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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but that's not traditionally how wages work. And, again, it puts the responsibility away from the Catholics and in the hands of those who have the money.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

It will become 'traditionally how wages work', if and when contraception opponents can succeed in framing it so, opting, perhaps to make 'use of contraceptives' a firing offense for any who can be proven to do so, or make 'swearing not to use contraceptives' a contractual obligation of employment. This is not far fetched. The point is their general opposition to Birth control, and what power they have to express it, and compel compliance.

> it puts the responsibility away from the Catholics

Well, firstly, since so many Catholics use birth control, this statement is problematic. Lets say instead "Those who oppose birth control, ostensibly for reasons of Catholic Dogma". Too long I know, so lets pronoun it as "them".

The responsibility is ALREADY 'away' from 'them'. Each individual in any such insurance program is capable of exercising their own choice informed (or not) by religious dogma. Some may, some may not.

Attaching responsibility to the money flow in this way is a farce. The individual obtaining the service is responsible. They are the 'Sin circuit breaker'.

If you choose to continue to argue in this Transitive property of Sin via 3rd party removed purchases, whoever will you argue against Gun Shop owners NOT being responsible for the deaths caused by their product?