It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women Silenced at US House Hearing on Contraception Access

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

As part of House Republicans’ latest efforts to roll back women’s rights to pre-1960 status, an all-male Congressional panel today refused to allow a single woman to testify in favor of access to contraception at a hearing on a proposal to provide access to contraception under the federal health care law. Republicans argue that requiring even secular employers to provide contraception as part of their health-care coverage violates employers’ “religious freedom” to deny health care on “moral” grounds.

Democratic senators attempted to add one female witness, a college student who planned to testify about a classmate who lost an ovary to ovarian cancer, a condition birth control pills can help prevent. However, the Republican committee chair, Darrell Issa (R-CA), said the hearing was broadly about “religious freedom,” and that the student was not qualified to speak on the subject. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said that by stacking the witness list to exclude any women “commits a massive injustice by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across the country are meaningless.”

Unswayed, Issa instead invited a panel of eight male and two female religious leaders, all opposed to contraception, to speak against the requirement. To give you a flavor: The first witness compared an employer who refused birth control to women to a Jewish deli owner who refused to serve pork—effectively equating a woman’s ability to avoid pregnancy to the inability to get smoked pig parts at certain restaurants.


publicola.com...

How in the hell can not a single woman have any kind of input in this matter? This is absurd. This entire "religious freedom" argument is absurd. You would think that the people this would hurt the most would have SOME KIND OF SAY IN THIS. It seems they are completely ignoring the rights of women on the ENTIRE ISSUE!!!!

The bill the GOP is trying to pass that lets ALL EMPLOYERS as being able to deny anyone any coverage they feel is "morally wrong." It doesn't really even have to do with religion....it can just be "moral" beliefs. If an employer believes that self healing is within his morals, he could deny any coverage he sees fit. If anything, employess will be able to deny any coverage to any employee based on their beliefs.

IMO...the GOP is only proving that we need a PUBLIC OPTION or SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM....MEDICARE FOR ALL...and take the business and "religious beliefs" notion completely out of the equation.
edit on 16-2-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



How in the hell can not a single woman have any kind of input in this matter? This is absurd. This entire "religious freedom" argument is absurd. You would think that the people this would hurt the most would have SOME KIND OF SAY IN THIS. It seems they are completely ignoring the rights of women on the ENTIRE ISSUE!!!!

With all due respect, that 'absurd' freedom of religion argument isn't just a part of the United States Constitution, they deemed to make it #1 on the document. I understand the ordering was not entirely by chance.


I really don't get where anyone has a place to even peep a complaint here. No one is suggesting contraception can't be had by Catholics or anyone else for that matter. It's simply not a GOD GIVEN RIGHT. I believe the point here is to say that no President has the authority or right to ORDER a private company to offer this or that, PERIOD. The fact this happens to cross the articles of Faith to a large % of the nation's population makes it far worse, but the core principle is valid in more than just this example..and Obama keeps pushing.

If this woman wants an IUD or Norplant, or whatever.....go get it. Just don't expect the health insurance of a Church related employer to supply it or allow it to BE supplied by a program THEY CHOOSE to offer. This sense of entitlement to EVERYTHING at the expense of whoever needs to be expended in the process is taking what makes America great and warping into a nightmare. Enough....is my feeling here.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Does anybody know what the Catholic Church's stance on HMO provided Viagra is?

Contraception is very much a part of health and should be addressed in a comprehensive Health Care Plan. Sexuality is a "God given right" and is covered under the constitution in the "right to the pursuit of happiness." Also, the right "not to reproduce" is part of happiness.

This is about the ideology of not interfering with nature, or God's plan. Too late. Way too late.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

You'll have to pardon me for reading the Constitution for what it says...not what I wish it said or what I really would like it to say, given the chance to add a few things. I could damn sure think of things I'd like to see added to the 2nd, for instance..but we don't get to make up new sections or redefine existing ones.

The idea that ANY part of the Constitution addresses birth control or even health issues really is an example of wishful thinking and creative interpretation. There is a fine debate here somewhere for social policy and how we might want to address it. However, there simply is no legal basis under our Constitution to FORCE this issue by Presidential or even Congressional decree. It doesn't exist..and it never has.

