The War on Women

Rep. Darrell Issa refuses to allow woman to testify and Virginia reverts to the Dark Ages.

From the Huffington Post

The morning panel at the hearing consisted exclusively of men from conservative religious organizations.

“What I want to know is, where are the women?” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. “I look at this panel, and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?”

Democrats say they tried to invite another witness — a young woman — to testify, but were blocked by Republicans.

Issa said at the hearing that he rejected the Democrats’ female witness, Sandra Fluke, because, as a Georgetown University law student who “appears to have become energized over this issue,” she was “not appropriate or qualified.” He said that in lieu of allowing her to speak at the hearing, he instructed his staff to post a video online of Fluke speaking at a previous press conference.

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) complained about the matter in a letter to Issa on Wednesday.

“When my staff inquired about requesting minority witnesses for this hearing, we were informed that you would allow only one,” Cummings wrote. “Based on your decision, we requested as our minority witness a third-year Georgetown University Law Center student named Sandra Fluke. I believed it was critical to have at least one woman at the witness table who could discuss the repercussions that denying coverage for contraceptives has on women across this country.”

In his letter, Cummings wrote that Issa’s staff told Democrats that the chair had decided, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

Meahwhile, in Virginia:

This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

Del. C. Todd Gilbert announced that “in the vast majority of these cases, these [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience.”

Virginia Democrat Del. David Englin, who opposes the bill, has said Gilbert’s statement “is in line with previous Republican comments on the issue,” recalling one conversation with a GOP lawmaker who told him that women had already made the decision to be “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”

…this week the Legislature also enacted a “personhood” law defining life as beginning at conception—a law that may someday criminalize contraception and some miscarriages as well as abortion.

I don’t even have the words to describe how scary this shit is. And it’s all due to religion.

Advertisements

17 Responses to “The War on Women”

  1. I don’t know if Republicans blocked any women from showing up. I would imagine Republicans would want women to be on the panel to make their case. Nevertheless, contraception is a human and moral issue, not a woman’s issue. And about the ultrasound requirement: the only reason why leftists and non-religious don’t want it is because they would have to come to the reality of what they are killing, i.e. a human life. It amazes me that the same people who want to mandate the Catholic Church provide contraception to their employees, does not want to be mandated to have ultrasounds before killing their babies! Can we be honest in saying that this is hypocritical?

    None of this is due to religion, as you claim. Religion is trying to protect young girls who are sexually abused as PP covers the crimes up. Religion is trying to show you and the world that it’s not a peice of broccoli or a rock in a woman’s womb, but a human life.

    Religion is trying to push back against an anti-life, selfish, mean culture.

    God love you and keep you.

    • One point at a time:

      1) Contraception is more of a woman’s issue, since they go through almost a year of pregnancy, along with a completely changed life. Even if you believe having a baby is a good thing, don’t you think they should have the choice to?

      2) The only reason we don’t want to *force* women to do this, is because there is no medical reason….it’s just a guilt trip. Would you propose we show pictures of dead animals when you buy a burger?

      3) Majority of catholics *want* contraception to be provided, and are not against it….why should religious organizations be exempt if a *minority* disagrees with a *civil* law?

      4) ALL of this is due to religion. Do you see atheists lining up outside abortion clinics and protesting? They see that at contraception, it’s only a lump of cells…and that group of cells cannot comprehend anything. It cannot feel anything. It is less alive than the animals we kill and eat every day. And for someone who wants to kill it, I would say it’s immoral, but not so much so that it should be made illegal. We can lie and cheat without government interference, and this should be left to the woman to decide.

      5) I don’t know how it protects young girls, or what “PP” is, so I can’t really respond to that…

      6) It’s not a human life, because it doesn’t have human characteristics. No thinking, feeling, self-support, morals, anything.

      7) Yes, abortion is selfish. Yes, it can be seen as mean. But this does not give the government a right to impose restrictions on such a personal part of a woman’s body, especially when they are trying to “protect” something that’s not even worth as much as an animal (which we can hunt for sport without penalty).

      • 1) It takes a man and a woman to create a child, not just a woman, so the man has every right to care about his child and about what a woman does to his child.
        2) “Even if I believe have a baby is a good thing”… do you hear yourself? Do you think you were a good thing? All human life deserves the right to life.
        3) Your “majority of Catholics” view is flawed. The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church. If 99% of all Catholics contracepted, they would be wrong, and the Church will not change its view. God is truth, and truth cannot err, therefore truth is intolerant of error. The Catholic Church is intolerant to anything that is immoral or grave evil, and has had this stance against abortion for 2,000 years, and before you ask, yes, abortion has been around since then and longer.
        4) So if the baby is just a lump of cells, why would you care so much that a woman should get an ultrasound? Are you afraid she might see, I don’t know, a human being?
        5) PP = Planned Parenthood, I apologize.
        6) I know I’m not going to convince you that human life is special and should be protected. I advocate for even your life. Life is a precious gift. I am very happy you survived the abortion ideology. Truth does not hide, and you can see it on an ultrasound.

