How about Jennifer Marshall?
[Carolyn] Maloney told MSNBC that there were “so few women there—practically zero.” With two female witnesses among 10 total, however, that can hardly be excused as a rounding error. (See testimony of Allison Dabbs Garrett, senior vice president for academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University, and Laura Champion, M.D., medical director and physician at Calvin College.)
Let’s be clear: Liberals are fighting to force religious employers to provide health insurance coverage for “no-cost” abortion-inducing drugs and contraception even if it conflicts with their beliefs. Violation of religious liberty is the central problem—and it’s just the latest in the list of Americans’ grievances against Obamacare.
Particularly offensive is the requirement that religious hospitals, charities, and schools must provide and pay for insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs—including the morning-after pill and the week-after drug, ella. Demand for these so-called “emergency contraceptives” is fueled in part by the casual sex culture of hooking up—sexual encounters outside the context of commitment, sometimes between complete strangers or mere acquaintances.
It’s not a scene that empowers women, contrary to what feminists might like to argue. Former Washington Postjournalist Laura Sessions Stepp chronicled the sad experiences of young women in the hook-up culture in her 2008 book Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both.
Young women today, she writes, “are trying to make sense of what is arguably the most confusing sexual landscape any generation has ever faced.” They’re not getting much help. Most sex education pushes young women into this chaos and tells them that contraception will provide adequate protection. This puts incredible pressure on those who have the most at risk in the casual-sex scene.
That makes it particularly hard to understand why Maloney and Norton protested at the sight of male religious leaders testifying along with women Thursday about the need to protect religious beliefs—including beliefs concerned with creating a culture in which women do not face such a negative environment when it comes to their health and relationships. These same religious beliefs teach the equal dignity of all human life, male and female, a basis that feminists would be loathe to abandon if they thought seriously about the consequences.
Religious liberty has been called our first freedom—and that goes for women, too. If it begins to erode, the whole framework of liberty is in danger. That’s why Obamacare’s unholy trinity of attacks on freedom—the free exercise of religion, free enterprise, and individual freedom, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out this week—is a war on freedom that should concern all Americans, and particularly women.
Conservative women need to make themselves heard on this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet they're not. Perhaps because they know it's a loser?
Yes, I expect KLO to do her part to try to clean up the Republican's mess as far as this tone-deaf panel went. But she's really going into overkill now with post after post, it all seems like such a futile effort. It's not like these national media outlets are going to change their narrative suddenly, it seems pretty much set in stone.
The deck is stacked, why spend all this time shouting into the wind? Is ABC News going to swoop in and suddenly say "Wait, there were a few pro-life women on the panels!". It's just not compelling enough an argument to say those few women represent the majority of Catholic women in America who have no qualms about picking and choosing which tenets of their religion suit them in this day and age. There's a disconnect there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMe thinks the lady doth protest too much? Why are you exerting so much effort futilely wiping up the mess these Republican men have created for themselves by this tone-deaf panel?
No one can hear you. It's not like ABC News is going to swoop in and bring your message here to the national platform. The deck is stacked, your shouting into the breeze.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Particularly offensive is the requirement that religious hospitals, charities, and schools must provide and pay for insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.."
I don't think this is correct. As far as I have been able to determine, Sister Carol Keehan, the head of the Catholic Health Care Association...which represents Catholic Hospitals and Clinics...actively supports this mandate now that Obama has "fixed it'. She has not walked back the CHA support, and is not on board with the bishops.
So, she and all of the Catholic Hospitals she oversees supports this and do not find it at all offensive.
FTM...follow the money.
I would be very interested to see NRO interview Sr. Keehan. She supports Obamacare and this mandate, and by extension, death panels of Obamacare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbout 7 of the last 10 posts to The Corner are about contraception and religion. No wonder Santorum is in the lead. We are about to go to war with Iran, the country is buried in debt and digging deeper by the minute while no viable candidate has any serious plan to fix it. And here the "flagship" of the conservative movement is mired in inconsequential squabbles over birth control.
The only candidate who has shown the courage to speak the hard truths has been sidelined, mocked and maligned by those whose purported principles he is steadfastly defending. The Tea Party, supposedly a limited government movement rebelling against George W. Bush's and the Republican establishment's overspending, is now rallying behind "compassionate" conservatism's point man in the Senate, a man who brags about his efficient earmarking and his disdain for individualism.
