On the House Oversight and Govt. Reform hearing with the all-male panel on religious liberty and the birth control rule - 16 February, 2012

1. No females on the panel of the House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on religious liberty and the birth control. As terrible an offense as the non-presence of women is, the fact that it's a panel discussing an issue that has serious ramifications specifically TO women is quite disturbing. If Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) truly believes that women have no role in this discussion, I wonder what his wife thinks - though it probably doesn't matter to Chairman Issa what she thinks or if she has an opinion as she is a woman and she is unqualified to talk about anything concerning religion, politics, or health. I hope their son respects women and the issues of religion, politics, and health more than his father.

2. Chairman Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) refused to allow Ms. Sandra Fluke to be a member on the panel because she is a woman, is a Georgetown Law School student, and is "energized about the issue," three qualities that make her inappropriate and unqualified. I personally think that her being a an educated successful woman, her being energized about that issue, her education, and her knowledge about and experiences with the issue ARE, in fact, some of the highest qualifications. Actually, her being a woman is a qualification that is glaringly absent in the other members of the panel discussing, though Chairman Issa won't admit it, WOMEN'S HEALTH. Plus, why are Ms. Fluke's interest in and strong opinions about the issue any different from the (male) panel members' interest in and strong opinions about the issue? Of course she may have a bias, but it's specifically because of THEIR interest in the issue being discussed and their total agreement (read: bias towards) the Republican majority's arguments and objections that the (all-male) panel members were invited to participate in the hearing in the first place.

3. Chairman Issa states that the hearing is "not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration's actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience." Okay, if you choose to believe that [fallacy], then go right ahead. But if you don't want to be called out for what appears to be a conscious exclusion of women, why not invite female clergy to be panel members? I'm guessing you didn't invite any female clergy because you couldn't find an "appropriate" woman who would support the Conservative angle, who wouldn't bring up the issue of women's health, and who would be willing to take fire from the women in their congregation and community for appearing on the panel. Plus, if you invited a FEMALE clergy member, you would upset the all-male Conservative clergy members already present as panel members because you would have acknowledged that *gasp* women can and do have a rightful place as leaders in their churches and communities as a clergy member. But it seems that you also neglected to invite relevant religious authorities the opportunity to be members of the panel, as they are "unqualified" to speak on behalf of the issue, as they support and talk about the positive attributes of the legislation.

4. If the hearing on "religius liberty and birth control" is, indeed, SOLELY about freedom of religion and conscience and not, in fact, about birth control, why include "birth control" in the title of the hearing? But since you did and you want to maintain that it is NOT about birth control, why not invite a religion professor or scholar? Since you want to discuss "freedoms," then why not invite a law school professor or practicing lawyer who can speak to the issues of "freedoms" within a strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution? Oh, and while you're at it, wouldn't a law school student from the incredibly impressive Georgetown Law School be a good candidate? You wouldn't even have to fly her in! Oh, that's right - Ms. Fluke was too interested in and biased about the issue of birth control. Oh, and she's a woman.

5. Even though Chairman Issa adamantly denies that the hearing is about birth control, the fact remains that birth control does not apply exclussively to oral contraceptives or, for that matter, women. Birth control also includes condoms, intrauterine devices, education, STI testing, and other devices and services. Women's health is actually about men's health, too. Men should have just as much access to, education about, and understanding of birth control as women. Unless, of course, Chairman Issa believes that men must be in romantic and sexual relationships exclussively with men - that way they won't have to worry about their sexual or romantic partner becoming pregnant. (Yes, I took it to the extreme, but you get my point.) If it truly is just a woman's issue, then why are men discussing it seemingly with exclussivity on your panel? Men are just as reponsible for doing their part as women for preventing unwanted pregnancies, and they should be given the same opportunities as women to be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The issue of women's health is also about the health of people who identify as transgender, intersexed, and queer, and women's health is about families as well as the individual. Plus, health does not stay within its "health" box - it extends into economics, law, psychology, civics, politics, technology, environment, religion, the sciences, and many other spheres of knowledge and influence. Chairman Issa does not seem to want to acknoledge this, but he is convening a panel to speak solely to those non-health areas without the mention of health. Such a narrow focus on women's health shows not only Chairman Issa's and his fellow Republican hearing members' bias but also their willingness to take the hub out of context and ignore the wider ramifications and discussions. I wonder how many other ways they devise to dance around and poke at the issue of women's health without actually saying women's health or women.

6. And since I'm wondering, I wonder what Ms. Becca Watkins, Chairman Issa's press secretary, thinks about all of this. I wonder if she is feeling good and energized (uh-oh watch out, Ms. Watkins, if you get too energized you will have strike two - the first strike was you being a woman - and you will be labelled as "inappropriate and unqualified"), or if she goes home every night and is conflicted about (dare I say ashamed to be?) working for and support a man and a group who think that women ("women" includes her, I'm assuming) should not have a voice in the question of religion, freedom, or conscience, and they certainly shouldn't have a say in issues concerning women's health. In her email defending the actions of Chairman Issa and his fellow Republican House Oversight and Government Reform members, Ms. Watkins wrote that Democrats are "whining," and I find it astonishing that she does not know how to comport herself as someone who represents an "public" official and politician. She worries me that she does not seem to know how to communicate effectively or how to respect others. A different phrase may have served you well, Ms. Watkins, as calling Democrats "whiny" makes you, the office of Chairman Issa, and Republicans seem patronizing, rude, and, dare I say, "whiny" in return.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/contraception-hearing-house-democrats-walk-out_n_1281730.html