Women must be represented on contraception panel

Rep. Joe Walsh says it’s “not about women.”

Rick Santorum says it’s “not about contraception.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte says it’s “not a women’s rights issue.”

So, for some religious groups and conservative Catholics and politicians, it makes sense that there were no women on the House panel  that heard testimony regarding Obama’s recent decisions on contraception last Thursday.

Under the new plan, religious institutions that buy group insurance must choose plans that provide coverage for contraception (although the insurance companies, and not religious institutions themselves, will pay for the coverage).

And though the panel did hear testimony from two women, both women opposed the new policy, and this does not change the bleak fact that there were no women on the panel.

If it’s not about women or women’s rights or contraception, then what is it about?

Opponents of the decision are decrying it as an “outrageous violation of ... religious freedom,” as one conservative rabbi put it, an instance of the government blatantly infringing basic rights of freedom of conscience and religion.

However, none of the decision’s adversaries seem to think providing discriminatory health coverage (e.g., in denying women coverage for contraception if they work for a religiously affiliated organization) is an outrageous violation of women’s freedom.

All of this really makes one wonder what the women who would be affected by the policy think.

Frankly, when arguments are being made about religious liberties, those involved should make sure they’re observing individual liberties first and foremost — for example, ensuring groups (such as women) are represented on issues that affect them deeply (such as contraceptive coverage).

Without even delving into the wealth of arguments about individual liberties and institutional attempts to control people’s bodies through prohibition or active denial of contraception, it’s clear just by looking at the downright unrepresentative panel last Thursday that some fundamental individual liberties are being overlooked and crucial voices are being left out of the conversation.

Both sides want to assert what they believe this issue is really about — with conservatives generally saying it’s about government intrusion in religious liberty, and liberals saying it’s about protecting individuals’ right to health care.

The fact is, it’s about both.

We have a freedom from religion just as much as we have a freedom to religion. Americans have been debating rights of individual conscience, religion and government since the nation’s founding.

And how can one really know what an issue’s about when the most important voices are missing from the picture entirely?