<p>Right. “Especially if they are married to another employed person.”</p>
<p>This reasoning was historically used to deny women jobs and/or equal wages. They “don’t really need the money.”</p>
<p>Again, arrogant.</p>
<p>You guys actually missed the rest of the panel because there were two women.</p>
<p>Hmm… I don’t see any women on this panel. [Birth</a> control hearing on Capitol Hill is led by all-male panel | Mail Online](<a href=“Birth control hearing on Capitol Hill is led by all-male panel | Daily Mail Online”>Birth control hearing on Capitol Hill is led by all-male panel | Daily Mail Online)</p>
<p>Perhaps that photo was taken and run with a little too soon. They were there. Is two enough? Maybe not. But two is not zero and this is a perfect example of media dishonesty. According to the spokeswoman for the committee:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One proposed bad mandate begot another proposed bad mandate.</p>
<p>Were the women in attendance or actually on the panel? Is there a photo of them actually sitting on the panel? There have been photos of women, eg in the row behind the panel, but so far haven’t seen photos of any more than the 5 panel members at that table.</p>
<p>There is an article (looks political so hesitate to link it) that says there was a SECOND panel that had 2 women, who spoke against the contraception policy. The first panel had no women, and the young female Georgetown student that was selected to testify to “discuss the repercussions of losing contraceptive coverage” was rejected as “not qualified”. That led to a walkout by some women on the committee (not the panel).
Author is George Zornick.</p>
<p>They were on the panel. They are female. We may be getting into the realm of political here, so I’m going to shut up now!</p>
<p>Right. They were on a second panel. Don’t know who was on the second panel or why there were 2 panels.</p>
<p>From what I found, Allison Garrett and Laura Champion (the latter of whom was said to have been added shortly before the hearing) were witnesses, not panel members. That is confusing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t this the logical extension of letting secular regulation of industry and services be subservient to personl moral proclivities? Isn’t this exactly the concern Catholic Justice Scalia had with starting down this path?</p>
<p>^ That’s what I was thinking, too. To quote LasMa fully:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The examples may sound extreme, but actually, if you think through the Catholic bishops’ position, it raises a point that I have been wondering about. The following is an excerpt from the bulletin insert that will be distributed at Catholic parishes this weekend:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Going forward, do you think this is a statement that the bishops could fully back? Reproductive issues aside, the Church is progressive in other ways. Could it really stand by and support another religious institution that refused to pay for an employee’s blood transfusion, or psychiatric care, or HIV treatments in the name of “religious freedom”? Some would argue that such hypothetical scenarios are too far-fetched, but I think the bishops’ stance has to be thought through to its logical conclusion. If mainstream Religion A is allowed to deny certain medical services, then doesn’t fringe Religion B have to be permitted the same right?</p>
<p>You are elevating the analogies to life or death issues kind of like when people say mandating birth control will lead to mandating abortion.</p>
<p>I was discussiong mandating the avaialbility of free, legal and safe birth control and the availablity of free legal and safe abortion? The mandate does not require the woman to USE either.</p>
<p>No but it requires her to pay for it whether she uses it or not.</p>
<p>So what? Federal tax on gasoline goes to fund the federal highway system and you pay it even if you only use gasoline in your lawnmower and don’t drive a car.</p>
<p>So it’s another thing the federal government is forcing everyone to pay for, that is what. This time many think the federal govt has overstepped its bounds. I get it that you don’t.</p>
<p>“Certainly, most full-time employees of most Catholic organizations, such as hospital systems and universities, are not living at the poverty level. Especially if they are married to another employed person.”</p>
<p>My mother is in a catholic nursing home. I would bet that the majority of the employees there, CNA’s, housekeepers, kitchen workers and activity aids are paid minimum wage or slightly above. I have spent a great deal of time there in the past couple of weeks. Most of theses employees are not Catholic.</p>
<p>
Not a good analogy since the federal highway system is also used to bring you many of the goods and services you use, so pretty much everyone is a “user” in one way or another.</p>
<p>Birth control/abortion holds down “costs” to everyone of an unwanted (often abused) child. I do appeals that graphically disclose these costs in terms of both money and pain, sorrow and sometimes death. I have to contend with the system that includes CPC, the police, prisons and medical examiners who have to buget for the services to unwanted children. </p>
<p>BTW— it is not my experience that ALL children placed for adoption are snapped up quickly by loving and caring individuals. Apparently there are “values” some potential adoptees have that aren’t met by all babies/children.</p>
<p>The cost of an unwanted child can have huge ripple effects. Every citizen gets the benefits of the savings of these costs “one way or another” and whether they like it or not.</p>