Three Democrats walked out of a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on religious liberty and the birth control rule on Thursday to protest Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) refusal to allow a progressive woman to testify in favor of the Obama administration’s contraception rule. The morning panel at the hearing consisted exclusively of men from conservative religious organizations.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), told reporters in the hallway outside the hearing that she marched out because it was being conducted like an “autocratic regime.” The other members who left were Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.).

There are 10 witnesses testifying at Thursday’s hearing. None of those individuals — listed as testifying prior to hearing — are in favor of the Obama administration’s birth control rule, and few are women.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was listed as a witness for the hearing, but Simon Brown, a spokesman for Americans United, told The Huffington Post that Lynn will not be testifying. (He will, however, be submitting written testimony to the committee.)

Democrats say they tried to invite another witness — a young woman — to testify, but were blocked by Republicans.

Issa said at the hearing that he rejected the Democrats’ female witness, Sandra Fluke, because, as a Georgetown University law student who “appears to have become energized over this issue,” she was “not appropriate or qualified.” He said that in lieu of allowing her to speak at the hearing, he instructed his staff to post a video online of Fluke speaking at a previous press conference.

The Huffington Post, “House Democrats Walk Out of One-Sided Hearing on Contraception, Calling It an ‘Autocratic Regime.”

So much for this.

(via inothernews)

I…just…have…so much…rage

(via techsgtjenn)

“The morning panel at the hearing consisted excusively of men from conservative religious organizations.”

(via lesbo-a-gogo)

(via ellewoodsinthetardis)

  02/16/12 at 09:38am
  1. outofashirise reblogged this from brysonisgood
  2. jowanarizza reblogged this from inothernews
  3. missyankovic reblogged this from carpecumberbatch
  4. loungejulius reblogged this from seriouslyamerica
  5. ashesaoirse reblogged this from abaldwin360
  6. tinaalsgirl reblogged this from carpecumberbatch
  7. lunaticprophet reblogged this from seriouslyamerica
  8. dancinginthetrees reblogged this from someauthorgirl
  9. moneekagruh reblogged this from seriouslyamerica
  10. dantime reblogged this from inothernews
  11. michellecathleen reblogged this from inothernews
  12. politicsis reblogged this from inothernews
  13. folkandfemme reblogged this from seriouslyamerica and added:
    This is so shitty. “She’s not qualified” Bullshit! She’s a law student, you’re discussing a law. “She’s too involved in...
  14. likeamanatee reblogged this from seriouslyamerica
  15. kinkyturtle reblogged this from seriouslyamerica
  16. seriouslyamerica reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  17. mythryndil reblogged this from inothernews
  18. secondclasscitizenfornow reblogged this from thesoapboxschtick
  19. rootsofunity reblogged this from inothernews
  20. anotherseason reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  21. dontrunfromthelight reblogged this from severin
  22. someauthorgirl reblogged this from severin and added:
    The “not qualified” argument I find interesting.* What made these random religious men “qualified” to speak about...
  23. severin reblogged this from maibeitsmayberlline
  24. maibeitsmayberlline reblogged this from inothernews
  25. darkandtwistyrandomness reblogged this from inothernews
  26. joeybear reblogged this from inothernews
  27. fandomfairy reblogged this from wickedpencils
  28. gitraba reblogged this from thesoapboxschtick and added:
    …And is anybody going to be doing anything about this?!
  29. thesoapboxschtick reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president