Women’s Health and Contraception Experts Testify to Congress at Request of GOP
February 16, 2012 2 Comments
Five Transsexual MDs/Ministers Testify Before Congress
Now, before all my liberal readers jump to conclusions, I have been able to find little to no information about these five men. There were actually nine men scheduled to testify in this hearing led by Congressman Darrell Issa. It is about the intersection of – some would say conflict between – religious liberty and a woman’s need for available, affordable contraception. It’s difficult, from the photo, even to make out the names of these five who are testifying, so Googling to learn about them is impossible.
We could, of course, assume that these are all misogynists, representatives of the most patriarchal, fundamentalist branches of their respective religion. But we don’t know that. The fact that they are all men of the cloth does not preclude the possibility that they are each medical doctors and post-op transsexuals as well. We just don’t know. How the GOP could find nine transsexual MDs who are ALSO religious leaders is a story I hope will soon be told. I’m not saying that all of them are post-op transsexual MD ministers. Maybe only a plurality of them are. Or just a few. That would be more likely, even in a nation of over 300 million. It’s possible, I suppose, that none of them are, but that is highly unlikely. What would be the point of having nine natural born men, some of whom may be celibate – or even pedophiles, for Christ’s sake – testify about the intercourse between contraception and dogma, if the only thing they know about preventing conception is avoiding sex, or only having sex with those who are not likely to make you pregnant? That would be absurd or, potentially, obscene.
About John McAndrew
Your story here is intellectually dishonest! It totally fails to to acknowledge the fact that this hearing was about the moral outrage of government intrusion into religious liberty. THIS, oh intellectually dishonest one…IS their qualifications. The “item” of the discussion, does not make it necessary to include representation from every “woman’s rights” group in existence, because it’s NOT about “woman’s rights!” It’s about RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!
Suggesting otherwise is the same as demanding that every gun rights advocate should testify, when the issue of the hearing is about allowing killers that use guns, go free. The issue isn’t about guns, it’s about putting the public in danger by allowing killers to walk! It’s apples and oranges..DUH! The fact that you rely so heavily upon the utter ignorance of your readers is very telling indeed!
Thanks for reading and commenting, Aloyicous. I did, in fact, acknowledge the religious liberty issue. Where we differ, evidently, is that you believe that that is the only issue. Of course those with the power always want to dictate the terms of a discussion. If you wish to limit what answers may be heard, dictate what questions may be asked. As you can tell from the general population’s response to this hearingg, those efforts were found to be ludicrous at best in this case. There ARE other issues at play here. Notably, women’s freedom to choose whether to use contraception or not. If contraceptives are unavailable, as these clerics and congresspeople wish,then women are deprived of that choice. Many women ar evidently uncomfortable with that probable result of these men making decisions with such a narrow focus that does not take into account the beliefs of others.
It is, of course, a topic worthy of more serious discussion than I attempted in my broad, one may say arch, treatment here. The principle is easy: one person or group’s freedom ends when it impinges on teh freedom of another. In this case, applying the principle is challenging: either way we go, someone’s freedom is impinged. We need to uncover other principles that can serve us in such cases.