheer self-willed abilities to believe white is black, black is white, and traitors are doubleplusungood.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the doublethink of why government should conciliate the desires of Christianity in any of its various forms, Constitution be damned, while government should fear that conciliating Muslims or Hindus means the Apocalypse Draws Nigh. If one objects to the one, one has no grounds to say the other is justifiable. If one approves of the one, one cannot disapprove of the other. But then the actual rationale is "Jesus in my state" and nothing more as it is, so....

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

As someone who is pro-life, and small government, I see no further expansion of authority beyond what already exists in terms of existing laws enforcing the protection of human life against it's willful denial. While the circumstances are unique and should be treated as such, a restriction on abortion is not inherently of a different kind from other laws protecting human life against its denial.

It should also be noted, that even as someone who is pro-life, I find much of the legislation that has been put forward from this side has been exceedingly ill-considered in it's ham-fisted-ness, and it's lack of recognition of the unique-ness of the issue makes me want to *headdesk*.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The birth control mandate issue is about religious freedom. Why should the gender of anyone involved matter?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Because it's an issue that overwhelmingly affects women.

We are roughly 50% of the population.

And yet 100% of that panel are men.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Because it was about the religious "freedom" not to provide health care services to one gender.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Is it about the freedom to practice religious rituals or the freedom to limit women's access to medical care?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Is it really about religious freedom, though? I mean, that's the claim, but is this form of it (the Republican House bill would allow *any*, even non-religious, group to bar money from going to contraceptive services) one we should allow? Did public-serving Mormon hospitals (OK, I know very few exist, but humor me) have the right to refuse to hire blacks back when they thought them subhuman, on "religious freedom" grounds?

It seems to me that "religious freedom" does not encompass the right to bar another person from acting in a way inconsistent with your religion's stance on something. And if we're going to go into the consequences of paying into an aggregate pool of which part of your cash goes to things your religion disagrees with, can observant Quakers start withholding their tax dollars in the amount that funds the military? I just don't buy that there's any logical consistency to the idea that you bear moral responsibility for everything that's ever done with your money.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The birth control mandate issue is about religious freedom.

The freedom to oppress women.


Why should the gender of anyone involved matter?

Are unaware what birth control has meant for women's rights and livelyhood worldwide?

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

The birth control mandate issue is about stealth deregulation. Insisting employers share the burden of health costs will become less meaningful if an employer can opt out of anything to which they can muster a religious objection to.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Even accepting that the "birth control mandate issue is about religious freedom" - and I've never seen more than a bare assertion from you that it is, even though you admit that "we need to use some common sense and recognize legitimate religious practices as opposed to clear attempts to make a point" (and denying health coverage for contraceptives to be used by non-Catholic women working at Church-affiliated secular institutions is...?) - it's clear that, as a matter of established law, the Catholic Church here has no meritorious constitutional claim. So, insofar as Congress is doing anything about the birth control mandate, they're trying to find an accommodation to the voiced objections of a particular lobby, which requires balancing various interests and perspectives. So, women should be heard on this issue, particularly women for whom the Church's stance presents a real obstacle to their ability to access birth control.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Oh look. The next panel is up and they're doing a little better. Now two out of the five panelists are female!

I wonder if we're going to see an all female panel later in the day.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

The next panel is up and they're doing a little better. Now two out of the five panelists are female!

Aha, proof that the government monitors our conversations here!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Jon Stewart had some interesting observations (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues?xrs=eml_tds) on objections to the mandate. The idea that this is a form of religious persecution came under intense ridicule.

One of our students observed that the Church seems to have an attitude of ownership over the poor. Since this benefits poor women more than anyone, they feel that the government is encroaching on their territory.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

I fail to understand how this is still a religious debate. Religious organizations do NOT have to pay for contraceptive coverage; if they don't, the insurance company will. That was a change recently put in place.

So, if the religious organizations aren't paying for it anymore, HOW is this a religious debate? Because I, as a non-mainstream-religion woman, can now get contraceptive coverage even if my employer doesn't believe in birth control, how does that infringe on my employer's freedom of religion? I'm not making my EMPLOYER take birth control!

I mean, the logical progression of this is obviously, as one congressman tried to include, that any employer can choose not to cover any medical procedure they have a religious problem with. Better hope the owner of the company you work for isn't one of those fringe Christians (or Scientologists!) that don't believe in any medical care at all. Guess you better start praying about your broken leg!

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's about control of women.

Which is why there's so far been such a paucity of women on panels.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

if they don't, the insurance company will.

The insurance company doesn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts, though. They do that because the other members are paying into them, aren't they?

Better hope the owner of the company you work for isn't one of those fringe Christians (or Scientologists!) that don't believe in any medical care at all.

Ooh that makes me wonder... is it a breach of the 1st Amendment to force Christian Scientists to get health insurance, since (based on my limited knowledge of them) they don't believe in getting medical treatment?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

You're here! Welcome.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Covering the same things that every other insurance plan covers is just an extension of the 'no pre-existing conditions' section. Employers should not be allowed to deny coverage for any reason, religious or otherwise.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that necessarily lead to higher insurance premiums, though?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I have moral objections to prescribing atypical anti-psychotics for off-label use in pediatric environments.

But you don't see me telling the insurance company what to do.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

If you're buying insurance you are.

[shinyget.livejournal.com]

I like how they get up in arms over birth control, but they're against things like abortions. Don't they realize that covering for birth control and supporting comprehensive sex education is how you prevent abortions? But then I guess you can't control the poor or women if you aren't forcing them to stay disadvantaged by having kids they can't support/want.

[xtremeroswellia.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And it all comes down to power and control.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Timothy 2:12

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Shut up egg bearer. The men are talking.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

I sooooo need to remember that line the next time I see a hyper Christian chick start ragging on gays.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

It's sad to see Catholics so worked up over contraception but so many turning a blind eye to Catholic priests raping their children.

[xtremeroswellia.livejournal.com]

That's part of the reason why it's hard for me to take the religion seriously.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

The hearing was about the Constitutional powers of the president and to determine if Obama exceeded his power in mandating that insurance companies provide free coverage to all women subscribed to insurance.

The hearing was not about birth control!! The dems are trying to make out as though it was.

Blatantly and deliberately dishonest!!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It wasn't about free coverage to all women subscribed to insurance.

It was about weather the god squad can whine their way out of offering contraceptive coverage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/02/16/gIQAgf3jIR_story.html).

Blatantly and deliberately dishonest - not to mention laughably partisan and dangerously stunted.

[404.livejournal.com]

We're just rearranging deck chairs on The Titanic.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

LOL. Yeah, population growth and the ability (or lack thereof) to control it is such an unimportant issue now that we have a wonderfully healthy economy and unlimited energy, food and water. Everyone can afford the Pill all by themselves, and if they can't, who cares? We can support an infinite amount of new human beings. Plus, with the dizzying array of alternatives that totally exist, there's no need for women with applicable medical issues to use birth control pills as treatment. Nope.