Derp!!!

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

I am LOVING this scandal because of how it's exposing how many on the right view women.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except for the weird questioning by the media that came out of nowhere, and the "where are the women!?" lines about a panel on religious freedom, as if that matters, right?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

The panel about "religious freedom" was EXPLICITLY ONLY about birth control. They did not address any other issues on that panel. They were SOLELY voicing opposition to coverage for contraception. And they only included representatives of one religion. There was no message alteration on the part of the Left; only response to the message put forth by the Right. Now, if what the people responsible for that panel were TRYING to do was chip away at insurance mandates in general, fine; I don't know their thought processes. But they can't complain that they got flack about women's issues when they chose to MAKE it a women's issue by focusing solely on birth control.

That would be like someone saying an argument could be made for some heinous viewpoint and then getting upset and calling people liars when they asked what the specifics of that argument would be... oh wait.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The panel about "religious freedom" was EXPLICITLY ONLY about birth control. They did not address any other issues on that panel. They were SOLELY voicing opposition to coverage for contraception.

Well, not exactly (http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1598%3A2-16-12-qlines-crossed-separation-of-church-and-state-has-the-obama-administration-trampled-on-freedom-of-religion-and-freedom-of-conscienceq&catid=12&Itemid=1).

And I learned something today - there were women on the panel and a variety of different faiths, as well as an invite for a secular person.

So it appears even the panel itself was misrepresented further by the left. Go figure.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

Two Christian female doctors who don't understand how plan B works, and one Jewish man does not constitute a variety of views being represented.

In short, putting only a handful members of a group and only those who will agree with straight white, cis rich christian men on a board that is already heavily weighted with straight white cis rich christian men is not a representative of society.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Two Christian female doctors who don't understand how plan B works, and one Jewish man does not constitute a variety of views being represented.

In fact, it's the textbook definition of "variety."

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

Wow, clearly you have never experienced much in the way of variety in your life.

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

LOL

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

I see there were two chicks on the second panel, so fair cop there. What about the panel description gives any indication that it was about anything other than contraception, though?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What about the panel description gives any indication that it was about anything other than contraception, though?

The title, "Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

The description, which notes the most recent mandate from the Obama administration, but details both "the [concern] that government, under this Administration, is encroaching on their First Amendment rights" and that the "hearing is about basic question of religious freedom, and whether or not protection will be afforded to religious institutions who wish to follow their conscience in refusing to pay for products they find morally objectionable."

Then we get the panelists, none of which are caring one iota about contraception, but rather religious issues. The one person on the panel with a medical background details her experience (http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/2-16-12_Full_Champion_FINAL.pdf) in balancing health services with religious freedom, and her clarity that "this is not about contraception, and this is not about depriving women of health care."

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

...did you link the wrong testimony? The link I got was to Dr. Laura Champion's testimony, which was about contraception, Plan B, and sterilization services, not about any other medical procedures.

Did any of the panelists address any medical procedures that might possibly be considered religiously objectionable that aren't localized in women's uteri?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, I linked to the testimony of someone who noted the issue at the heart of this problem.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

If you linked to Dr. Champion, she made it clear that the issue at the heart of this problem was female reproductive health. She made no mention of religious freedom exemptions being an option for any medication or procedure that didn't involve the female reproductive system. So did you link to the wrong thing or did you bank on me not actually reading what you linked?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you linked to Dr. Champion, she made it clear that the issue at the heart of this problem was female reproductive health. She made no mention of religious freedom exemptions being an option for any medication or procedure that didn't involve the female reproductive system. So did you link to the wrong thing or did you bank on me not actually reading what you linked?

I'll quote it again, since you must have missed it the first time:

"This is not about politics, this is not about contraception, and this is not about depriving women of health care. Rather, this is personal. This is about my daily life as a physician, a Christian, and a Medical Services Director. Whether I will be able as a physician to practice medicine within my belief system. Whether Calvin College will be able to continue its historic tradition of living out the faith it teaches. A government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, should not force the people to violate their consciences."

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

And I'll quote as well: "This contraceptive mandate jeopardizes our commitment to international students who would be negatively affected by the college not being able to provide a health insurance option to them."

"I am concerned about the many specific facets of these regulations and I am
concerned as a health provider about the wide sweeping regulatory overreach that the mandate on contraceptives signals."

"Further, the mandate elevates contraception and abortive drugs to the level of preventative health care. They are not. Plan B and Ella should not be considered equivalent to cancer screening or vaccinations. Pregnancy is not a disease. This is a premise that I reject both religiously and medically."

She does not voice any opposition to any medical procedures that do not involve the female reproductive system ANYWHERE in her testimony, and Word of Jeff can't alter the text that's there.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

She does not voice any opposition to any medical procedures that do not involve the female reproductive system ANYWHERE in her testimony, and Word of Jeff can't alter the text that's there.

Again, the mandate put in place is about contraceptives. Was she not supposed to talk about this mandate's impact? She talks about it specifically, and mandates generally. She does exactly what you want her to do.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

This has nothing to do with what *I* want, and your goalpost-oscillating is getting annoying. YOU are the one who claimed that this panel, and this dispute, weren't about contraception or gender politics, not at all, not the tiniest bit, until the Left derailed everything and made up lies about what the panel was about. YOU are factually wrong about that. If you want to claim that the Right only pushed back on contraception in an effort to oppose mandates in general, knock yourself out, but you can't claim that the dispute isn't about contraception.

(Well, I suppose you can, but it will make as much sense as any of your other "Your direct quotes are lies" loops so eventually there'll be no grounds for sane discussion.)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

YOU are the one who claimed that this panel, and this dispute, weren't about contraception or gender politics, not at all, not the tiniest bit, until the Left derailed everything and made up lies about what the panel was about. YOU are factually wrong about that. If you want to claim that the Right only pushed back on contraception in an effort to oppose mandates in general, knock yourself out, but you can't claim that the dispute isn't about contraception.

The dispute is not about contraception. The mandate is about contraception, thus there's discussion about what the mandate entails. The dispute is about the violation of religious freedom.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Also... "variety of different faiths"? A few Catholics, a couple of protestant denominations, and one Orthodox Jew? That stretches the definition of "variety".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

We're talking three different belief systems including the secularist who chose not to attend, and that assumes we should combine all the Christian sects together. It's a variety.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

It stretches the definition, like I said. No Muslims, no Buddhists, no Hindus... nobody outside the Judeo-Christian paradigm.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And that matters why?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Different religions not only have different moral codes but different views on how conflicts between spiritual and temporal rules should be handled. Wouldn't it behoove a panel on "religious freedom" to talk to people from a wide range of religions?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Like, for example, inviting multiple sects of Christianity with different beliefs, and Jews, and a secular American?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

As I said, that's stretching the definition of "variety" pretty thin. That's like that Blues Brothers line about having both kinds of music, country AND western. Which, you know, if they were only inviting people who had a dog in that fight, then fine, maybe other religions have no interest in imposing their doctrines on non-followers and thus don't give a rat's ass about the contraceptive mandate or any other mandate. But it was hardly a wide range of religious beliefs being given voice there.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But it was hardly a wide range of religious beliefs being given voice there.

We don't agree on this and never will, and that's fine. I see a difference in the Christian sects that you do not.