Contraception Rule: Women Mostly Absent From Hearings

How did hearings on whether religious organizations should be required to offer women contraception end up taking place with so few women in the room?

It happened like this, according to the Washington Post: Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) walked out when no female witnesses were included in the first panel and House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said it was too late to add any. That left only one female legislator, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) present.

The near absence of women from the proceedings sparked outrage from criticis. Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast asked,

"They couldn't even find a Catholic woman to make the case that this isn't about abortion? Or do any actually exist?"

Jena McGregor at the Washington Post's On Leadership blog argued that what the absence of women really revealed was how few women lead major religious groups. She added:

And while there are certainly female professors of ethics and philosophy, women continue to be a minority in the academic world as well. A 2011 Catalyst study found that just 24 percent of tenured full professors in U.S. higher educational institutions are women and that just 38 percent of associate professors are female.

Maloney ultimately returned to the proceedings, Politico reports, and two women were scheduled to testify in the second panel, Dr. Allison Dabs Garrett, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at Oklahoma Christian University, and Laura Champion, M.D., Medical Director at Calvin College Health Services. According to the Denver Post, Campion wasn't originally on the witness list but was added shortly before the hearing.

Watch other reactions to the hearing above.

Comments

[parhelion]

05:31 PM on 04/07/2012

Why is forcing businesses to pay for people's personal contraception without explicit medical reasons suddenly a "women's rights" issue? This isn't a right to life issue, or a right to health care. I assume these businesses are also being required to purchase people's condom and spermicide supplies as well? How about lotions and lubes that increase sensitivity to.. you know.. areas.. under the guise that better 'relations' equals better health? I choose to have relations like I choose to brush my teeth -- should my employer buy my toothpaste to make sure I don't accidentally get cavities and then need a filling?

I am a woman and I support public health care programs. That said, nobody should be footing the bill for my contraception but myself. Making silly arguments like "its too expensive to have sex in college" is grasping for straws at best.

[Veneita]

01:38 PM on 03/05/2012

regarding the photo http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/bchearing.png

There are lots of women clerics. Where are they?

[PathofTotality]

01:41 PM on 02/21/2012

So has the "second panel" been heard yet? The one with women on it or is that at a later date?

[craichead2011]

11:33 AM on 02/21/2012

General question for folks regarding abortion and/or contraception:

Do you think it's wrong for one person (or institution) to force a person to become a parent against their will simply because an accidental pregnancy occurred? In all instances or are there exceptions?

[Agnt Duke]

12:37 AM on 02/21/2012

It's very clear that this is going to come down to a Constituti­onal question about women and religion. Mind you, religion was the first amendment, and women's rights starting with the nineteenth­. Women did not enjoy the same status they do today when the Constituti­on was first penned.

I'm not sure what bearing that will have with this dicussion, except that the strength of the religious freedom "[not] prohibitin­g the free exercise of religion" is a stronger than the rights given to women as it's currently written.

The problem - everyone is screaming, rights, rights rights! And yet, the Constitution as it was penned does not give everyone the rights they sometimes *think* it does. There are protections for religious rights to "not be infringed," but no mention of birth control, nor abortion, nor [fill in the blank]. People want to make this a fight, but I'm not so sure the outcome will be very pretty.

[shakylegs]

08:59 AM on 02/21/2012

Quote from the comment: "religion was the first amendment, and women's rights starting with the nineteenth­­. Women did not enjoy the same status they do today when the Constituti­­on was first penned."

The Constitution is a social contract and ALL parts of a contract (including amendments) have equal force and weight.

[Agnt Duke]

02:49 PM on 02/21/2012

Of course. But as we've seen with Prohibition, it can be both added to and taken away. My comment was to pause and ask ourselves if we were arguing over which rights took precedence if they cannot co-exist...

