Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

“Where Are the Women?”

All day, that question has been in my inbox and on TV. Andrea Mitchell even referred to an “all-male hearing,” as Barbara Boxer rallied her feminist troops to watch. As I have noted, asking that question does require ignoring a Republican congresswoman who was present and questioning witnesses (some women walked out for show, never to see the second panel, which had female members), as well as a doctor from Calvin College and a university administrator from Oklahoma Christian University present. 

It also ignores women who have been criticizing the mandate since at least January 20, when HHS made it final. I would fall into that category, as would the many other women who signed that “Unacceptable” protest letter last Friday (after the president’s “accommodation” announcement), organized by Notre Dame law professor Carter Snead. They include: 

  • Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University
  • Lorraine Pangle, professor of government, co-director, Thomas Jefferson Center for the Study of Core Texts and Ideas, University of Texas at Austin
  • Margaret F. Brinig, Fritz Duda Family Chair in Law, Notre Dame Law School
  • Ann W. Astell, professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame
  • M. Katherine Tillman, professor Emerita, Program of Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame
  • Amy Barrett, professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
  • Mary M . Keys, associate professor of political science, University of Notre Dame
  • Angela M. Pfister, associate director, Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture; concurrent instructor, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame
  • Nicole Stelle Garnett, professor of law, University of Notre Dame
  • Marian E. Crowe, adjunct assistant professor, visiting scholar, Program of Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame
  • Ann Hartle, professor of philosophy, Emory University
  • Maria E. Garlock, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and director, Program in Architecture and Engineering, Princeton University
  • Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, professor of waw and director, ADR & Conflict Resolution Program, Fordham University
  • Elizabeth Komives, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UC San Diego
  • Helen Alvaré, associate professor of law, George Mason University
  • Maria Sophia Aguirre, professor of economics, The Catholic University of America
  • Jody Vaccaro Lewis, Assistant Professor of Sacred Scripture, Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies
  • Professor Janet E. Smith, Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics, Sacred Heart Major Seminary
  • Lorraine Gin, assistant professor of legal writing, legal writing administrator, James E. Rogers College of Law, The University of Arizona
  • Molly Brigid Flynn, assistant professor of philosophy, Assumption College
  • Louise Carroll Keeley, professor of philosophy, associate provost, Assumption College
  • Jeanne Heffernan Schindler, assistant professor, Department of Humanities, Villanova University
  • Angela McKay Knobel, associate professor, School of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America
  • Mary C. Sommers, director, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas — Texas
  • Judy Hutchinson, assistant director, Office of International Studies, University of Notre Dame
  • Mary K. Daly, program coordinator, University Life Initiatives, Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Dame
  • Diane C. Freeby, editor of PrayND, Notre Dame Alumni Association, University of Notre Dame
  • Judy Madden, University of Notre Dame
  • Beth Bubik, Life Initiatives Program coordinator, Notre Dame Alumni Association
  • Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith, O.P., president, Aquinas College (Tenn.)
  • Marianne Evans Mount, president, Catholic Distance University
  • Donna Bethell, chairman of the board, Christendom College
  • Nancy Matthews, former chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
  • Maggie Gallagher, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
  • Dorinda C. Bordlee, vice president, chief counsel, Bioethics Defense Fund
  • Grace-Marie Turner, president, Galen Institute
  • Helen Hull Hitchcock, president, Women for Faith & Family
  • Elizabeth Kirk, University of Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life
  • Kristina Arriaga, executive director, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
  • Jennifer Roback Morse, founding president, the Ruth Institute
  • Jennifer Bryson, director, Islam and Civil Society Project, the Witherspoon Institute
  • Kate O’Beirne, president, National Review Institute
  • Kelley M. Shrock, operations dpecialist, University of Notre Dame Investment Office
  • Kimberly C. Shankman, Dean of the College, Benedictine College
  • Asma Uddin, international legal fellow, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, editor-in-chief, AltMuslimah
  • Ashley E. McGuire, Richard John Neuhaus Fellow, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Editor-in-Chief, AltCatholicah; Robert Novak Journalism Fellow, The Phillips Foundation
  • Charmaine Yoest, president, Americans United for Life
  • Mother Agnes Mary Donovan, SV, superior general, Sisters of Life
  • Sister Joseph Marie Ruessmann, R.S.M., generalate secretary, Religious Sisters of Mercy — Alma, Mich.
  • Sister Mary Christine Cremin, R.S.M., general counselor and local superior, Religious Sisters of Mercy, Knoxville, Tenn.
  • Sister Mary Prudence Allen, R.S.M, local superior Denver/Edwards Convent of Mercy Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM, cap.; Chair of Philosophy St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, Denver, Colo.
  • Sister Mary Nika Schaumber, R.S.M., J.C.D., local superior, Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Mich.; Coordinator, Department of Religion, Saint Francis Health System, Tulsa, Okla.
  • Sister Mary Patrice, R.S.M., Psy.D. candidate, Institute for Psychological Studies, Arlington, Va.
  • Sister Barbara Anne Gooding, director, Department of Religion, Saint Francis Health System
  • Sister Teresa Mary Kozlovski, R.S.M.
  • Sister Deborah (Mary Cora) Uryase, R.S.M., assistant to the president-rector, Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, Saint Louis, Mo.
  • Sister Mary Pierre Jean Wilson, R.S.M., J.C.D., assistant professor of canon law, St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, Denver, Colo.
  • Sister Moira Debono, R.S.M., local superior, Religious Sisters of Mercy
  • Sister Mary Judith O’Brien, R.S.M., member, Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Mich.; chancellor, Catholic Diocese of Saginaw, Mich.
  • Sister Yvonne Mary Loucks, R.S.M., local superior, Saginaw, Mich.
  • Paige C. Cunningham, executive director, the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
  • Jean Bethke Elshtain, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics in the Divinity School, Department of Political Science and the Committee on International Relations, the University of Chicago
  • Tonia Hap Murphy, Mendoza Pre-Law Advisor, Associate Teaching Professor, University of Notre Dame

