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

[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.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

Well, that's exactly what I think it is. But people keep saying it's a religious freedom thing - and I simply fail to see how they can think that.

[shinyget.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I love your icon.

[xtremeroswellia.livejournal.com]

It also amuses me how certain religious folk scream "persecution" at the drop of a hat.

It's like, "No, if we start rounding you up and forcing you to take birth control with a gun pointed at your head, THAT would be religious persecution. This is you just not getting your way on EVERYTHING."

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

It's many things from many different directions, and control of women is significant... but my money is on it being MOSTLY about businesses interests trying to kill their health care obligations a little piece at a time.

[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?

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

Actually, considering how cost-effective it IS to cover contraception (it's not called preventative care for nothing!)...you don't see the insurance companies getting mad at Obama for deciding they're gonna pay for it, do you? Contraception means, optimistically, fewer abortions, fewer childbirths, fewer pre-natal/post-natal visits.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

As a woman, I personally don't have any issues with the pill. But I can see where these religious groups are coming from, in not wanting their money to go towards something they feel goes against their beliefs.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

You're here! Welcome.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

:)

Certain topics I just can't keep my mouth shut on...

Religious Freedom vs. Birth Control being one of those, because it's pure bullshit.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Well you are right. I am honestly surprised they're still playing that angle after the compromise Obama made. It's like they've gone this far, their choices were either to keep riding the train all the way or get off and admit they're lost. They've chosen to keep going, which is a very odd choice given the percentage of American women who've used contraception in their lives.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

Which means that insurance probably becomes more expensive, and the Catholic organizations purchasing said insurance help subsidize it anyway. The "change," as it were, actually does nothing unless insurance companies that do not offer contraceptive coverage are allowed to exist.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

As I stated elsewhere, it's called preventative care for a reason. Contraception is cost neutral; it means fewer abortions, fewer childbirths, fewer pre-natal/post-natal doctor visits. So unless insurance companies are being stupid (which I'll give you, is quite likely) then no, rates should not go up.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's all well and good, and I don't necessarily disagree with the point of the cost even though there's actual disagreement about it being cheaper (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs/), but the point is not that the care is preventative, but that the insurers are forced to offer contraceptives in plans subsidized by Catholic institutions that are morally and religiously opposed to them.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

Actually, here, have an interesting study on the subject:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060112.html

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

If neither the Insurance Company, nor the employer, pays for birth control, then such birth control will be purchased by the employees** with funds gained from their work.

As such, the total compensation they receive from their opting-out-employer, as compared to an opting-in-employer, would be less. In a free market, the employer would then have to increase wages slightly to offset the decreased utility of the total package, if they wa nted to maintain the same quality of labor force... so, money from religious objectors would still be "subsidizing" contraception.

** Of course, reality being what it is, some percentage of that employee base will neglect birth control and have a pregnancy that they otherwise would not have. Labor and delivery costs are non-controversial as far as insurance payments go, but if I happen to share an insurance company with one of these Catholic organizations, my premiums will rise to help pay for all those ass-backward-policy-inspired babies.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Now I am being asked to subsidize Catholic intransigence on birth control? Why should >I< have to pay extra so they can maintain their idiotic bronze age belief system?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If neither the Insurance Company, nor the employer, pays for birth control, then such birth control will be purchased by the employees** with funds gained from their work.

With wages earned, you mean.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Which means that insurance probably becomes more expensive, and the Catholic organizations purchasing said insurance help subsidize it anyway.

You keep slipping back and forth between the "I give you a sandwich" characterization and the (more consistent with reality) the "I in some indirect way subsidize your sandwich" characterization. In some contexts, the mandate is bad because it's "giving you a sandwich," but providing wages or a kind of health insurance voucher to a worker is okay because it's just "giving you $5 for a sandwich." But here, the situation is, "I buy you a sandwich of my own free choice" and then the government comes in to the sandwich-maker and says "Put birth control on that sandwich." There's no active involvement by the Church in the ultimate immoral act, no responsibility, so there's no defensible basis for the religious institution to object.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

and then the government comes in to the sandwich-maker and says "Put birth control on that sandwich." There's no active involvement by the Church in the ultimate immoral act, no responsibility, so there's no defensible basis for the religious institution to object.

Actually, there is, as the Catholic Church needs to be resisting this sort of thing. "I was just following orders" isn't a good defense.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hey, if it's birth control it's an issue of religious freedom. If it's mandating hijabs, OTOH, it's them nasty brown folk wantin' to put their ways in our freedums-loving society and a sign that sooner or later the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will be playing polo in the streets.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

Wait, what? Mandating hijabs? Where was this?

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

France? No, wait, that was BANNING the hijab...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's not, it's a hypothetical akin to this. I admit to misphrasing this: the government mandating BANNING the Hijab and this are approximately equivalent in terms of seriousness to the religion involved, the people approving of the one tend to scream "End of civilization" at the other being legally required. One is not distinguishable from the other in rationale, thus the issue is not freedom of religion but freedom of *some* religions.