I've considered myself a conservative for most of my life. I've been a constant reader of this blog and NR in print. Never have I felt so alienated and confused. I know there are many people feeling the same, and this election (which Obama will almost certainly win) should be a watershed in terms of dissolving the alliance between libertarians, fiscal conservatives on one side and foreign interventionists and culture warriors on the other. I think it's the best thing for both sides and the country, at least in the long term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"must provide and pay for insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs—including the morning-after pill"
Ms. Lopez, this has been fleshed out again and again in both liberal and conservative media: the morning-after pill does NOT induce abortion. Rather, depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, the morning-after pill can prevent or delay ovulation, block fertilization, or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (this is the Mayo Clinic definition). The proverbial "Pill" also keeps a fertilized egg from implanting. Women are instructed NOT to take the morning-after pill if they are already pregnant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't fall for this trap. This is designed to take us away from the argument we are winning.They know they're wrong so they're tossing out anything and everything to distract us. Let it go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's all hope to God that KLO wasn't watching Saturday Night Live tonight..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEmployer provided health insurance is a costly anachronism. My former employer ended it for Medicare eligible retirees in 2011. In its place, each retiree now receives a yearly lump sum that they can use to buy medical insurance directly. It works well and gives the employee control and personal responsibility over their healthcare costs. Religious institutions, or in fact any business looking to control employee health insurance costs, should consider doing likewise. An additional immediate benefit to the religious institution is that this whole issue of government forced contraceptives coverage is rendered moot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of these so-called "hearings" raise many questions aside from their overall exclusion of women. Republicans have crowed they were about "religion", not particularly women's health (an odd claim in itself) and yet, there was only one religion represented. Where were Muslims, Buddhists, Jews or any other religion given their say? They weren't.
And the one religion who was allowed input was even denied their own diverse opinions. Catholic organizations such as Catholic Charities USA, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association who all support the mandate weren't allowed to speak.
And with all the boasting there were "actually women at the hearings", why is there no mention of how the 2 women there were qualified to have an opinion at all. One is a lawyer and the other a small town family practitioner, neither who has any scholarly experience in the area supposedly discussed. In fact one was added at the last minute, presumably when it was realized how lop-sided the witness list was.
So there were 2 women out of 10. I suppose in the future if there were a hearing about Christian churches, there wouldn't be an issue if 8 of the 10 witnesses were Muslim? Hey, there were SOME Christians there, so stop your complaining!
Regardless, this is an issue K-Lo and her ilk should just stop talking about. The PR battle about this absurdity has already been lost. To keep obsessively bringing it up just highlights how comical and biased the whole affair was to the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2 of 10 women doesn't necessarily mean exclusion. Muslims and Jews are a tiny minority and again, of ten people, statistically they would be zero. High degree of education is NOT required for congressional testimony (think actors - heck, think most congresscritters). And since men can be parents, too, it is a little disingenuous to bring up a mutually exclusive analogy of Muslims and Christians.
In short, sir, your logic leaves a great deal to be desired, though it goes well with the impoliteness of your post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. The hysterics coming from NRO on this are ridiculous.
Being vocally against contraception in the 21st century? If Ms. Lopez is trying to pare down the number of active NRO readers, she's doing a good job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Democrats are ecstatic now- these types of arguments- e.g.' how can young women enjoy sex so much??!!, and with just mere 'acquaintences''' ! - just drive independent voters away from the republican party.
And it doesn't help that the conservatives making these anti-sex comments tend to be obviously the type of people (slightly nerdy, abit socially awkward, lacking in dating experience) who never had a chance to experience the joy of sex. No offense to J-Lo, who i respect as a commentator, but she is prime example (i used to be one myself, probably still am, so i speak from experience:). It makes the whole argument comical to neutral observers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, are you saying Democrats can't win if the discussion is about the economy, debt, or national security? They can only win if the discussion is about contraception. What's it like to hold your fellow citizens in such low esteem?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou actually believe that a married mother of 4 who is still married to the only man she's ever slept with has never experienced "the joy of sex"?
ROFLOL!!!!!
Like fire, sex can either be a thing of wonder or a thing of horror. The context is everything.
There's nothing "anti-sex" about telling people to build their fires in a properly constructed fireplace rather than just piling wood in the middle of the living room floor, dousing it with gasoline, and striking a match.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"anti-sex" comments? I know of no Catholics who are against sex. What you mean to say is "... it doesn't help that conservatives are making these comments against hedonism." And when you say "dating experience" you in fact mean hooking-up. Let's dispense with such polite, PC eupherisms. When you mean dating, you mean sleeping with or fornication partner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And it doesn't help that the conservatives making these anti-sex comments tend to be obviously the type of people (slightly nerdy, abit socially awkward, lacking in dating experience) who never had a chance to experience the joy of sex."
This kind of juvenile reaching and projection is why the left is no longer taken seriously when they try to explain their positions to those outside of the the left. They come off as middle school kids with incompetent parents who never learned how to talk to people without making utter fools of themselves. The worst part is they seem to think this kind of thing makes them look clever instead of childish, venal, stupid, unreliable, hyperemotional, and prone to being ridiculously hateful at the slightest sign of resistance.
You can't really hurt someone by expelling them from an imaginary clique or by carelessly promoting your own impressive levels of ignorance of life and people. Other people recognize such an obvious fraud almost immediately and discount such opinions as cheap infantile garbage tragically spewing from someone who should be old and sophisticated enough to know better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the radical progressives want males and females to be represented equally in all enterprises...
Marriage used to do that, until the radical progressives got their hands on it.
Eh, all part of the project to make conservatives into second class citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo it was radical progressives who destroyed marriage? Then how come the highest divorce rates are in red states?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt used to take a man and a woman to destroy a marriage. These days, two people of any variety. In future... a village?
But that village better have some gender diversity! No, wait...
"And then the postmods devoured themselves."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse