The Conservative War On Women

You know, having five men testify on women's birth control isn't a big deal, because:

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.

Ms. Fluke was the one woman scheduled to testify; she's a law student at Georgetown. Also, this is an important point:

After walking out of the hearing Thursday, Holmes Norton pulled Fluke into the hallway to allow her to speak to reporters. Fluke began to cry as she told the story of her 32-year-old friend who was diagnosed with ovarian cysts and prescribed birth control pills as the only remedy for her condition that could save her from becoming infertile. Because her student insurance did not cover contraception, Fluke's friend could not afford her medication, and she eventually lost her ovary and began experiencing symptoms of early menopause.

Birth control pills are not only used for birth control; they're hormonal treatments that also address other medical issues. Sure, their primary function is birth control, but they most definitely impact women's health in other ways. Please tell me how it's a "moral decision" to not provide coverage for them. Please. Anybody? Anyone?

I can not believe this is actually an issue being taken seriously. It's so frightening.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

You know, having five men testify on women's birth control isn't a big deal, because:

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.

Obviously an area where women don't need a voice.

You can't let those loose women speak for themselves. Sinful words from sinful lips.

DanB wrote:

Yeah I saw this quip retweeted too:
"All-male House GOP leadership gets all-male witness panel to agree that all-male Catholic hierarchy should set contraceptives policy."
https://twitter.com/#!/mattyglesias/...

Sometimes when I think that the tiny, insignificant corner of the world that is video gaming is finally starting to take the right steps regarding gender issues, the big old rest of the world has to come along and kick me in the balls tender parts.

My only consolation is that the perpetrators are old, and will die soon, and the next generations will out-number the hold-outs.

The rabbi must have abstained or been the only nay vote. I cannot believe a rabbi (unless he was hassidic) would agree to allow Catholic hierarchy to dictate contraceptive policy.

To the best of my knowledge, Jews have been very supportive of contraception.

Malor wrote:

You can't let those loose women speak for themselves. Sinful words from sinful lips.

1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Seriously, though. The Republicans completely screwed the pooch in their giddy rush to make this a burning election year issue. It's basic PR not to have ever have a photo like that come out. Hell, even police forces know that when there's a racially charged investigation you don't have I.M. Whiteyman III acting as the police spokesperson for the simple reason that is sends the wrong message.

Personally, I hope the Republicans keep banging on this drum for months. It's red meat for their Christian Right base, but those folks were already going to vote red because they pretty much think Obama is the anti-Christ. But the longer they keep banging, the more it's going to push away Independents.

Hypatian wrote:

I like Obamacare, but only as a "f*ck it, something is better than nothing" move. I support socialized medicine all the way, but no way was that going to get passed. :(

As someone who has lived in a country that had socialized medicine and now living in a country that doesn't, I can safely say it is a case of the grass is greener on the other side. Both sides have their huge problems. There is no lesser of two evils.

Tanglebones wrote:
Rachel Maddow wrote:

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is sending around this photo from the hearing on birth control today. She writes: "At @GOPOversight hearing right now 5 men are testifying on women's health: http://yfrog.com/10wg35j #WhereAreTheWomen?"

Seems like a picayune thing to get mad about - no one gave the CPAC committee any street cred because they were all women.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Rachel Maddow wrote:

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is sending around this photo from the hearing on birth control today. She writes: "At @GOPOversight hearing right now 5 men are testifying on women's health: http://yfrog.com/10wg35j #WhereAreTheWomen?"

Seems like a picayune thing to get mad about - no one gave the CPAC committee any street cred because they were all women.

Street cred? Are you purposefully being difficult? Even if CPAC was all men, CPAC is just a bunch of people talking. They can do whatever they want. This an actual government action. This is no different than the SOPA discussions that had no technology experts and it has nothing to do with street cred and everything to do with ignorance.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Rachel Maddow wrote:

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is sending around this photo from the hearing on birth control today. She writes: "At @GOPOversight hearing right now 5 men are testifying on women's health: http://yfrog.com/10wg35j #WhereAreTheWomen?"

Seems like a picayune thing to get mad about - no one gave the CPAC committee any street cred because they were all women.

I don't know if you'd call it street cred, but they did actually have a straight conversation about things and let those women's words show how batsh*t they are instead of just writing them all off immediately like they're doing with the Men in Black Prayer Breakfast crew they've got going there.

fangblackbone wrote:

The rabbi must have abstained or been the only nay vote. I cannot believe a rabbi (unless he was hassidic) would agree to allow Catholic hierarchy to dictate contraceptive policy.

To the best of my knowledge, Jews have been very supportive of contraception.

Nope. Rabbi Soloveichik actually co-wrote a WSJ op-ed last Friday that blasted the HHS rule.

His testimony reflected the compromise rule, but he still found it offensive because "religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization’s religious tenets."

His logic was that:

Soloveichik Congressional Testimony[/url]] In refusing to extend religious liberty beyond the parameters of what the administration chooses to deem religious conduct, the administration denies people of faith the ability to define their religious activity. Therefore, not only does the new regulation threaten religious liberty in the narrow sense, in requiring Catholic communities to violate their religious tenets, but also the administration impedes religious liberty by unilaterally redefining what it means to be religious.

TL;DR: I can do whatever the f*ck I want if I claim it's religious in nature.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Rachel Maddow wrote:

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is sending around this photo from the hearing on birth control today. She writes: "At @GOPOversight hearing right now 5 men are testifying on women's health: http://yfrog.com/10wg35j #WhereAreTheWomen?"

Seems like a picayune thing to get mad about - no one gave the CPAC committee any street cred because they were all women.

Do you recognize that there's a difference between CPAC, which is a conservatives-only political conference, and the Congress, which is supposed to represent *all* Americans?

Regardless, CPAC wouldn't get any street cred because, like the Congressional testimony, no dissenting opinions were heard.

momgamer wrote:

I don't know if you'd call it street cred, but they did actually have a straight conversation about things and let those women's words show how batsh*t they are instead of just writing them all off immediately like they're doing with the Men in Black Prayer Breakfast crew they've got going there.

Right, why bother dismissing the messengers because they're men when it's the underlying message you don't agree with? Like I said, seems needlessly picky.

No. The men don't have a leg to stand on in the particular topic. Anymore than anyone should be listening to Tammy Faye Baker, Margaret Fishback Powers, Priscilla Shirer, and Phyllis Schlafly testify about whether or not they should force insurance companies to cover Viagra to be used to treat some forms of priapism.

I use that as an example for a reason. It's a relatively congruent male situation for those ladies who need to use hormonal treatments that are colloquially called "birth control pills" to treat endometriosis. It is a male reproductive issue that in some cases is treated off-label with a somewhat controversial medication (i.e. Viagra). I got it from my gynecologist.

Just so you know, the men in that panel this morning have gone on record as not having a problem with that. They have no problem with letting a doctor decide for the men. But for the ladies, that's not acceptable.

And as someone who last week had to have a hysterectomy to prevent a serious liver condition I have a large, growly dog in this hunt.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I don't know if you'd call it street cred, but they did actually have a straight conversation about things and let those women's words show how batsh*t they are instead of just writing them all off immediately like they're doing with the Men in Black Prayer Breakfast crew they've got going there.

Right, why bother dismissing the messengers because they're men when it's the underlying message you don't agree with? Like I said, seems needlessly picky.

Because we are not just dismissing the "messengers" these are the people writing the message. We are also not simply "dismissing" them. There is an implicit (and depending on the poster, explicit) recommendation for a better way here, namely to get feedback from the side of this issue that actually has a stake in it.

As an example, if Congress was reworking all of the financial rules of the nation, and the sole witnesses the Congress saw were the ghosts of Lenin and Marx, you may say "hey, how come the House didn't summon Keynes too?"

NormanTheIntern wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I don't know if you'd call it street cred, but they did actually have a straight conversation about things and let those women's words show how batsh*t they are instead of just writing them all off immediately like they're doing with the Men in Black Prayer Breakfast crew they've got going there.

Right, why bother dismissing the messengers because they're men when it's the underlying message you don't agree with? Like I said, seems needlessly picky.

OG_slinger wrote:

Do you recognize that there's a difference between CPAC, which is a conservatives-only political conference, and the Congress, which is supposed to represent *all* Americans?

Regardless, CPAC wouldn't get any street cred because, like the Congressional testimony, no dissenting opinions were heard.

"religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization’s religious tenets."

In other words: "Because I employ you, I have the right to control your body, and to determine what medical procedures you may undergo."

We had a rather large war about that kind of thinking, as I recall.

And then, there was Rick Santorum's financial backer, Foster Friess in an interview today:

On this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s so inexpensive. You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.

It was such a shocking statement that Andrea Mitchell was nearly speechless, but that didn't deter Friess from chuckling as though he believes himself to be so clever by half.

See the comment yourself:

So far, no condemnation of these disgusting comments from Santorum or his spokespeople.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one either.

What a douche. Seriously, how can anybody vote for these people?

Yet more evidence that it's about the sluts, not the babies:

When Parody Becomes Reality: The 'Spilled Semen' Amendment

Some good stuff there that I won't quote -- it's worth reading. But I found this especially on point as far as this thread is concerned:

In solidarity with his colleague, Democrat Jim Wilson proposed an additional amendment to the bill that would make the father of an unborn child financially responsible for its mother's health care, housing, transportation and nourishment while she is pregnant. Unsurprisingly, Wilson's amendment also failed in a Republican-dominated Senate.

I mean, how much more f*cking blatant can you get? Try to include fathers in the responsibility, and it goes nowhere. But force women to go through a involuntary procedure involving penetration, which constitutes rape by most standards, and it passes to conservative cheering.

This is what your team is doing, conservative GWJers.

We are not fighting about the babies.

Oh, a fantastic post in the Metafilter thread where I sourced this:

0xFCAF on Metafilter wrote:

So if life really does begin at conception and conservatives really believed that, miscarriage would be second only to heart disease in terms of deaths caused, and would easily outstrip everything else in terms of years-of-life lost. It would beat cancer, stroke, and accidents combined.

Given that, where is the conservative outcry for funding for drug research that would reduce the incidence of miscarriage? If we could halve the unintended miscarriage rate, it would be like curing AIDS three times over, or curing cancer. Where's the call for miscarriage prevention drugs? Shouldn't this be our #1 medical priority?

Yonder wrote:

See, Foster Friess didn't have any sex education at all and he turned out just fine!

Edit: Wait, I just got it. I thought he was using "between their knees" as a euphemism for vagina, and that he was saying that women used to put an aspirin pill in their vagina to ward off pregnancy. This would obviously be monumentally ignorant for everyone involved.

But after telling it to my wife I realized that he may have meant that by holding something as small as a pill literally in between your knees, you have then closed up your legs, making it very difficult to have sex. That's even worse, for two reasons:
1. If you mean don't have sex, just say that. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but for some reason I find the idea of telling a woman to "keep their knees closed" to be worse then telling them not to have sex. Like they don't have the presence of mind to understand what sex is or how vaginas work. Just keep it to small words and sentences: "Keep your knees closed girls. Because I said so. No questions."
2. And of course just because the idea of only having sex for procreation is so sad and miserable.

I can testify from experience and with textual documentation (Kama Sutra), that a woman's legs do not need to be apart for sex to happen. To the contrary, it can be more fun. Also, it can be easier on the hips.

Malor wrote:

This is what your team is doing, conservative GWJers.

We are not fighting about the babies.

I know that it is much easier to tar all people of a given political stripe with a massive broad brush, but there are a lot of people out there that lean more towards the conservative side of things (or at least the Canadian version of conservative), but who also find the republican stance towards women/contraception completely repugnant.

Right, I phrased it that way because I know that several conservative GWJers are pretty much horrified by this stuff... I'm trying to point out that the team they're on is doing terrible things, not that they themselves are. It's the same basic goal I have when I talk about the crappy stuff Obama's been doing, over on Metafilter... trying to point out that you can have bad policies and bad people on either side of the aisle, including your own, and that supporting your team, when your team is doing stupid things, is destructive.

For many GWJers, maybe this really is about the babies, but it's extremely apparent that, at the leadership level, that's not the primary motive.

See, Foster Friess didn't have any sex education at all and he turned out just fine!

Edit: Wait, I just got it. I thought he was using "between their knees" as a euphemism for vagina, and that he was saying that women used to put an aspirin pill in their vagina to ward off pregnancy. This would obviously be monumentally ignorant for everyone involved.

But after telling it to my wife I realized that he may have meant that by holding something as small as a pill literally in between your knees, you have then closed up your legs, making it very difficult to have sex. That's even worse, for two reasons:
1. If you mean don't have sex, just say that. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but for some reason I find the idea of telling a woman to "keep their knees closed" to be worse then telling them not to have sex. Like they don't have the presence of mind to understand what sex is or how vaginas work. Just keep it to small words and sentences: "Keep your knees closed girls. Because I said so. No questions."
2. And of course just because the idea of only having sex for procreation is so sad and miserable.

Edit 2: Actually google searching (-Freiss and -Santorum being very helpful right now) shows that that may actually have been a legitimate contraceptive strategy. Obviously they got by just fine without sexual education.

KingGorilla wrote:

I can testify from experience and with textual documentation (Kama Sutra), that a woman's legs do not need to be apart for sex to happen. To the contrary, it can be more fun. Also, it can be easier on the hips.

Well yeah, but there is an even chance Freiss doesn't know that.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Oh, good LORD!

Del. David Englin (D) said the bill represents a level of government intrusion that “shocks the conscience.” According to Englin’s office:

"...only an invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound can effectively determine gestation age during much of the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur. Englin offered an amendment to require the pregnant woman’s consent prior to subjecting her to a vaginal penetration ultrasound, but House Republicans rejected the amendment by a vote of 64 to 34.

So, in order to undergo an abortion women must have their vaginas penetrated against their consent? I mean... Did nobody think about how that would look?

Malor wrote:

Yet more evidence that it's about the sluts, not the babies:

When Parody Becomes Reality: The 'Spilled Semen' Amendment

Some good stuff there that I won't quote -- it's worth reading. But I found this especially on point as far as this thread is concerned:

In solidarity with his colleague, Democrat Jim Wilson proposed an additional amendment to the bill that would make the father of an unborn child financially responsible for its mother's health care, housing, transportation and nourishment while she is pregnant. Unsurprisingly, Wilson's amendment also failed in a Republican-dominated Senate.

I mean, how much more f*cking blatant can you get? Try to include fathers in the responsibility, and it goes nowhere. But force women to go through a involuntary procedure involving penetration, which constitutes rape by most standards, and it passes to conservative cheering.

This is what your team is doing, conservative GWJers.

We are not fighting about the babies.

I'm more concerned about the idea of treating women as cattle is written into that amendment as well. It sounds like once you impregnate a woman, you own her like one would own a pet.

I'm honestly not sure if reading this thread is healthy for me anymore.