GOP Invites Five Men To Testify On Women's Health

I am a man and I am OFFENDED by this. I see this panel as a Christian Taliban. this is what they do in countries like Afghanistan & Iran. You go to the religious leaders for advice on health issues? What about doctors or women? This is amazing.

GOP women are weak, self-hating individuals who let men speak for their rights. This is unbelievable.

I'm a Catholic, a Republican, and very pro-life. But I do believe that since this is literally about women's health, there should have been women there. There are plenty of pro-life and pro-choice women and men. It doesn't make sense to me. It needs to change.

Rep.Pelosi,we need more politicians like you who truly care for the people.

I too was very offended at 5 men making choices for womens health,and none of them have a clue of the truth.

Damn, I can't help but love this woman! "I may, at some point, be moved to explain biology to my colleagues." She's the only Democrat who actually punches back at the Republicans with the same force that they deliver.

I do have my facts straight (cont. 2)

5) If providing contraceptives "for free" really saved insurance companies money, then they would have covered it a long time ago without a government mandate.

I do have my facts straight (cont.)

3) In his announcement (February 10th) the President said, "no religious institution will have to provide these services DIRECTLY." Note the key word "directly." In saying it this way the president is acknowledging that religious institutions will be forced to provide them indirectly.

4) Q. Where do insurance companies get the money to pay for services from? A. PREMIUMS! So institutions who pay the premiums will, indirectly, pay for "contraceptives".

I do have my facts straight.

1) The "Accommodation" announced by the President, on February 10th 2012, was not actually implemented in the final rule. The original, August 1st 2011, rule was filed in the Federal Register unchanged.

2) Many religious organizations self insure, so they will directly pay for it, (even IF the "accommodation" is ever implemented) because they are the insurance provider.

It is NOT a women's health issue. No one is saying these women cannot use birth control birth or even have abortions if they want them. The issue is does the President have the constitutional authority to force religious institutions to provide them against their own beliefs. This is the President using the healthcare law for political purposes.

If the Federal Government determines that women have a "right" to these devices and drugs, then the Federal Government should pay for them; not religious organizations. If they do that then this becomes pretty much a non-issue for the Church.

By the way, the definition of "contraception" that I used above is not mine, it comes from medical dictionaries.

Nor is the Federal Government a religious authority and by the same First Amendment is not allowed to interfere with the free exercise of religion. This is not a situation of the church dictating to the government nor is the church deciding what rights people should have. What is happening with this mandate is the Federal Government is dictating to the Church how it must run its affairs by making a rule that would require religious organizations violate their beliefs.

My church only objects to drugs and devices that destroy the fertilized embryo. Some devices and drugs that the FDA has labeled contraceptives are not, they are really abortifacients (abortion causing). If you look at the very word "contraception" it is a contraction of the words "contra" (against) and "conception" (fertilization). In order for something to truly be a contraceptive it would have to prevent fertilization, not destroy what has been already fertilized.