Posted on 02/16/2012 11:12:28 AM PST by Qbert
A Capitol Hill hearing that was supposed to be about religious freedom and a mandate that health insurers cover contraception in the United States began as an argument about whether Democrats could add a woman to the all-male panel.
“Where are the women?” the minority Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked early in the hearing.
She criticized the Republican committee chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa, for wanting to “roll back the fundamental rights of women to a time when the government thought what happens in the bedroom is their business.”
“We will not be forced back to that primitive era,” she said. Issa bristled at the charge and said Democrats could not add their witness because she was not a member of the clergy, but a student at Georgetown. He also faulted Democrats for not submitting the name of the witness, Sandra Fluke, in time.
Fluke would have talked about a classmate who lost an ovary because of a syndrome that causes ovarian cysts. Georgetown, which is affiliated with the Catholic Church, does not insure birth control, which is also used to treat the syndrome.
Issa said the hearing is meant to be more broadly about religious freedom and not specifically about the contraception mandate in the Health Reform law.
[Snip]
Rep. Cummings accused Issa of creating “conspiracy hearing” and stacking the witness list by refusing to allow women “commits a massive injustice by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across the country are meaningless.”
A terse back and forth followed between Issa, Maloney and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C., about what the true purpose of the hearing was and whether a violation of rules existed. Issa pointed out that Democrats barred Republican witnesses when they were in the majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“Notice also how they’re blurring the distinction between recreational and medicinal use of contraceptives”
Absolutely!
You are exactly right.
How is it that George Snuffleupugus comes up with his off the wall contraception questions, then Obama comes up with his attack on Catholics, and now our wizards of SMRT are holding hearings on contraception in congress in which they SOME HOW FAILED TO INCLUDE ANY WOMEN!??!?!
Republicans - Oh, gee guys, look at those democrats laying out that trap for us. Let’s go help them set it up. OK! Now the trap is set up guys, let’s make sure we did it right by walking right into like this. Doo dee doo dee doo, D’OH! They snookered us again some how...
I would say that our guys ARE DUMB AS SH*T, but I don’t want to insult SH*T, because it can at least be used for garden fertilizer.
When are republicans going to a make a commericial using the children who survived abortions saying:???
DEMOCRATS HATE BABIES
I read a lot of the comments on the ABC and Politico sites and I was surprised that even on these liberal news sites there is not overwhelming support for the way the women set this up. I guess they did not dumb us down enough because even some of them see this as a cheap stunt.
I read a lot of the comments on the ABC and Politico sites and I was surprised that even on these liberal news sites there is not overwhelming support for the way the women set this up. I guess they did not dumb us down enough because even some of them see this as a cheap stunt.
Doesn’t matter.
All males went first, opportunity to make the GOP look lke the fools they are presented all wrapped up in a bow, opportunity taken by GOP opponents.
L2strategy, or Obama will be re-elected, and that is all the hell there is to it.
Oh but it is so fun to watch.
Number one, there are other ways to treat polycystic ovaries, such as improved diet.
Number two, birth control pills may be prescribed for non-contraceptive reasons.
Number Three, she could have hauled her @ss a couple of blocks east to a doctor who is not with Georgetown, if it was so important to her.
And Number four, two of my female relative had ovarian cysts and had all or part of one ovary removed. Then they both went on to have children normally.
I guess you missed the key fact, that the hearing was not about contraceptives, it was about the regime's assault on the First Amendment. You have indeed walked into the media trap by buying their definition of the issue.
I guess you missed the key fact, that the hearing was not about contraceptives, it was about the regime's assault on the First Amendment. You have indeed walked into the media trap by buying their definition of the issue.
Agree
We all have a “Right to bear arms”
Does that mean the govt or police, or private company has to provide arms?
Am I not understanding this women rights issue??
Well then, can it be said that an employer declining to provide birth control is trampling upon their right/ability to get birth control if they want it?
Does someone not only have the right to something, but the right to have it paid for by someone else?
Are these those “positive” rights 0bama and Ginsburg think so highly of?
Sorry, but as they helpfully point out, our Constitution only has the “negative” rights of what the government cannot do.
I don't see listed, among the LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers of the U.S. federal government - the power to force purchase of insurance - OR the power to enforce that employers purchase insurance for their employees, etc, etc.
Really?
The media is portraying it has a hearing on contraception, and considering the recently sprung democrat trap, every idiot in the country is going to see it as exactly that.
Perception is reality in politics. Professional politicians, such as the GOP, should know this...BY NOW...and they obviously don’t.
So, they lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.