.

Voicing Our Reproductive Rights: Mom Talk

The all-male House Oversight Committee meets to determine the future of women's reproductive rights.

Here’s an idea: In order to prevent pregnancy, let’s create a penis plug. I’ll get seven of my girlfriends together to design them.

We can make them in different sizes, in a variety of fashion colors. We can have a carrying case for men to slip discreetly in their wallets. Whaddya think?

That’s about as sensible as the eight stuffy old white men who are making decisions about women’s reproductive rights.

Shame on the Republican majority House Oversight Committee for convening to discuss the Obama administration’s stance on birth control and health insurance—eight men and not a uterus among them.

Moms, we need to have a voice concerning what is going on in Washington right now. No matter how we feel politically or religiously, we need to be heard.

Chairman Darrell Issa, R­–Calif., turned away the only female witness, calling her “inappropriate.” Perhaps it was that she is an Obama supporter. Perhaps he nixed her because she is a Georgetown law student. Either way, Issa may never know if she were appropriate or not since he wouldn’t let her speak.

Before you, readers, come out and fillet me as a “left-wing liberal,” let me just say I’m a moderate Democrat Roman Catholic, fiscally-conservative feminist who joined the pro-life march on Washington in 1990. This isn’t about my political opinions. This is about being shut out of a discussion that is exclusively about us.

But thank God Viagra isn’t at risk of losing insurance coverage!

What Issa and his cronies need to know are all the other reasons why birth control pills are prescribed—not just to prevent contraception. There are countless reasons why hormone supplements are prescribed—many of which have no religious conflicts. I, myself, was prescribed them for migraine after a 12-day hospitalization with chronic, severe headaches. My priest didn’t have any problem with that.

Yet, our voice was silenced. If it were an issue concerning blacks or gays, there would have been witnesses representing those people. And yet, when it comes to women, there is still a double standard.

Women’s opinions are as diverse as we are. Issa, you aren’t a leader if you think we are going to tolerate being ignored. Thanks to your pompous politicking, I got out my checkbook and made a donation—and it wasn’t to your narrow-minded camp, either.

And if that doesn’t work, there is always the penis plug.

Olddeegee February 23, 2012 at 07:05 PM
You're actually comparing the Republican Party of today with the party of Lincoln? The GOP of today isn't even the same party that Reagan was in. Rant all you want. Hey, I have an idea, wanna watch Obama's inauguration with me in 2013?
My Personal Opinion February 23, 2012 at 07:24 PM
Hey Erin, Once again, way off the mark doofus. There IS a "PENIS PLUG". Its called a condom! You never really do think things all the way through before spouting off! Laughable as usual..........
Noreen Rosenbaum Blair February 23, 2012 at 07:24 PM
Our nation was founded on the premise the government can not interfere with religion. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, it doesn't matter if you like the belief or not. Churches have the right, guaranteed by the founders of our country, to believe and act on those beliefs. Government can not interfere. Just ask the supreme court justices who ruled on a case recently regarding labor practices and churches. The verdict was 9 - 0 in favor of the churches right to freedom from the government. The Obama mandate throws that very freedom out the window. By mandating that churches must supply women w/the pill free of charge (along with other services) the Obama administration interfered where it does not have the right. Freedom of religion is the right to keep government out of our religion. Obama took on the church because he knew stupid women like you would turn this into a "oh, my body, my choice" crap. Tell me, why do you think they are picking the pill - a medicine of convenience - to cover for free? Is it saving lives? Why not diabetic medication, or heart medicine. You still have the choice, stupid, you just have to pay for that choice. You could also choose condoms - which are cheaper and offer protection from STD's - which the pill does not. So, apparently the government doesn't want you creating life, but could care less if you get an STD. If the government can tell my church what it can and can't believe in, what's next? Where does it stop?
Olddeegee February 23, 2012 at 07:28 PM
I'd be happier if religion was left out of our government. Trying to solve modern problems with archaic solutions has never worked and never will. The churches are out of this, but their insurance companies who operate under US law must follow those laws. Please take your beliefs to church and leave them out of sane, rational discussion.
Tim February 23, 2012 at 07:42 PM
"a medicine of convenience" No. A medicine of responsibility. There are plenty of married couples in the catholic church who take birth control pills because they either do not want children, or do not want any more children, and who prefer not using condoms. The government is not FORCING anything. They are merely offering the option to everyone in the pool of insured who personally asks for it. Since the catholic church wants to be in this same larger pool of insured, and reap the financial benefits of what this represents, they must adhere to the rules that all the rest of the pool does. If they do not like these rules, the catholic church can self-insure all of their employees and can take responsibility for the fiscal realities of that on their own. The church has every ability to make this decision, but the reality is it costs more to insure people who base their decisions on superstition than it does to insure people who base their decisions on medical knowledge. If the church wants to be included in the same pool as I chose for its logical and medically based reasons, then they can not pick and choose which rules they want to follow anymore than I can. If I don't like the rules of my insurer, I would be expected to do the same, it has nothing to do with religion other than the non-stop desire for those in the church to continually see themselves as victims instead of being responsible for their own choices like the rest of use are expected to be.
Paul February 23, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Many comments here on the birth control topic etc. Catholics or any religious group should not be offended by birth control. I was raised a catholic and was even an alter boy. But I no longer am a practicing catholic because there ways are gone and old. The catholic religion is one of the most hypocritical religions currentlly. They say you sin by using birth control but yet protect father flanigan after he did the nasty with altar boy peter. But getting back on point here, woman should have an equal say in birth control.
Miguel Sanchez February 23, 2012 at 09:12 PM
Paul: You've given some a lot to think about.
Dinkamoe February 23, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Noreen, government can not interfere with beliefs, but you can not act on your religious beliefs if your beliefs violate the law. To do otherwise, the Supreme Court has stated that religious beliefs would then be above the US Constitution. The first amendement has limitations. Example: you can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. You can not marry more than one person, take peyote for spiritual vision quests, or sacrifice virgins, even if these things are your legitimate relgious beliefs. As long as laws affect everyone equally, they will enforced. You can believe any crazy relgious belief you want, you just can't act out your belief.
Noreen Rosenbaum Blair February 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM
The Supreme Court doesn't agree (said labor law case - very recent, look it up). (off topic) And if you want to know why Health Care is so expensive - it is because of mandates like this. In the state of IL there are over 45 mandates governing what insurance companies "have to" cover. Such as invitro, at $30,000 a treatment. Is that really medically necessary? No. But there it is. If someone wants a policy that covers that they should pay for it. But no, now we all pay for it. (back on topic) Either way, it's not about whether I agree with birth control pills or not, wheter I use them or not. It's the government forcing it's will upon the church, which they can't do. Personally I'm Catholic, I don't honestly have an issue with a woman using birth control pills but the government doesn't need to make it free (thank you daddy government) and they can't force the church to pay for coverage. Freedom of religion. At the end of the day no one is trying to take away anything from a woman - it is about the government forcing the church or church employers to go against their beliefs in a very real way. Again, what next? What do you believe in? What do you practice? What could the government say "too bad, you can't practice that anymore"....That is far scarier to me then a woman having to pay a copay for a birth control pill.
Noreen Rosenbaum Blair February 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM
I don't think any Catholic leader would say what anyone does with an alter boy (nasty) is okay, nor have they ever. What the Catholic church was caught up in was a dubious case of "not in my backyard". Which, by the way, is a very human reaction to hearing something so awful. Look at what happened at Penn State, and is repeated time and time again. The church has had to deal with the sins in a very real, public way. Years ago they thought they could cure someone w/that behavior. They have learned they can't, that the only solution is the immediate removal of the offendor. They have raised a ton of awareness and have implemented processes to help that behavior from starting or continuing. So they aren't saying that is okay, but somehow birth control is wrong. However, my beef isn't with birth control or not, but with government forcing it's will on the church - putting itself above religious beliefs. Whether you agree w/birth control or not, do you really want the governement to have this kind of 1984ish power? I don't.
Noreen Rosenbaum Blair February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM
By the way Tim - the Catholic church couldn't "opt" out of the mandate. That was the whole issue. Sending the people who want BC coverage to private insurers begs the question - then who will pay for it?
tom February 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Noreen, You said " woman having to pay a copay for a birth control pill." Several other people have made similar comments. This isn't an accurate statement because these women aren't paying a co-pay, they're paying 100% of the cost of the drug. That's a big difference.
tom February 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Ron, Once again, you're not understanding that in some plans there is NO coverage for birth control. It's not a matter of switching pharmacies. If birth control is not not covered, you don't pay a co-pay, you pay 100% of the cost of the drug.
Jello February 24, 2012 at 01:00 AM
Hey. How about them awesome gas prices?
Nancy Urban February 24, 2012 at 02:41 AM
Ann, I agree with you and generally speaking with Peteee363 as well. The issue of Erin's lack of research has come up plenty of times. I do not know Erin. Most of her blogs I find harsh and overly critical. However, no matter what hers, yours or anyone else's opinion is, can we not be polite and courteous about stating them? I understand the issue with the fabrication. Maybe that's something that needs to be addressed with the editor. I know my own blogs are gone over with a fine-toothed comb before being posted. Not sure if hers are looked at that closely. I would imagine that since her posts generally spike a lot of "discussion" her editor may let her "misinformation" and lack of research slide. Hmmm. Kinda sad... And Ron...there are plenty of people out there taking the high road. Kinda have to look for them, but they're there :)
Nancy Urban February 24, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Again, Noreen, why do you have to be calling someone "stupid"? Why go down that road? You may not like her opinion, but calling her stupid is rude, nasty and uncalled for. You didn't NEED to use that word to get your point across. It was a good point, but name calling was unnecessary.
Dinkamoe February 24, 2012 at 02:52 PM
This is where in the US Constitution it gives the Congress and the President the power to do so:In the the preamble on of the purposes of the US Constitution is to promote the general welfare. The specific parts in the US Costitution to do so; Art 1,Sec8, clause3: Power to regulate commerce: The Congress using its power to established the HHS giving the executive branch (The President) the authority to to determine best how to carry it out. Art1,Sec8, Clause 18, which autherizes all necessary and proper laws to carry out the execution of the laws.
Christine February 24, 2012 at 04:13 PM
The Preamble gives no such rights. "The Preamble sets forth the Constitution's goals, but the Supreme Court has ruled that is is not an independent source of rights."-The Words We Live By, Monk. "Although...one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, APART FROM THE PREAMBLE, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom."-US Supreme Court, Jacobson v. Massachsetts (1905).
Christine February 24, 2012 at 04:16 PM
"What a triumph for our enemies...to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves."-George Washington
Dinkamoe February 24, 2012 at 04:17 PM
The commerce clause is very broad and even tho insurance itself currently is intrastate, the insurance companies themselves operate nationaly, bringing them into the web of interstate commerce. The President has the sole authority to enforce the laws congress enacts, bringing up a question of a separation of powers. Since the President is refusing to enforce DOMA, (which I agree with personaly), is NOT an impeachable offence. That is only for conviction of treason,bribery, or other a high crimes or misdemeanors. If Congress wants Obama to enforce it, they must get a writ of mandamus from the courts. Only if Obama violates this writ, if they get it, can they impeach.
Christine February 24, 2012 at 04:35 PM
"The Commerce Clause has become the greatest source of federal power under the Constitution."-Monk Prior to 1937 (and the New Deal), the Supreme Court consistently limited the power of the Federal government through the Commerce Clause. After 1937, the Court began to decide in favor of using the Commerce Clause for a large variety of things. Why the change? Roosevelt expanded the Court with his own liberal nominees to advance his own agenda. That's why we now have the out-of-control use of "Commerce Clause" as an allegedly Constitutional excuse for the federal government to obtain and use more centralized power. So, using Court precedent versus the framers' intent is now common practice. Wrong, but common.
Dinkamoe February 24, 2012 at 04:50 PM
Christine, the framers intent was to have the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in 1 Supreme Court, and any inferior courts that Congress establishes. This power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution. This means the Supreme Court determiines the meaning of the commerce clause, and because the Constituion soley gives it this power, even tho you disagree, it is not wrong.
Ron Burgandy February 24, 2012 at 04:55 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/22/bonuses-given-after-raises-at-solyndra/ Wonder if President Obama will ask this friends at Solyndra to give back thier bonus's? Considering a bonus is taxed at 50% you would think he would be in favor of paying everyone bonus's that means more taxes.
Christine February 24, 2012 at 05:21 PM
Rick, first, it would help me greatly (no snark intended) if you would utilize proper capitalization and punctuation. Quotes, when quoting from a source, are also helpful. It would just be easier for me to read. As to your last post, I quote that bastion of liberal-ness who I generally heartily despise, Cass Sunstein. "The Constitution does not mean only what the judges say it means...Its meaning to Congress, the President, state government, and citizens in general has been more important than its meaning within the narrow confines of the Supreme Court building." Remember that the people have the final say about the meaning of the Constitution through our power of amendment. Government in all forms in the US is a tool of the people, not the reverse.
Dinkamoe February 24, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Chistine, you are exactly right. The people have the ultimate power to ament the contituition. Until it is amended, the supreme court is the only way to determine what it means. The source I am using is directly quoting from the constitution itself. You should read it.
Christine February 24, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Rick, thank you for the snarky suggestion to read the Constitution. I have read it several times, am currently refreshing my knowledge by taking the Constitution 101 course, rereading The Words We Live By, Monk, watching John Adams, watching The History of Us, and just had my kids memorize the Preamble as well as the Bill of Rights. We're also about to take a fabulous virtual field trip to Colonia Williamsburg, VA. After that we will watch David Barton's American Heritage Series. We like to do fun things like that, in addition to "school".
Christine February 24, 2012 at 08:13 PM
peteee363, I wanted to go this year to CW, but we have already taken a US vacation. This off-topic, but we cover Ancients next year. Any suggestions for US-based archeological digs?
Christine February 25, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Tawanda, if more women regulated their own vaginas, we wouldn't have to argue about it. Go ahead and have all the unmarried s@x you want to. If you get an STD or pregnant, you deal with it. I'm tired of paying for services other people deem necessary when they're all due to their own misbehavior. It's so sad that a majority of babies born to women under 30 years old have unmarried parents. The government is successfully replacing the father, and that, my friend, is a disgrace. So, pay for your own contraceptives, Viagra, and abortions.
Tim February 25, 2012 at 04:59 PM
It is disappointing to hear that you find it acceptable to punish the married couple who does not want any(or any more) children, because of a worst case-scenario that has nothing at all to do with them. Would you be willing to be the person to tell this responsible couple face to face they can not enjoy the benefits of modern medicine? I doubt it.
Mark Greg March 08, 2012 at 01:07 AM
Just more liberal drivel.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something