        I’m so very sorry you can’t see….

        • 1) Yes, but it affects the woman’s body, not the man’s. It is not the man’s decision to force, or prevent, an abortion. After the child is born, it is equally shared, since it is not part of the woman’s body, but the first three months of pregnancy is a part of the woman.
          2) I don’t believe having to sacrifice my time/money to take care of another person that I don’t want in the first place is a good thing. I do believe that humans deserve the right to life, but not a small lump of cells that have as much life as the skin on our arm.
          3) This country is based on democracy, and if the leader (church) disagrees, that’s too bad, since the majority of its employees does not. Do you think employers *want* to provide health care like this? NO! It costs money, and employers want to cut costs, but they are required to do so because of the majority wanting it. The church should not be exempt.
          4) I care because it’s rape. What if you had to see the damage you do to your body before you can buy cigarettes? Slaughtered animals before buying a burger? The suffering women go through when they can’t get an abortion before you try to impose your opinions as law?
          6) You don’t have to convince me, because I already know. I wouldn’t want to ruin a woman’s life because she doesn’t have the choice of a safe, healthy, and well-thought out abortion. I advocate for the lives of conscious beings, not of a group of cells. I’m pro-life, and that’s what makes me oppose everyone trying to prevent 1st trimester abortions. Yes, you can see the “truth” on an ultrasound, and i can see that, but to *force* a person to see that and try to guilt them into having a baby….I think that’s wrong. And I’m so very sorry you can’t see :/

          • “Yes, you can see the “truth” on an ultrasound, and i can see that, but to *force* a person to see that and try to guilt them into having a baby….I think that’s wrong.”

            … If you don’t seek, understand, and follow “truth” wherever you find it, even on an ultrasound, you are purposefully ignorant, and this conversation, I’m afraid is over.

            • The truth is that the majority of pre-abortion ultrasounds would show nothing but a tiny, blurred blob, as most abortions are performed way too early for anything to show, let alone distinct features of any kind.

              On a practical point, rather than a point of principle, it’s also worth noting that the most notable impact of the legalisation of abortions here in the UK in 1967 was a sudden drop in very dangerous back-street abortions. The practical choice isn’t between women becoming suddenly ‘virtuous’ (by your lights) and keeping babies or legal abortion; it’s between very dangerous, often botched, illegal abortions, or safe legal abortions.

            • Yes, it’s purposefully ignorant, and to remain so is a right in this country. To force people to see the truth is unkind, if they don’t want to see it. It’s a choice, and you should respect it.

              • Truth is intolerant to error, and laws should never protect error or willful ignorance. You say doctors are required by law to protect the privacy of their patients yet they are also required by law to report child abuse. A 12-year-old girl does not choose to be sexually active. She is being abused. Nevertheless the Godless cannot and will not acknowledge this, because in so doing will acknowledge that there is a law or code outside of themselves that they must follow, which goes against their Godless, wicked nature.

                • What about the 12 year old boy she has sex with? Is he being abused too? Your apparent simplistic assumption of inborn female purity and male depravity speaks to which of us is ignoring reality.

                  Sure, adults having sex with minors is, by definition, abuse; but then, Catholics seem often to be mightily skittish about discussing that. I wonder why that might be….

                  • I was waiting for you to go there. It is interesting how liberals love perverts only when they are anti-God, but when they are Priests, they are somehow evil (which I would agree with). Interestingly enough, the AP in 2007 found that the rate of child abuse by clergy was more prominent in Protestant clergy (260 cases) vs. Catholic clergy (228 accusations).. see http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=9149 … Nevertheless, child abuse is a grave evil, and it is not acceptable in the Catholic Church or her doctrines, but perverts from this current world of relativism that you appear to like and defend, do make it into the ranks of the Church. Unfortunately, the Church had been lazy in the past in what to do with such priests, but their has been a “cleansing” of late, and perverts need not apply. I wish the secular culture would do the same… Wishful thinking, I know. Lastly, why would two 12 year-olds be having intercourse? Would it be because their schools and adult figures are shoving down their throats an ideology that they are going to to it anyway, giving them access to condoms and birth control? Why not treat them the same with heroine, and give them clean needles? And with drunken driving, and give them better seat belts and a concealable cooling container for their adult beverage? I speak absurdly because this topic is become quite absurd. I won’t be checking back here again.

                    • Yes child abuse is prevalent in other places. The cover-up in the RCC goes right to the top, though. Still, that wasn’t really my point. What I meant, though I admit I phrased it badly, was that the fact that such things happen amongst the religious— at least as much as amongst the non-religious, rather disproves the fallacy that morals are god-given.

                      If by ‘perverts’ you mean homosexuals, this conversation ends right here. I’m sick of homosexuality being falsely conflated with paedophilia and pederasty by religious bigots.

                      Two 12 year olds would likely be having sex because they have the urge to do so, and lack adult self-control. And if you think this is a new problem caused by sex-edcation, you are sadly lacking in your view of reality. Animals, including Homo sapiens, physically mature enough to breed, will tend to breed.

                      Yep, it’s absurd that in this day and age we even need to be having this conversation. And it’s largely due to religious bullshit that we do.

                    • I will agree with you that the evils in religion are bad, but no more bad then what comes out of godless ideologies. There is good in religion and in non-religion.

  2. I would imagine Republicans would want women to be on the panel to make their case.

    Apparently not, because there weren’t any.

    Nevertheless, contraception is a human and moral issue, not a woman’s issue.

    Every human should have free and unfettered access to contraception.

    And about the ultrasound requirement: the only reason why leftists and non-religious don’t want it is because they would have to come to the reality of what they are killing, i.e. a human life.

    No, the reason it’s not wanted is because it’s unnecessary and invasive. It’s a fetus housed inside a human life, a cluster of cells that cannot survive without that housing.

    It amazes me that the same people who want to mandate the Catholic Church provide contraception to their employees, does not want to be mandated to have ultrasounds before killing their babies! Can we be honest in saying that this is hypocritical?

    Requiring employers to cover their employee’s voluntary choice of medication has nothing to do with forcing unwanted, invasive procedures on women.

    None of this is due to religion, as you claim.

    There’s a reason that the entire panel were males from conservative religious organizations.

    Religion is trying to protect young girls who are sexually abused as PP covers the crimes up.

    [citation needed].

    Religion is trying to show you and the world that it’s not a peice of broccoli or a rock in a woman’s womb, but a human life.

    I repeat: It’s a fetus housed inside a human life, a cluster of cells that cannot survive without that housing.

    Religion is trying to push back against an anti-life, selfish, mean culture.

    We are pushing back against an anti-women, selfish, mean culture.

    God love you and keep you.

    May the Invisible Pink Unicorn put holes in your socks.

    • You want a citation for the abuse by PP go to liveaction.org and watch all the under cover videos you want of them protecting predators while counseling 13 year olds on how and where to get an abortion.

      And who is anti-woman? Those who tell her she doesn’t know her own body and she must ne heavily medicated and have multiple sex partners before she is married, causing her so much grief, or the Church who teaches the value of a woman, wife and mother?

      Contraception is a practice not a freedom, and those who want it can buy it; I won’t stop them. And they should respect me and keep out of my wallet for their lifestyle.

      Again, the majority is not infallible. Remember, the majority in Germany once declared that Jews were not human, so those who killed them wouldn’t feel guilty – they used your logic, I.e call the life something else, and hide the truth from the masses. That’s why ultrasound is so damning to your cause, it uncovers a lie.

      • Protecting predators? You do realize that doctors are required BY LAW to keep their patients’ information confidential, even if it means “protecting” criminals.

        No one tells her she should be heavily medicated, nor have multiple sex partners. But, it’s her choice, and we should help her live as healthily as possible, even if she chooses to make bad choices.

        Contraception is a healthy way to prevent disease, and keep people from ruining their lives. I don’t like my money going to churches, but it does, and they already get tax breaks and exemptions on top of financial aid.

        Yes, I agree, the majority is not even close to infallible, but Germany was plagued by propaganda spread by an insane leader. We know that babies aren’t conscious in the first trimester, yet you “pro-lifers” still say it’s worth protecting? The ultrasound isn’t damning at all, in fact, look up ultrasound pictures until 12 weeks. All you see is a lump (future head) attached to a bigger lump (rest of body). It’s nowhere near what a human looks like. And during these 12 weeks, a woman would have to get an ultrasound through her vagina, and THIS is why we’re against it (or, at least why I’m against it). This is a free country, and this freedom includes the right to choose what to see and not to see. You choose to ignore the evidence that the fetuses aren’t conscious, so let them choose to ignore what the fetus looks like and not make them feel guilty about something that’s already so hard to do.

  3. None of this is due to religion, as you claim. Religion is trying to protect young girls who are sexually abused as PP covers the crimes up. Religion is trying to show you and the world that it’s not a peice of broccoli or a rock in a woman’s womb, but a human lifi>

    Shorter version: None of this is due to religion, as you claim, and here’s a bunch of reasons for it being due to religion.

    Huh?

    Oh, and given the largely Catholic focus of much of the present brouhaha, talking about the covering up of abuse seems kinda ironic, don’t you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: