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

[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.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

So - do they control what their employees buy with their wages as well? The way I see it, the money they pay into insurance is just another form of compensation for the employee. (It's often lumped into compensation when looking at job offers, after all!) Which means it is, effectively, the employee's money. And they can't exactly tell their employees "you can't spend your money on that goddess figurine because we don't believe in that religion" so why can they tell us what sort of insurance we can or can't have?

It's one thing for religious organizations where religion is the main point of the organization. Churches. Religious Outreach Groups. But the argument here is that ANY organization that has a religious leader (one of the attorneys said "if I quit this job and open a Taco Bell, I'd have to do this, and that's not right!") should not have to do this. And that's bull. Because your employees do not follow your religion, therefore you have NO BUSINESS forcing them to. "I don't believe in birth control, so you can't have access to it through your insurance" is just a form of infringing your beliefs on me. And THAT infringes on MY religious beliefs. I'm not going to force birth control pills down my employer's throat. THAT is the only way this would infringe upon their beliefs.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Isn't that kind of a choice someone makes when they decide to work for a religion-based organization? They're not saying that you can't go on the pill, they're saying they don't want to pay for it. Along the same times, when I got my job, I knew going in that the district offered two cheap and crappy health plans and one decent but expensive plan. I took the latter. Nothing's keeping me from taking the money and buying health insurance somewhere else except that (a) I'm lazy and (b) I get laid off every year and I'm not sure how COBRA works with non-employer-subsidized plans.

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

The problem is, this is more than just churches. We're talking about ANY COMPANY that may be run by a Catholic person. Hospitals. Schools. As the one attorney pointed out, TACO BELL.

I have no idea what the religious affiliation of, say, the owner of Kohl's is. So I would be right pissed if I took the job and then was told I couldn't get birth control through their insurance because the owner is Catholic.

If the company is not a religious-focused organization - if the POINT of the company is something OTHER than worshiping whatever it is they choose to worship - than they should be bound by this law. It's called the separation of church and state, and this is one instance of it.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

In a company, like Kohl's or Taco Bell, who decides (pre-Obamacare) what a health insurance company looks like? I would think it's something set by a committee or board, not by the CEO. Otherwise I'd think that we would have heard about the anti-BCP cabal of Catholic executives before now ;)

I guess it also depends on the legalese... are these hospitals extensions OF the church, or just something that's run by Catholics?

(Oh, and as someone who worked at Kohl's for several years, I'd have to say -- what insurance? ;))

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

Kohl's has insurance! It's just...crappy. (I've worked there for several years as well.)

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Crappy is putting it lightly. I think I got a $10 off coupon for an eye exam or something (but only after I spent $50 on my Kohl's Charge).

[crystallinegirl.livejournal.com]

That's....not how I remember it.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

I might be exaggerating. Also, it's been a few years ;)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

not wanting their money to go towards something they feel goes against their beliefs.

Give unto Caeser. This is an issue that does impact the health of society. I don't see why we should cater to their desire to keep women in the 1600's just because they think it makes their god sad. Its a lose for women to gain what? Godly feel good points? On the flip side, it would be a gain for women, and yes, the religious would have their feelings hurt a bit.