The Women That Testified to Congress that Planned Parenthood Missed?

They’re right here, folks. Did you have any friends, relatives, or acquaintances plaster the photograph from Planned Parenthood claiming no women testified to Congress on the HHS Mandate on their Facebook walls? Or how about Planned Parenthood’s President Cecile Richards’ statement chastising Congress for not allowing “a single woman” to testify? I know I did.

But the truth is, a picture isn’t always worth a thousand words. Because the fact that several women did testify to Congressman Issa’s panel was ignored, see, because they are Pro-Life. Lifesite News has the scoop,

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 17, 2012, ( – Although two pro-life women testified before a Congressional panel investigating whether the Obama administration had crossed a dangerous line violating the freedom of religion with its birth control mandate, the president of Planned Parenthood led a chorus of pro-abortion activists in asking, “Where are the women?”

On Thursday, the House Oversight Committee chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa called the two women, who work for Christian universities, before a hearing titled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, the senior vice president for academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University, and Dr. Laura Champion, the medical director at Calvin College Health Services, were two of ten witnesses who said the government mandate requiring religious institutions such as theirs to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs violated the First Amendment.

Politico noticed them too, you know, after Nancy Pelosi also decried the dearth of women testifying to the panel. Before you go read the rest over at Lifesite News, here is the video of their statements, fast forwarded to their testimony.

Awkward. Links to the transcript of Dr. Garrett’s statement, as well as that of Dr. Champion’s.

Maintain an even strain.

  • Ellen

    Tell that to Commonweal Catholics, who are hot on it:

  • deltaflute

    “In the latest example how out of touch House Republican leaders are on women’s health, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is holding a congressional hearing to oppose insurance coverage for contraception, yet not allowing a single woman to testify in support of the benefit.”

    I think the whole point was that there wasn’t a woman testifying as to why they would be in favor of the coverage. Unless I’m misunderstanding her words.

    Where there any women in favor of the mandate there to testify?

  • Faith Roberts

    The trouble is that these pro-abortion/contraception women can’t stand that other women, who have minds of their own and are well educated and intelligent, disagree with their assertion that this is all about men trying to control women. I’ve had these women tell me to my face that is what it’s all about. I say what am I? A potted plant??? I don’t want somebody to ‘control’ me yet I don’t believe in contraception/abortion. They actually diss and insult other women all the time and can’t even acknowledge it. So of course they didn’t notice the two women testifying. They can’t take reality!

    And if you’ll permit me to rant a bit here, another thing I’ve seen popping up is the argument that men just want to keep their women pregnant so they can assert control over them. WHAT???? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard or seen marital discord because the mother wants another the child but the husband is too worried about finances. I swear I personally know of about 6 cases of this scenario. Most men are pretty nervous about having lots of kids to support. I know that from my own husband that was truly a scary thing for him to overcome. And also not using contraception requires more self control on the man’s part as well as the woman. It truly is an equalizer. Both spouses must be on the same page. So it isn’t men controlling women, it is men controlling themselves.

    There. I feel better now. Thank you.

  • MaryLupin Tailfeather

    The first (all male) picture was the first panel. Once that happened women were justifiably upset. The picture you have posted was from the second panel. As a thing of interest Dr Garrett was originally on the witness list, but Dr. Champion was added just before the panel convened. What that means, don’t know.

    • Ken Howes

      It means absolutely zero. The issue in this dispute is not birth control. No one will be fired for going out and getting contraceptives. The issue is–must churches pay for contraceptives and abortifacients? And I suspect that those who are defending the administration, if pushed, would say that the right to abortion trumps the right of churches to uphold their doctrine. We saw that happen with adoption services in Massachusetts. Liberals prefer that the state lose the adoption placement services of Catholic Charities and Lutheran Child and Family Services than back off a requirement that they knew was offensive to the Catholic and Lutheran churches.

  • Faith Roberts

    Why were women justifiably upset??? Because only women understand the First Amendment? This is not a male vs. female issue. Planned Parenthood and its legions frame it that way so they scream bigot and feel all victimized because they won’t be able to get free sterilization from certain employers. The issue is whether the federal government is violating the free exercise of religion by insisting that those who morally object to contraception, sterilization and abortifacients based on the central doctrines of their religion should be forced to pay for them.

  • Amy C.

    This article is misleading. There were no women on the first panel. The women were on a second panel. This is still not representative of women’s voices, by any means.

    • hooter

      First panel composed the senior clergy who those denominations which are against this mandate on Religious Liberty grounds under the 1st amendment…. I’m sure the Cardinals will be more than willing to bring the Nuns of the various orders out for examination such as the Sisters of Charity if you wish to drill down.. As tow George Soros backed groups such as Catholics United, they DO NOT set church tenets.. Nor are they part of the church or its institutions.
      As for Pelosi, Kerry, and Biben.. They are self-excommunicated from the Catholic church..

  • Kelly

    Let’s face it… the libs would spin this as “anti-women” even if the majority of people on the panel were female. Because we all know that people with male parts are completely unable to represent the opinions of women, and vice versa . Look, I was wonderfully represented by that first panel, and so were the voices of millions of other women who are concerned that their First Amendment rights would be violated by this mandate. When will common sense prevail?

  • Karen

    Funny, the idea of this particular series of comments is based on the photo which is SUPPOSED to be the idea that lies were told about the makeup of the panel in that women were actually on the panel but since they were pro-life they were not included in the media or the general argument. Once that “lie” is brought to life by telling you all that the SECOND panel was the one with women added that then you switch the subject. The fact is the initial panel had no women on it, the second one did only after WOMEN complained. Get over yourselves.

  • Frank Weathers

    The second panel took place on the same day as the first panel. A magic wand wasn’t waved because of protests to make women suddenly appear. They were invited to appear when the initial panels were convened. Those are the facts.