PDA

View Full Version : Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women



Carol
02-17-2012, 10:23 AM
Well, if you haven't heard, the liberals are all outraged that the Catholic Bishops and Conservatives would dare to demand that the Constitution be followed when they want and demand that contraceptives, including those that induce abortions be provided by every business and entity out there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002318755


Star Member boston bean (12,020 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

View profile


Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women From Testifying
This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administrationís new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administrationís rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women.

Ranking committee member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that ďAs the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administrationís actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.Ē


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/426850/democratic-women-boycott-issas-contraception-hearing-for-preventing-women-from-testifying/

Star Member tabatha (17,527 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. Prevent women from testifying?

Are they now the Taliban?


Star Member boston bean (12,020 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. It's a full frontal assault we are seeing.

Some are damned determined to bring us back to the 50's.

Star Member tabatha (17,527 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
6. Al Sharpton relayed someone who said

that it is equivalent to talking about a group of mice and inviting a board of cats to make the decision.


Star Member RC (17,250 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
3. Good. Maybe Issa's action have stirred up enough anger to put an end to

the discrimination against women.
This is first and foremost a Civil Rights issue, no different in reality that discrimination against the Gay and Lesbian culture, people of color or any other group with less than full Constitutional Rights, because of bad law.
In fact it is the same people and institutions behind all the enforced discrimination.

Of course, the REAL story is that the hearing was to discuss the constitutionality of the decision that Obama has made and is forcing on all businesses, including religious institutions that are morally opposed to it. The Democrats are all fired up because they want a WOMAN to testify. So do they find a woman who can argue that it is within the Constitution?

No.

They find a law student who can moan and cry about how unfair it is because college students have to pay for contraceptives and it is shameful and unfair to make them pay. All emotion, no facts about whether the mandate is constitutional or not.

You can watch what this student planned to say here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101712356

In the next thread they also expose that they aren't concerned about the constitutionality of it if it's something they want. They also expose that if it helps Obama then they are A OK with it as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002318589



Star Member MineralMan (40,578 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

President Obama is showing considerable genius

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 02:44 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
right now. By raising the whole contraception issue through requiring coverage, he has more or less forced the Republicans to take a negative stance on contraception. Since the voting booth is not the confessional, women will respond by voting for what they know makes sense, regardless of party or religious affiliation. Contraception knows no political or religious boundaries, either. It's been many decades since women allowed themselves to be continuous baby machines. That's demonstrated by the current birth rate in the US. One figure has 70% of Catholic women using contraception at some point in their lives.

The Republican men seem to not realize this, just as they don't seem to realize so many things. Polls are already showing the result of this move by Obama. I think other moves are coming up soon that will also force the Republican candidates to take positions that go against their own voters. I'm not sure which issues those will be, but the genius shown in the contraceptive issue should produce other effective issue-oriented moves that will confound the Republican by blind-siding them.

Congressional and senatorial candidates need to pay close attention to what is happening and bring these issues to their own districts and states and push their Republican opponents into untenable opposition to popular issues. There's a bright band of sunlight forming on the horizon, I think. The sun is about to come up.

Liberals need to be reminded that if this is OK with them-breaking down the barrier to the separation between the church and state then the next Republican President can mandate that all public schools teach 2 hours of bible each week from federally prepared materials.

Apache
02-17-2012, 11:56 AM
Gee how'd I guess that the story would be twisted... With a name like Think Progress there wouldn't be any bias :rolleyes:


Why do they feel there is such a need to outright LIE? I mean most of America is behind them.... right??

Arroyo_Doble
02-17-2012, 12:02 PM
The constitutional question on religious freedom being a defense for not following the law was resolved awhile back. The Amish pay Social Security taxes and peyote is illegal for Animists as well as hippies.

FlaGator
02-17-2012, 12:10 PM
The constitutional question on religious freedom being a defense for not following the law was resolved awhile back. The Amish pay Social Security taxes and peyote is illegal for Animists as well as hippies.

There is no law that states that contraception must be supplied freely by an insurance company.

The question being debated is not the constitutionality of distributing contraceptives, it is can a religion be forced to so something that violates its principles when to not do so does not break a law, just a mandate issued by an unelected government bureaucracy.

Once again a false dichotomy.

NJCardFan
02-17-2012, 12:19 PM
Um, anyone can freely walk into any drug store and buy condoms. What's the problem?

Novaheart
02-17-2012, 12:20 PM
There is no law that states that contraception must be supplied freely by an insurance company.

The question being debated is not the constitutionality of distributing contraceptives, it is can a religion be forced to so something that violates its principles when to not do so does not break a law, just a mandate issued by an unelected government bureaucracy.

Once again a false dichotomy.

Do not kneel and kiss the ring nor engage in any other popery and treason, American.

noonwitch
02-17-2012, 12:22 PM
It figures that the house leadership would leave women out of the process.


The pill is more than just a contraceptive. It is used to treat excessively painful menstruation or to regulate a woman's cycle if she has drastically irratic periods. Most women could tell the panel that.

Arroyo_Doble
02-17-2012, 12:23 PM
There is no law that states that contraception must be supplied freely by an insurance company.

There is now.


The question being debated is not the constitutionality of distributing contraceptives, it is can a religion be forced to so something that violates its principles when to not do so does not break a law, just a mandate issued by an unelected government bureaucracy.

Once again a false dichotomy.

They would be breaking the law.

But again, like the Amish in 1982, religious freedom is not an out.

Adam Wood
02-17-2012, 12:24 PM
It figures that the house leadership would leave women out of the process.


The pill is more than just a contraceptive. It is used to treat excessively painful menstruation or to regulate a woman's cycle if she has drastically irratic periods. Most women could tell the panel that.And most health plans cover the Pill for those uses. Even the Catholic ones.

FlaGator
02-17-2012, 12:48 PM
Do not kneel and kiss the ring nor engage in any other popery and treason, American.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.

FlaGator
02-17-2012, 01:03 PM
There is now.



They would be breaking the law.

But again, like the Amish in 1982, religious freedom is not an out.

No law is being broken, a mandate for a government bureaucracy is not a low. It is a regulation and there is a difference. For example the Amish (since you brought them up) don't pay vehicle registration fees or usages fees even though they use public highways roads. There are several regulations from the EEOC that do not apply to religious based organizations because they run contrary to the beliefs of particular groups.

Arroyo_Doble
02-17-2012, 01:13 PM
No law is being broken, a mandate for a government bureaucracy is not a low. It is a regulation and there is a difference. For example the Amish (since you brought them up) don't pay vehicle registration fees or usages fees even though they use public highways roads. There are several regulations from the EEOC that do not apply to religious based organizations because they run contrary to the beliefs of particular groups.

I am not saying accommodations cannot be made (in this case, they have been); I am saying that the constitutional question has been answered. You cannot be relieved from the obligations of the law due to a conflict with your religious beliefs.

FlaGator
02-17-2012, 01:44 PM
It figures that the house leadership would leave women out of the process.


The pill is more than just a contraceptive. It is used to treat excessively painful menstruation or to regulate a woman's cycle if she has drastically irratic periods. Most women could tell the panel that.

The meeting was not about the legality of contraceptives. It was about the encroachment of government in to religion.

FlaGator
02-17-2012, 01:50 PM
I am not saying accommodations cannot be made (in this case, they have been); I am saying that the constitutional question has been answered. You cannot be relieved from the obligations of the law due to a conflict with your religious beliefs.

Then what is the argument? The churches and their organizations are asking for an exception based on their beliefs when it comes to providing a service that is relatively cheap or free to begin with? They have never been asked to do this before and things have been working just fine. Now all of a sudden it becomes a big issue when it could have been left alone and no one would have even thought about it. Normally I'm not the conspiracy type of thinker but I do have to wonder if there isn't more to this than meets the eye (or maybe this is some type of diversion)

AmPat
02-17-2012, 08:24 PM
The meeting was not about the legality of contraceptives. It was about the encroachment of government in to religion.

the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administrationís actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience
Exactly, and we should not accept the liberal media's (the one AD claims doesn't exist) attempt or language used to portray it that way.:mad:

michaelsean
02-20-2012, 03:16 PM
I am not saying accommodations cannot be made (in this case, they have been); I am saying that the constitutional question has been answered. You cannot be relieved from the obligations of the law due to a conflict with your religious beliefs.

So could you explain the purpose First Amendment if the government can make any law it wants that violates a person's religious freedom?