Let them be nuns...or...we don't need no stinkin' women

[nogods]

Republican's convene a panel on women's health...sans women.

Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed



The panel for this morning's House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing on birth control access.

This morning, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is holding a hearing titled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” The topic, as you might guess, is the recent administration decision to mandate birth control coverage.

As you might not guess, the first panel of witnesses doesn’t include a single woman. The five-person, all-male panel consists of a Roman Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Reverend, a rabbi and two professors.

Democrats on the panel were told they were allowed only one witness. They selected a young female Georgetown student, Sandra Fluke, who was going to discuss the repercussions of losing contraceptive coverage. But Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman, rejected her as “not qualified.”

What would a Roman Catholic priest know about contraception?

[Dougles]

It's not about contraception, it's about forcing the catholic church to pay for it... is it that hard to figure out?

They aren't changing Ms. Fluke's access or coverage when it comes to contraception, she will not lose access. And honeslty, if she can afford a 45k a year college, she can afford the $25 a month for the pill.

[nogods]

When the church engages in secular activities it is subject to secular laws. What's so hard to understand about that?

[WNYresident]

When the church engages in secular activities it is subject to secular laws. What's so hard to understand about that?

It's not about contraception, it's about forcing the catholic church to pay for it... is it that hard to figure out?

[nogods]

It's not about contraception, it's about forcing the catholic church to pay for it... is it that hard to figure out?

When the church engages in secular activities it is subject to secular laws. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Mindcrime]

It's not about contraception, it's about forcing the catholic church to pay for it... is it that hard to figure out?

It's not about forcing the catholic church to pay for contraception, it's about forcing the Catholic Church to follow the same laws as everyone else.

[WNYresident]

It's not about forcing the catholic church to pay for contraception, it's about forcing the Catholic Church to follow the same laws as everyone else.

It's about forcing anyone at all to pay for something for someone else. Specially birth control. Not medication for hormonal control. When I hear the pro vs con on the Cnn/Fox they say birth control pills not hormonal imbalances and stuff.

[nogods]

It's about forcing anyone at all to pay for something for someone else. Specially birth control. Not medication for hormonal control. When I hear the pro vs con on the Cnn/Fox they say birth control pills not hormonal imbalances and stuff.

So why should I have to pay property taxes to support police services and infrastructure for churches? I don't use those churches and they don't pay for those services, so I'm being forced to pay for those services for them. If they need the poilice can they just put an aspirin between their clasped hands

[Dougles]

When the church engages in secular activities it is subject to secular laws. What's so hard to understand about that?

We have this piece of paper that protects said actions... I think you know what it's called.

[Dougles]

It's not about forcing the catholic church to pay for contraception, it's about forcing the Catholic Church to follow the same laws as everyone else.

If that were the case, why are almost 1000 other organizations exempt from this?

[nogods]

We have this piece of paper that protects said actions... I think you know what it's called.

Uh...the constitution does not exempt churches from secular laws. In Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey a generally applicable law. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.

got anything else?

[Mindcrime]

If that were the case, why are almost 1000 other organizations exempt from this?

From what, providing insurance to their employees?

Look, if the Catholic church is so adamant about not having their insurance company pay for contraception, then they are free not to offer insurance to their employees, or open a lemonade stand instead of a school or hospital. But as long as they're engaging in business, they have to follow the rules.

Hey, couldn't they just pay for all their employees health care out of pocket? That was the conservative solution for healthcare: rely on charities:
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Michelle Bachman

[ILOVEDNY]

Look, if the Catholic church is so adamant about not having their insurance company pay for contraception, then they are free not to offer insurance to their employees.

And I hope they do that.
Of course next year they will be subject to fines of $2,500/ employee so not exactly free.
Then we can add those hundreds of thousand of newly uninsured to the record 17.1% of the population that is currently uninsured.
Thanks Obamacare.