I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. There is misogyny and classism hiding behind the way a lot of people use religious dogma in fights like this. But the way to handle that issue is to, you know, address the issue. The whole question of what proportion of Catholic women accepted this doctrine in their lives was a distraction, and a dangerous one. And the claim that a woman testifying before the committee on an issue unrelated to the central point, are there religious freedom problems with the law, is also a dangerous distraction. It seems to say that is that witness had been allowed to testify, that the issues of sexism in religion would have been addressed.
Put it another way: the problem with the committee wasn't that it didn't look at the impact this law had on women's health. The problem was that it didn't address the central question, is this law forcing one group's moral or religious ideas on people who don't accept it? The gender of the people testifying is really irrelevant to that point.
(As I explained to Dwim above, I don't think this is a religious freedom issue. But acting like the "truth" of Catholic or any other group doctrine is decided by popular vote doesn't really prove that fact.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: I wish the mandate was for "well care" not "preventative care"
Date: 2012-02-26 09:41 pm (UTC)Put it another way: the problem with the committee wasn't that it didn't look at the impact this law had on women's health. The problem was that it didn't address the central question, is this law forcing one group's moral or religious ideas on people who don't accept it? The gender of the people testifying is really irrelevant to that point.
(As I explained to Dwim above, I don't think this is a religious freedom issue. But acting like the "truth" of Catholic or any other group doctrine is decided by popular vote doesn't really prove that fact.)