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   16

EXPAND  

   02/17/12 16:35

These signers should appear before Congress, en masse. Not that it will make any difference to these feminists, who insist conservatives are not "real" women.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 16:36

Silly you, women don't count unless they agree with the mandate!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 16:42

Hey, how needs facts when you have Sound Bites!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 16:50

Issa and his staff are idiotic novices. All they had to do was put one of the two women from the second panel on the first, and avoid the picture of a group of men talking about 'contraception'. Honestly, aren't there any Republicans who know how to play this game anymore??

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 17:22

The greatest hypocrisy of all of the signatories is in their pretense that they are women.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 18:34

Ahhh, but if YOU get a sex change?

Will that count YOU as a woman?

Only men should care about religious conscience?

Some people care deeply about the fundamental rights of their fellow citizens, even if such people don't exercise those rights personally.

It's called civility and it's borne of respect.

I'll never own a gun. But, if you try to take away my neighbor's gun, I'll try to kill you first.

You're cordially invited to test that out.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 17:26

I saw Rep. Issa on FNC this morning. He said they didn't so much walk out as sprint to a news conference, and that their real problem with the session was that Barry Lynn was a no-show and he wouldn't let them squeeze in some college student who had an anecdotal sob story.

I'm guessing this is the first time that Barry Lynn ever missed a chance to bash Christians, especially with so many camera present.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 17:47

Thank you, Kathryn, for helping us counter the hysteria.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 18:16

Asking why there were no women at a supposed "hearing" regarding birth control and medical benefits for women doesn't "ignore women who have been criticizing the mandate since at least January 20". Those women who signed that letter weren't part of the hearing and so their signatures aren't included in the assessment of who was or wasn't there.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 18:42

Who cares what their sex was?

What does their sex have to do with their religious conscience?

And, the point being implicitly made is that no women support the religious accommodation for a a belief they may not hold.

It is NO SURPRISE that the political left is grossly miscalculating how many people in this nation respect the religious beliefs of others they may not hold themselves.