[craichead2011]

11:31 AM on 02/21/2012

I'd say that in reality the religious institutions aren't in any way stopping a woman's right to contraception or abortion. They're just not expecting to pay for it. Just as no one is impeding my 2nd amendment rights by not providing me with the means to purchase a gun and ammunition.

Ironic in a way that the motto of the abortion rights movement has been "choice" yet much effort has been expended lately in trying to take choice away from others when it comes time to pay the bill for it.

I'm pro-choice BTW but also pro-constitution.

[leskataus]

02:05 PM on 02/21/2012

What about the religious institutions that do support contraception and abortion rights?

[woombie]

09:29 PM on 02/20/2012

republicans wants to take over everything. They want to control women 100%. THIS IS OUR BODY NOT THE RICH REPUBLICANS. If you want to have a lot of kids, its okay. If you dont want to have anymore kids, its okay. If you dont want kids at all, its okay. Women have their rights too. Lets stand togther as American Women.

[Angrygrrl]

09:22 PM on 02/20/2012

Paying for this isn't inherently meant to harm the church...it is to help women and by virtue of that, the culture.
Until a mandate is given that actually aims to harm the religion that is hiring these employees---guess what...it isn't un-Constitutional.

[loveO]

07:20 PM on 02/20/2012

The hearing was about the contraception mandate's effect on the church. That's why religious leaders testified in front of Congress.

For some reason the media wants to make this into an attack on women's rights.

I don't know what right allows women to receive a product free. Or which Constitutional power that allows the Federal government to force the Church to do anything.

But you can't force the Church to provide a product or pay a vender to provide the product, and then say the church has nothing to do with the matter.

Funny how liberals preach separation of Church and State, until it comes to Gay Marriage or "Women's rights."

Then they're happy to force the Church to use some of their Coffer money to pay for their failure to contain healthcare costs.

Kind of how Republicans preach state's rights until it comes to Marijuana clinics. I guess that's America, the "It could be worse." country.

[CaWa]

08:10 PM on 02/20/2012

"I don't know what right allows women to receive a product free. Or which Constituti­onal power that allows the Federal government to force the Church to do anything."

It isn't free, it part of the coverage provided by policies these employees are paying for themselves, subsidized, sometimes by employers.

The government isn't telling the church to do anything. It is telling businesses owned by the church what to do. These are companies doing business and the government has the right to regulate them.

You can pretend all you want that this has something to do with the church, but it doesn't. It is about business. Even if you are a business owned by a church you still have follow the rules. If you are providing insurance and it covers every other drug then there is no reason not to cover contraception.

[Agnt Duke]

12:42 AM on 02/21/2012

If it were just about money, the Catholic church would just pay the contraception premiums. As it's been pointed out, they are actually cheaper than a plan without because of the secondary factors.

It's not about money. It's about the government forcing a religious entity to directly support something they find morally abhorrant. That's it.

Now, I'm not Catholic, but I am religious. And I've found that people who do not have a strong concept of morality cannot understand the choices of someone who does. I've seen it. They can't accept that this is really about moral objection and not about money. If the Catholics get their way, women will still be able to get birth control - they will just have to pay for it themselves instead of demanding someone else pay for it.

[loveO]

03:45 AM on 02/21/2012

Okay..... So if you force the Church to provide a product or force them to pay a vender to provide the product.

The Church has nothing to do with it, it's about women.

Yeah the reasoning of the liberal mind.

[pepperoni0]

08:50 PM on 02/20/2012

The hearing may have been all about contraception but was convened and conducted almost exclusively by men. Since men don't have a uterus what problems do they have allowing women to decide the question themselves, or at least have some input? Moreover, a church that is in business of any kind is no longer a church, it's now a business, so where is the separation of church and state issue here? If good Catholic women wish to adhere to the doctrines of their faith they should simply opt not to use contraceptives...simple as that. But the vast majority of Catholics do use birth control of one kind or another at one time or another. All this hoopla concerning the contraceptive issue is basically a red herring being stirred up as campaign fodder in an election year - another wedge issue to keep from discussing the things people really care about. Conservatives grouse about freedom, but when it comes around to it the social conservatives like Rick Santorem seem to have no qualms about telling everyone else how they shoud live their lives.

[Agnt Duke]

12:46 AM on 02/21/2012

"Moreover, a church that is in business of any kind is no longer a church..."

It's not that simple. For both organization and tax reasons we demand that a certain financial structure be built around religious entities that conduct financial transactions with its membership. If we used that as a reason to treat them as something other than religion, we have violated that entity's rights according to the Constitution.

We can't force them to classify themselves only to use that against them without violating all their rights in one swoop.

[loveO]

10:03 PM on 02/21/2012

Why the anti men bigotry?

[dolin0591]

06:53 PM on 02/20/2012

The issue of guaranteeing free contraception for women is really just a political ploy by the left to try and force the repubs into a no win position before the Nov election. If they vote against free contraception they are voting against womens health; if they vote for free contraception then they become supporters of abortion (day after pill) and force the issue upon anyone with a religious objection.
So if you are for free contraception for women then you also have to be for free insulin for all diabetics and free chemo for all cancer patients and free healthcare for everyone, and etc,etc,etc......... Any idea who is going to pay for all of this free stuff.

[Iris Silver]

07:43 PM on 02/20/2012

Not really. The link below gives what the Preventive Coverage Services cover at no cost:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/PreventiveServices/ib.shtml

[CaWa]

08:05 PM on 02/20/2012

Oh poor baby Republicans, they were set up. Kind of out how they thought they would set up Obama with pushing for the insurance mandate and then having a fit when it passed. As if they have never set someone up politically before.

Do some research. Insurance companies do cover chemo and insulin, they also cover viagra as part of the premium you pay. No one it getting for free. These are policies that are being paid for by both employers and employees. So if you expect your insurance company to provide access to drugs as part of your policy why are they singling out contraception. Hmm...because men write the policies.

[dolin0591]

09:35 PM on 02/20/2012

The verdict is still out on whether Obama Care will pass the courts review. My point was that nothing is free even though the President said it wouldn't cost employees of religious institutions anything for contraception coverage. In other words since the religious institution (employer) can not be made to provide coverage that violates their religious precepts (conscience) then the insurance provider would provide the coverage for FREE. I guess that means that the insurance company either starts using a printing press to make up the difference OR the insurance company charges other insurees higher premiums to pay for the additional cost. IRIS SILVER seems to think all of this additional coverage is free. Not true. The additional coverage will be paid for by ALL covered insured.
The left is so tied up in social justice that they fail to understand that someone eventually has to pay for anything that the government deems essential. When the government defaults on the federal debt who is going to pay for your contraceptive care then?

[craichead2011]

11:43 AM on 02/21/2012

And even though men write the policies, women are by far the greater consumers of health coverage. In fact, if you took men out of the picture with health insurance and hypothetically covered women only, premiums would skyrocket to the point that health insurance would be almost unworkable.

The presence of men keeps premiums lower simply because we're paying into a system we don't use nearly as much and the health insurance companies rely on the greater profit margin they make off of us.

Maybe you should appreciate men for paying more than their share (without complaint I might add) so you can have affordable health care rather than the sexist disdain you show toward us.

[denvermike72]

06:25 PM on 02/20/2012

Women everywhere..........WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!! The repubilicans want to but you back in the 19th century. Get out and vote all the gray haired geezers out. Any women that votes for republican better be ready to watch them systematically take away the last 40 years of progress on womens rights.

Men everywhere............protect your daughers,neices, sisters and mothers and get out and vote them out. They are dangerous.

[loveO]

07:12 PM on 02/20/2012

Of course, Republicans want to build a time machine and send all women back to the 19th century!

Have you gone to the media with this amazing story?

[leskataus]

02:16 PM on 02/21/2012

The fact is that they would like a return to conditions during the 19th century because they were the ones who benefited the most from such a society, especially if they were rich.

[1360504]

02:33 PM on 02/21/2012

absolutely- republicans are a serious threat to the health care of women and children-btw- women do and can vote and we can take care of ourselves- appreciate the support of our husbands, etc, but this is our war and we will win!

[Imprimis12]

10:54 PM on 02/21/2012

No, you may think you will win,but you will not!

[dawglover704]

03:46 PM on 02/20/2012

Rome wasn't built in a day !
When society is used to there being all men, we are not going to have women working there over night. It takes time and generations. Maybe today's teenage girls will grow to political leaders. And the 20 year old women are also trying to get there and are almost there...it's not going to happen as quickly as we want...but it's happening ! Girl power :)

[KateB21]

01:35 PM on 02/20/2012

Hm, could it be that men think they can tell women what to do with their own bodies? Just a guess as to why women are absent.

They want us to have no say about what to do with the bodies we live in.

[Joseph Leslie]

04:40 PM on 02/20/2012

Women don't show up for a conference about girth control and they say that "men are telling them what to do with their bodies"? Women all complain about being pregnant, are bitchy about their monthly period and men try to help them with these problems and we "are telling them what to do with their bodies"?

[CaWa]

08:12 PM on 02/20/2012

Those men were not there to help women. Those men purposely excluded women from the meeting. The women were there ready to testify and they were told they could not testify. Then when it was pointed out that there was only one woman scheduled they huried and found a woman who agreed with them to testify.

Read the story before posting such a defensive and mistaken remark.

[golions]

09:07 PM on 02/20/2012

Flagged.

[patches04]

12:02 PM on 02/20/2012

Why do these "religious" men worry? If a Catholic woman doesn't believe in birth control she won't buy it. I for one am sick of men telling women what to do. Rude, overbearing men

[mackjaz]

02:27 PM on 02/20/2012

They worry because they are slowly but inexorably losing control over women's bodies, religious influence and in general, the power to control what we do.

98% of Catholic women have used birth control, so generally, that's not the issue here. The issue is the church leadership (old white guys) wanting to be a church AND an employer and picking/choosing which rules they follow.

[dawglover704]

03:46 PM on 02/20/2012

Holla back !

[whoissurprised]

11:39 AM on 02/20/2012

This discussion was about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM not GENDER. The walk out was a BS photo op by the Democrats as they knew exactly who would be there for these discussions and the topics.

The Democrats and Obama have NO Budget passed, Real Unemployment at 20%, Economy on Life Support, Failed Green Jobs, 16. 1 Trillion dollar debt on Obama's watch, and NO JOBS.

Where is the media on Obama's FAILED POLICIES............in the cookie jar getting paybacks?

[mackjaz]

01:05 PM on 02/20/2012

You failed to name Republicans, who recently have been voting against things they once supported or even proposed. Why do they do that?

Do you really hold NO republican at all responsible for the way things are right now?

[Saint Cynicism]

03:32 PM on 02/20/2012

Of course they don't.

I also find it hilarious they're using the "religious freedom" angle, considering there's branches of Christianity who don't believe in using medicine or going to the doctor's office for sickness. Here is how religious freedom actually works: If the person doesn't want birth control, they won't buy it, and therefore won't ask for coverage. If they DO want birth control, that's their choice.

Religious freedom is not "this is what we believe, so this is what everyone else must do." At the very least they could just consider the coverage a form of charity and be done with the moral objections already.

[Agnt Duke]

12:51 AM on 02/21/2012

Except that 90% of the current fight is because Obama is forcing health care down everyone's throats. And now look where that's gotten us. Forget all the other stuff...what else has he done but create a health firestorm?

We would not have this article had he not done what he had done.

[Terri Skau]

11:36 AM on 02/20/2012

Pet Rock, they removed your comment as well. And I couldn't agree with you more on your post.:-)