Don't let that stop these people though. After all, it's Pelosi who LITERALLY LAUGHED when asked about where the Constitution have support and basis for the Obamacare bill back when it was passed. How can we even debate Constitutional Law and what it allows when the people sitting at the very top of national power find the whole concept to be FUNNY?

Oh Well... The White House has declared war against a segment of the population estimated at over 80% in the U.S. alone. This should be real fun to watch him schooled on the limits of Presidential power vs. People Power.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yes, the liberals threw a hissy fit at the hearing.

The liberals always act crazy when they are not in charge.

They will probably all shave their heads when they lose control of the US Senate

as well.

-----------
Congressman Issa is their worst nightmare.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
blood transfusions are also against some's religious beliefs..
I can't help but wonder...
would the arguments be the same if we were talking about denying coverage for blood transfusions and not women's birth control??

the one little fact that the one little lady was trying to point out to that committee is that SOME women use the birth control to stay healthy!!! and, again, it was silenced!!! kind of like telling us women, we really don't care much about your health, as we do about OUR personal religious convictions and the right to make your life hell forcing our agenda into the world!!!

so, just for fun, how many of you pro religous freedom people would be making the same argument if it was your employer trying to deny you coverage for a blood transfusion that you needed to stay healthy???

Eurisko2012- shave my head, na, not me!!! I am waiting to hear about the first women who end up losing something major healthwise because the fools wanted to enforce their pro-life, anit-abortion stance on everyone.....
and then I will be telling your wife, along with every other women, married or not, to just say no to sex!!! it's just too dangerous in the current climate!!!
edit on 17-2-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
This is stupid. How is this different than an employer telling a employee what they can and can not spend their paycheck on. The employer has to pay the employee and that employee can spend that money on contraception.....how the hell is this different??



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Silenced by who??? The crazy libs run out of the room and blabber on for hours and

hours on MSNBC.

---------
Stop playing the victim card. It's really sad.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
It was a scene straight out of the '60's.


This is a typical election season wedge issue. How can we be sure? Because hypocrisy reigns:


...interestingly, members of Congress who seek to limit the availability of affordable birth control all enjoy contraception insurance as part of the government managed Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB). Members first approved the so-called “contraception equity” provision in 1998, through the FY 1999 Omnibus Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328, PL 105-277, and have passed the measure ever since. The language “ensures that federal employees participating in FEHBP have insurance coverage of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related services.”


thinkprogress.org...

But, if it's anything more meaty than politics as usual then it must be about control. Period. Limiting access to birth control, through insurance coverage or otherwise, is about controlling women, nothing more.

I want to know where the GOP women stand on this issue. And which of them use their federally funded health benefits for contraceptives? And which male GOP members have used their coverage for a vasectomy (also a contraceptive)? Do the Catholic charities cover vasectomies? Just asking.

edit on 17/2/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It was a scene straight out of the '60's.


This is a typical election season wedge issue. How can we be sure? Because hypocrisy reigns:


...interestingly, members of Congress who seek to limit the availability of affordable birth control all enjoy contraception insurance as part of the government managed Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB). Members first approved the so-called “contraception equity” provision in 1998, through the FY 1999 Omnibus Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328, PL 105-277, and have passed the measure ever since. The language “ensures that federal employees participating in FEHBP have insurance coverage of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related services.”


thinkprogress.org...

But, if it's anything more meaty than politics as usual then it must be about control. Period. Limiting access to birth control, through insurance coverage or otherwise, is about controlling women, nothing more.

I want to know where the GOP women stand on this issue. And which of them use their federally funded health benefits for contraceptives? And which male GOP members have used their coverage for a vasectomy (also a contraceptive)? Do the Catholic charities cover vasectomies? Just asking.

edit on 17/2/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)


Limiting access to birth control???

It's available in every Rite Aid.


---------
It was wrong for Obama to attack the Catholic Church.

Even democrat Catholics are livid.

Obama is doomed to 1 term.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


How is the health benefit any different than anything else the employer gives the employee?? They can't tell you what to spend your paycheck on why should they be allowed to tell you what to "spend" you health insurance on?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Limiting access to birth control???

It's available in every Rite Aid.


Funny stuff. Within the context of the thread - prescription drug coverage for contraceptives as part of health insurance coverage.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


The health insurance issue will be on the back burner. It's nitpicking.

It's also transitory.
------
Americans will be more angry about gasoline being $7 a gallon.

Look for the big picture.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Obama is doomed to 1 term.


Yeah, when bats grow feathers!

Surely you don't actually believe this statement, do you? This type of behavior on the part of the GOP is exactly what is going to insure that President Obama is re-elected.

Nothing could be so absurd as to hold a congressional hearing on the subject of women's health and not have a single woman on the panel.

IMO, the GOP has basically written off the women's vote in the next election along with that of the poor, the seniors and minorities, as well as the gay & lesbian community. They have fundamentally limited themselves to the support of the Christian right wing ideologues and I seriously doubt that their support will be sufficient to secure a win in the next election.

What we're currently witnessing is more akin to having "Toto" drag back the curtain that's been concealing the truth about the T.P./GOP and their agenda for all americans to see and after such an expose', I would expect the Republican party to be in a state of decline for some time to come.

F&S to David9176 for the OP!



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WildWorld
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


How is the health benefit any different than anything else the employer gives the employee?? They can't tell you what to spend your paycheck on why should they be allowed to tell you what to "spend" you health insurance on?


Open your eyes.

The entire ObamaCare disaster will be thrown out by SCOTUS by June 2012.

It's unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I believe I said that in my first post.



Originally posted by kosmicjack

This is a typical election season wedge issue.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Obama is doomed to 1 term.


Yeah, when bats grow feathers!

Surely you don't actually believe this statement, do you? This type of behavior on the part of the GOP is exactly what is going to insure that President Obama is re-elected.

Nothing could be so absurd as to hold a congressional hearing on the subject of women's health and not have a single woman on the panel.

IMO, the GOP has basically written off the women's vote in the next election along with that of the poor, the seniors and minorities, as well as the gay & lesbian community. They have fundamentally limited themselves to the support of the Christian right wing ideologues and I seriously doubt that their support will be sufficient to secure a win in the next election.

What we're currently witnessing is more akin to having "Toto" drag back the curtain that's been concealing the truth about the T.P./GOP and their agenda for all americans to see and after such an expose', I would expect the Republican party to be in a state of decline for some time to come.

F&S to David9176 for the OP!



It's hard for Obama to get re-elected if the price of gas is $7 a gallon.

Womens health will NOT be the number one thing on everyones mind.

According to James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid." Remember?
--------
Stop playing the victim card. It's sad and it won't work.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

It's hard for Obama to get re-elected if the price of gas is $7 a gallon.

Womens health will NOT be the number one thing on everyones mind.


While I doubt that is true - people won't put aside their principles and values based on the transient price of a manipulated commodity - it sure does strike me as more than coincidental that it is the GOP who is pursuing war at all cost in the ME, where, as it so happens, the valuable commodity is mainly produced and supply lines are most at risk.


And you are likely right, women's health won't be the main issue but it will be a bellwether for independents and the undecided. As the member above alluded to, statistically the GOP is DOA for the 2012 election.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Open your eyes.

The entire ObamaCare disaster will be thrown out by SCOTUS by June 2012.

It's unconstitutional.



There you go again with the wishful thinking. More than likely, the only part of "ObamaCare" that will be deemed unconstitutional is the "Personal Mandate" to purchase coverage through a private insurer, which by the way, was a mainstay position of the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and the GOP as a whole, right up until the minute that Obama caved on the issue and gave in to their demands.

If you remember correctly, us democrats wanted a seat at the table for representatives of a "Single-Payer" and/or "Public Option" but were denied, much the same way that women were denied the right to representation at the hearing that is the subject of this thread. Can you see a pattern here?

Once the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the "personal mandate" and I agree that they will probably deem it to be unlawful, it will pave the way for a more comprehensive "single-payer" plan like the one envisioned by the democrats to begin with.

On the other hand, the current GOP tactic of denying representation to those most affected by legislation will only blow up in their face.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


When the independents spend $120 to fill up their gas tank, they will probably have

an attitude when they walk into the voting booth.

4 more years of THIS??? No way.

Vote for ABO.

Anybody but Obama.

America tried on a socialist suit and it did not fit.
---------
Women being silenced at the US House hearing in February will be the LAST thing

on their minds.

edit on 17-2-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join