Where the Women Were During the House Contraception Mandate Hearing
Thursday's House Oversight Committee hearing on the Obama administration's contraception coverage mandate sparked a lot of discussion on religious freedom and conscience. It also sparked a lot of discussion on who gets to speak for whom.
"What I want to know is: Where are the women?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) demanded before she walked out in protest. A photo of five men testifying before the panel quickly circulated on social network sites. At the Washington Post website today, Susan Thistlethwaite picked up on the theme: "Where is women's religious freedom and freedom of conscience?" she wrote. "Women can only conclude from this skewed panel that the chairman does not think they are created equally in God's image, and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights."
I would agree with Thistlethwaite that indeed, women are created equally, and given inalienable rights. Women, of course, deserve religious freedom. But I disagree with her suggestion that religious freedoms differ for men and women. Or, as she suggests, that that religious freedom is based upon an individual's conscience.
"In virtually all religious traditions, 'listening to the heart' and being able to act on the promptings of conscience is the absolute, non-negotiable bottom line for having religious freedom," she wrote.
But "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" makes for poor consciences and bad law. There is a good reason why U.S. courts' decisions on religious free exercise take into account actual religious teachings rather than arbitrary, personal definitions of what is right and wrong. My faith tradition has thousands of years of historical doctrine that richly informs all of our moral and ethical decision-making. Some of it is about the role of men and women—and most of it finds gender differences irrelevant. It is about humanity as a whole. Our faith is not about petty biological differences and personal egos. It is about the salvation of the entire human race. Anything that forces us to act contrary to the dictates of our faith is an affront to all that our forefathers had designed and for which our men (and women) have fought.
Honestly, I should have expected the angry blowback yesterday from the feminist crowd regarding the "all-male" panel. The outcry caused me to step back and admire an adept strategy by some to throw a red herring in the way of public disputation and detract from the real issue of concern.
As a Christian woman, I applauded this discussion by the House oversight committee on threats to our freedom of religion. Silly me: Who knew this (and every other topic under God) must be primarily about exclusively women's rights? Silly me: I thought this was about my freedom to exercise my religious beliefs in a way that honors my faith tradition's historical doctrines and practice. Silly me: I thought this was about the Constitution.
I work for a self-insured religious employer. In fact, I work for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which was represented on the panel by the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, president of our 2.5 million-member national denomination. For years my family and I have been covered by our church's insurance plan, which has never provided contraception or birth control in its coverage. Our health plan doesn't cover these products because our church body values the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception, and because the mechanism of action for the various categories of hormonal birth control products can be unclear. Rather than guesstimate on what classifies as an early abortifacient and what doesn't, our health plan doesn't cover any form of contraception in order to protect the consciences of the many members of this plan who might share different ideas. I never expected our insurance plan to cover a drug that, to me, seemed a matter of personal choice. After all, they don't cover my vitamins either.
The 'Handicap Icon' Gets New Life
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Not part of the community? Subscribe now, or register for a free account.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Join the Conversation
Displaying 1–5 of 14 comments
See all comments
Jim Begley
Maggie, it is great that you felt well represented by the religious men on this panel, but would a 22 year old non-Christian single mom feel the same way? If you choose not to practice contraception, good on you but if your organization wants to interact with Americas society by hiring its citizens you will have to honor society's social contracts. Christians need to stop asking governments to make exceptions for them and remember that our beliefs are personal and do not match society's.
Chuck Weigel
Does Ms. Karner understand that the health care ruling governing churches and contraception still permits her church's self-insurance plan to disallow contraceptive medications? If she does her article does not state so, leading some to misinterpret the ruling. By the way the ruling does permit religious institutions to openly state their position on abortion and contraception. They are free to send information about their position and why they oppose these prescriptions to all insured. But in the end, whether women were on the Congressional panel or not, health care is about the patient and not the employer who enters into a contract to provide that care to him or her.
Jennie Pappas
I cannot fathom the depths to which the right wing has stooped to curry votes. Catholic institutions in 28 states have been covering contraception for years now without any objections. 98% of Catholic women have used birth control in disobedience to their church's teaching. Are they in any way penalized by the church for doing so? Are they not exercising their religious liberty? Does the hierarchy now want the US Government to enforce their religious law on their women? Is this not a form of Sharia law being advocated? Last year the Pope said he thought a condom might be useful to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.The church does allow two forms of birth control, the rhythm method or what is called "Vatican Roulette" and abstinence.
Mark Richeson
Pastor Harrison articulated the LC-MS position perfectly. Use of abortion inducing drugs or devices is simply in direct violation of God's command and therefore violates our deeply held doctrines and beliefs. Mrs. Karner could have spoken just as well. Had she been the witness instead perhaps her gender would have stilled the critics but I doubt it. Pelosi, et al would have discounted her testimony, just as we have seen here, because it doesn't agree with their opinion. So the question really was not, "Where are the women?" but instead, "Where are the liberal women?"
F. Christopher Anderson
I am so happy with the last five comments that have questioned the content of this opinion piece. It encourages me that there are evangelicals who are actually doing some critical thinking instead of goose stepping to a certain political agenda while not taking time to listen to differing opinions. Thank you, Robert, Christine, Anju & Lonny. It is especially hurtful when people who praise Jesus as Lord & Savior go against his prayer in John 1721, "...that may all may be one...so that the world may believe that you have sent me." This partisanship hurts the proclamation of the gospel. Instead of living John 17, political leaders encourage partisan believers to paint other Christians as non-Christians who are seeking to attack Christians. One must recall that no matter what one's politics may be we all have to stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ. At that time we will have to answer why we treated other Christians in such an unchristian manner.