• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

taxigirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
452
Location
Madison, WI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?' - CNN.com

"What I want to know is: Where are the women?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said as she began her remarks at the top of hearing titled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

Directing her question at Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Maloney was referring to the fact that the first panel of five witnesses at the hearing did not include a woman, even though the discussion touched on the recent controversy over an Obama administration regulation requiring health insurance coverage for contraception.

:2mad:What are we only talking about condoms and vasectomies?:2mad:
 
Would they have complained if the male witnesses had advocated for women's rights? Is this just manufactured outrage over an issue that was already pretty damn stupid to start with?
 
Well when a hearing is dealing with the rights or benefits of a segment of the population it only makes sense to have witnesses who represent that segment of the population.
 
Well when a hearing is dealing with the rights or benefits of a segment of the population it only makes sense to have witnesses who represent that segment of the population.

not sure how women are being negatively affected by legislation that gives them access to free birth control, but okay.
 
not sure how women are being negatively affected by legislation that gives them access to free birth control, but okay.

It doesn't have to be percieved to be affecting them negatively. The only issue is that it affects them. As such it makes sense they should be represented by witnesses.
 
It doesn't have to be percieved to be affecting them negatively. The only issue is that it affects them. As such it makes sense they should be represented by witnesses.

I don't see any reason why they have to be there if their opinions/needs are represented.
 
I don't see any reason why they have to be there if their opinions/needs are represented.

How would a woman's opinion be represented by a panel of only men? That is just silly. The issue deals with women so women should be represented.
 
How would a woman's opinion be represented by a panel of only men? That is just silly. The issue deals with women so women should be represented.

you're seriously implying that men are completely incapable of representing women on a discussion of whether or not the Obama administration overstepped its bounds regarding a new privelege for women? Seems kind of sexist to me.
 
Damn straight: where are the women and how do Catholic women feel about this? What is their view of their religious dogma and how they feel about these decisions and this discussion at hand? The only representation I've seen are men on this forum telling me how their Catholic wives feel - heresay.

Why is it absurd to involve women in a discussion about or reproductive health and related medical coverage?

If we were talking about prostate cancer wouldn't men want to be represented by other men?

Of course: when it comes to the Catholic Church the reason why there are no women to talk about this is because the Catholic church doesn't want women to talk about it - we're not given permission to be involved. We are viewed as incompetent and inferior.

Most certainly - this is drawing attention to the sexism that still thrives in the chruch itself.
 
Last edited:
The hearing is about whether or not Obama is offending religion, not women.
 
not sure how women are being negatively affected by legislation that gives them access to free birth control, but okay.

1. It isn't free since they are either paying their premiums or getting health insurance through employers, meaning it is a benifit of their job and they are working for that benefit, meaning it ain't free in the same way that when employers are paying employees, it ain't the same as them just giving away free money.

2. The point of the hearing was to discuss the affects of this legislation, and those who it affects the most were not represented. Issa has turned his committee into a bad joke.
 
you're seriously implying that men are completely incapable of representing women on a discussion of whether or not the Obama administration overstepped its bounds regarding a new privelege for women? Seems kind of sexist to me.

So does supporting the notion that women should be excluded from a discussion that deals with our reproductive care.
 
you're seriously implying that men are completely incapable of representing women on a discussion of whether or not the Obama administration overstepped its bounds regarding a new privelege for women? Seems kind of sexist to me.

I am saying that unless members of said group are actually represented they don't have representation. That is duh... Just like why Colonialists got angry when the king of England said we will represent your interests with out you sending anyone how is that unfair.... Really its common sense stuff.
 
So does supporting the notion that women should be excluded from a discussion that deals with our reproductive care.

I'm not saying they should be intentionally excluded from a debate on whether or not they should have a right taken away from them (which isn't happening, whether the law goes into affect or not). What I'm saying is that this hearing had NOTHING to do with the women and EVERYTHING to do with the churches. When it's about women, let 'em come...whatever.
 
I am saying that unless members of said group are actually represented they don't have representation. That is duh... Just like why Colonialists got angry when the king of England said we will represent your interests with out you sending anyone how is that unfair.... Really its common sense stuff.

So should we start asking kindergarteners to voice their opinions on Superintendent candidates?
Should we start asking steal workers to voice their opinions on what color to paint play grounds?

This hearing isn't about women's rights.
 
I'm not saying they should be intentionally excluded from a debate on whether or not they should have a right taken away from them (which isn't happening, whether the law goes into affect or not). What I'm saying is that this hearing had NOTHING to do with the women and EVERYTHING to do with the churches. When it's about women, let 'em come...whatever.

How is a discussion about birth control being covered for women at their workplace not involve women? Lets have some intellectual honestly please.
 
So should we start asking kindergarteners to voice their opinions on Superintendent candidates?
Should we start asking steal workers to voice their opinions on what color to paint play grounds?

This hearing isn't about women's rights.

So in your analogy women equal kindergardeners picking the superintendent? Now that's sexist.
 
How is a discussion about birth control being covered for women at their workplace not involve women? Lets have some intellectual honestly please.

Dude, get it through your head already.

This is directly from the article:

After more prodding from Maloney, Issa turned to the heart of the dispute between himself and the Democrats on the committee.

"We are not having a hearing on the policies or the details related to the single issue of Obamacare and this particular mandate," he said, "This hearing is about religious freedom."
 
I'm not saying they should be intentionally excluded from a debate on whether or not they should have a right taken away from them (which isn't happening, whether the law goes into affect or not). What I'm saying is that this hearing had NOTHING to do with the women and EVERYTHING to do with the churches. When it's about women, let 'em come...whatever.

Ok - well she was asking them - the memebers of the church: why there weren't any women there.

So: what do women of the faith have to say? Maybe next time they'll bring a few along to explain things from a female perspective. Is the church afraid of this?
 
Ok - well she was asking them - the memebers of the church: why there weren't any women there.

So: what do women of the faith have to say? Maybe next time they'll bring a few along to explain things from a female perspective. Is the church afraid of this?

Should they also have included a proportionate number of representatives from all races present in this country as well?
 
Dude, get it through your head already.

This is directly from the article:

Oh so a guy said a discussion involving birth control for women doesn't concern women.... well then. That makes it not about women for sure.
 
Should they also have included a proportionate number of representatives from all races present in this country as well?

Are you unwilling or unable to have an honest intelligent discussion?
 
Oh so a guy said a discussion involving birth control for women doesn't concern women.... well then. That makes it not about women for sure.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The hearing is not about birth control for women, but rather about what the government can require of religious institutions within the confines of the constitutionally granted separation of church and state.

Should I type it in all caps? Bigger font? What do you need to help with your reading comprehension?
 
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The hearing is not about birth control for women, but rather about what the government can require of religious institutions within the confines of the constitutionally granted separation of church and state.

Should I type it in all caps? Bigger font? What do you need to help with your reading comprehension?



Oh so it just happens to be about birth control for women, but that's not important. Thanks for the clarification. Is that like how the discussions pre civil war weren't about slavery but about Property rights. It just so happened that the property in question were people held as slaves so their opinion wasn't really relevant?

lets just have an honest intelligent discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom