Republicans hearing on contraception: no women witnesses allowed


They were just one day removed from being exactly one month to the day from Israel’s gynaecological conference where no women speakers were allowed to present on lady bits. Just one day. This is 2012, people. You wouldn’t think this nonsense could happen here, now. Here in the Western world, where certain factions declare that we have the most advanced ideas of morality, and where we ostensibly espouse separation of church and state, despite all this Republicans are holding a hearing on contraception where every witness… EVERY WITNESS… is a male religious leader.



The hearing, says committee chairman Darrell Issa (Republican, naturally), is about the religious freedom to prevent women from getting contraception, and whether or not the new HHS rules about contraception without co-pay are Constitutional in keeping Catholics from engaging in religiously motivated bigotry. Rather than, oh, say, why contraception might actually be important and even vital in ensuring the health and prosperity of women in America. Not one testimony came from a doctor, or a woman, or, oh, say, a Constitutional scholar — you know, those people who actually know what is compatible with the Constitution.

One female college student was dismissed as a witness as not having the requisite credentials to talk about contraception. Hey, at least she has the relevant girl-parts, unlike every priest on the panel.

Improving access to contraception for women puts control over women’s bodies back in their own hands. That’s why every Conservative arguing against abortion and contraception is fighting so hard. Not because the Bible says they should (it mostly just says don’t ejaculate on the ground when God’s asking you to impregnate your sister and kids less than a month old don’t count as people). No, this is all about who gets to control reproduction.

Men get to make women pregnant at their leisure, and force them to have their children with or without their consent. Rape babies must also be carried to term to ensure women are thoroughly under the indentured servitude of men who can rape and impregnate them whenever they want. Why? So men can “be fruitful and multiply” without all that nasty business of having to treat women like human beings in the meantime.

Comments

  1. Chiroptera says

    I’m amazed at how these asses don’t even pretend to care about people any more.

    When I was a kid, conservatives would at least be sad (or at the very least shed a tear in public) when kids died because of “adjustments” in the free market or collateral damage against the evil communist empire.

    Now it’s as if they’re gloating.

  2. Rabidtreeweasel says

    This blinds me with rage. I have Endometriosis. So do millions of other women. Aside from preventing unwanted pregnancy birth control provides a host of medical benefits. I am not sexually active. I take it to regulate my periods so that I don’t have to suffer internal hemmorages from cysts on my ovaries and diaphragm.

    Fuck those guys.

  3. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    The conservative religious objection to contraception can be summed as: “I think that God thinks that it’s icky.”

  4. jufulu says

    I had just finished reading a news report on this very topic before coming to FTB. One of the people quoted seemed to express my concerns quite nicely.

    “Where are the women?” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi asked when the hearing was brought up at a news conference. “The Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it’s appropriate to have a hearing on women’s health and purposely exclude women from the panel, she said. “I may at some point be moved to explain biology to my colleagues.”

    To be fair though, she is probably not an expert on how the regulation will affect religious organizations which is the point about the hearings. Its not about women. [/snark}

  5. CompulsoryAccount7746 says

    when God’s asking you to impregnate your sister

    The link says brother’s wife. Tamar’s geneology’s not mentioned, so I think that ought to be sister-in-law. Slightly less squicky.

  6. JohnnieCanuck says

    Back in the day, the Israelite priest kings were all about the fruitful and multiply part. It seems pretty consistent, to my mind with the idea of defeating the enemy in the bedrooms of the nation.

    The leaders needed sword fodder and for that reason, empty fertile wombs could not be tolerated. Thus when Onan’s brother died, the law stipulated that he must get the newly widowed Tamar pregnant.

    Presumably the priests decided to write him up for defying them, and of course God agreed with them and let them use His voice.

    The Pope, of course sees the way to a richer, more powerful Catholic church through maximising the number of children born into the church. Curiously, Catholic women who have access to contraceptives aren’t having big families any more.

    Misogynist bastards.

  7. marismae says

    Equally telling, to me, is that there were no liberal members of the clergy up there. There are a number of female religious leaders; they could have called upon any of them as well. I understand that Rev. Barry Lynn was a possibility as the ONE person Democratic congresspeople were allowed to call in. But, really. It was all obviously a dog and pony show. If Issa and the rest of his crony committee actually wanted to answer the question of whether the mandate and compromise was quashing religious freedom they would have had an equal number of people for and against it, as well as a contitutional scholar from both schools of thought (as someone had already mentioned above).

    That is, of course, assuming that this hearingwas in any way about religious freedom instead of trying to control women. Which I sincerely doubt. But what can I say, I’m a bit of a cynic.

  8. Miranda says

    Jason, thanks for getting to this. When I first read it I was practically shaking with rage. I’m sick and tired of seeing religious men, who are not supposed to know a damn thing about sex, telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

  9. TiG says

    Me: “Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!”

    What are we supposed to do about this kind of thing? How do we even begin to fight it?

  10. says

    It’s days like these where I’m grateful to be Canadian. This recent trend where Americans seem committed to go back to the 13th century where no one but caucasian christian males had rights is deeply troubling.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>