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

[paft.livejournal.com]

Women are predominantly the ones who are directly affected by contraceptive coverage.

Do you deny this.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Whether I accept or deny it is irrelevant to the point of this whole issue. Condoms aren't covered, so aren't men directly impacted by that? It's a silly distraction to avoid discussing the real issues of religious freedom.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Condoms aren't the crux of the debate.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, religious freedom is.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

So, where do you draw the line about this religious freedom?

May I ignore the law if it compels me to go against my religious freedom?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

As long as it's not infringing on anyone else's rights, absolutely.

The way the rule was before Obama changed it didn't keep anyone from getting contraception, so that's okay. The way the rule is now infringes on religious freedom, which is not okay.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Nobody's religious freedom is being threatened -- unless it is nonCatholic employees who find themselves forced into compliance with Catholic doctrine.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So forcing Catholics, by law, to subsidize immoral activity directly does not violate religious freedom? How?