Where the Women Were During the House Contraception Mandate Hearing
The claim by the pro-Obamacare folks that contraception is "preventive care" is messing with the lexicon of medical definition. Quite simply, pregnancy is not a disease. So therefore, pregnancy does not require preventive care. Instead, it requires "diagnostic care" for the health of the mother and baby. This is something entirely different. We cannot succumb to the mantra that killing unborn children is preventive care.
As a woman, I was embarrassed by the cry of "Where are the women?" because I don't give a rip what gender is speaking about religious freedom as long as it is being addressed. It matters to us all—at least I thought it did. It certainly did to our Founding Fathers who penned the Constitution. And it certainly did to my ancestors who came to this country over a hundred years ago to find the freedom to exercise their faith in a robust and unencumbered way. Rep. Maloney's, and others', insistence that this is primarily a matter of "women's health" is an intentional (although I must say, masterful) attempt to redefine the argument, gain liberal momentum, and detract from the critical issue at hand.
Curiously, before the hearing there was apparently no great concern by the House minority on that committee to get a woman on the witness panel because they didn't make the effort to file the female witness' paperwork in time. The other witness they recommended was a man (who, incidentally, didn't show up). Not to mention that there was a woman (who objected to the HHS mandate) on the second panel of the discussion—but by then the "all male" photo had gone viral and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was already holding her own press conference in another wing to lead the charge of taking offense.
What those angry gals fail to realize is that as a Christian woman I was brilliantly represented on that House committee panel. In my first vocation as a Christian, I cheered the testimony of those brave men of the cloth because they represented me. They shared their concerns for the integrity of the free exercise of our faith traditions along with respect for the First Amendment of the Constitution. In my second vocation as a woman, I cheered again because that panel was filled with some of the finest theological leaders of our day. They made my case to congress and they did it exceptionally well. Other women concerned about the ability to maintain their choice to exercise their faith (without the interference of an over-reaching government) should cheer too.
Maggie Karner is the director of LCMS Life and Health Ministries.
Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
Christianity Today's earlier coverage of health care, contraception, life ethics, and politics includes:
Obama Does Not Widen Religious Exemption for Contraceptive Mandate | The burden to cover contraception shifts to the insurance companies, but an earlier exemption for religious groups will not change. (Feb. 10, 2012)
First They Came for the Catholics: Obama's Contraceptive Mandate | An open letter to evangelical Christians. By Timothy George and Chuck Colson (Feb. 8, 2012)
The Latest in Movie News, May 23, 2013
God Among the Roma
Grieving with the Good Friday God
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 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.