The political left has no patience for rights they don't exercise, or for the exercise of rights by people who disagree with them.

Because they have no respect for civil society. Which is why they seek to fundamentally transform societies, without changing those countries' charter documents, whether in Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, Honduras, or the US.

Manuel Zaleya for President?

That's inspiring!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 18:28

K-Lo:

Would you please reprint the entire list, if the editor of NRO will let you?

Andrea Mitchell! Pfffft!

The public doesn't take the DNC Human Megaphones seriously anymore, if they're even watching.

CAPTCHA:

"Stool Pigeon"

That's Andrea Mitchell in a nutshell.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Lee
   02/17/12 18:36

Most of the people I see getting hysterical (pun intended) over the lack of women in the picture frame it as an issue of "birth control," and solely of birth control. That clouds the real issue. The real issue is the degree to which the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is getting trounced. Why does the government get to determine what involved in what constitutes a "religious institution"? Does that not violate “Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]...

Unfortunately, what s happening is that people got involved in this a little ways along in the Pastor Neimollar metaphorical timeline. The up side is that it is not the end of the time line when no one is left. There may still be time to undo the damage.

BTW, I keep seeing People justifying this with Employment Division v Smith--which was a very problematic ruling, it seems to me...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 19:49

"BTW, I keep seeing People justifying this with Employment Division v Smith--which was a very problematic ruling, it seems to me..."

Putting aside that it may have been a problematic ruling, it is also not on point. It involved the use of peyote and a general law against the use thereof.

This is about a requirement/regulation by the Federal gov't that religious institutions other than churches, mosques and synagogues, must buy insurance that covers birth control which violates the tenents of at least the Catholic religion. Individuals and institutions are being forced to violate their religious beliefs. And all because the Left was successful at framing the issue as "reproductive rights", because for the Left, "rights" means someone else has to provide it to you. It's a positive right, not a negative one. They are rights that the gov't has decided you have and now they have to make sure that everyone else, other than the person exercising that right, has to pay for it.

I would say that Smith is not going to be good precedent.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/17/12 19:17

Kathryn,

You ought to know by now that conservative women aren't actually women to the left-libs.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Emery
   02/18/12 03:06

Yup. Sexist republican religious fanatic MEN are somehow preventing women from having access to a widely available thing that costs around $15 a month and is NOT generally prescribed for any kind of health maintenance for most women, and also $40 abortifacient drugs that are actually harmful to health in the short term. How are they doing this? By merely objecting to a federal law that requires that people who's religion forbids or at least discourages their usage and promulgation on grounds of conscience must be forced to pay for them for employees.

Widely available, inexpensive, not really provided for maintenance or repair of health AND if the place you work for won't pay for it then the presumption is that somehow, you will never ever ever see it ever and are thus doomed to a sort of reproductive slavery bound by a $15 a month barrier that can never supposedly be broken and of course you will also be unhealthy because contraception makes people healthy and or keeps them that way...somehow..

That argument is clearly a lot of hyperbolic stupid cognitively dissonant BULL.

Democrats should be ashamed to to be associated with this stupid drek much less passing it off as a defense of women's health and civil rights. The press should be ashamed to pretend that the argument makes any sense at all. Democrats are making utter fools of themselves and their clueless but well meaning supporters.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
mlindroos
   02/18/12 13:44

> It also ignores women who have been criticizing the mandate
> since at least January 20, when HHS made it final. I would fall
> into that category, as would the many other women who signed
> that “Unacceptable” protest letter last Friday (after the president’s
> “accommodation” announcement), organized by Notre Dame law
> professor Carter Snead. They include:

[snip]

Note that K-Lo's supposedly devastating list of signees is almost exclusively male when you count also the names that she conveniently omitted (=only 1 woman out of 6 signees, if you check the 381 names!).

I'm sorry but the MSM is right: the ones opposing this are overwhelmingly male and religious conservatives while the supporters of contraceptives include more women.

MARCU$

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact