Tell us whether you feel these panels making choices on women's reproductive rights are missing a crucial something
I want you to look at the following photographs and think about what they represent for a minute or two. Take your time – can you think of anything missing from them?
The first one shows nine US legislators standing behind George W Bush in 2003 as he signs the partial-birth abortion ban. The law, as signed by the president, prohibited a specific form of late-term abortion occurring between 15 to 26 weeks. Note that, as NPR's health correspondent Julie Rovner explains, the term "partial birth" is not a medical term, but a politicised one – coined by the National Right to Life Committee .
The second photograph was taken on Thursday during a US Congress hearing on birth control. The house committee on oversight and government reform was tasked to assemble a panel of "experts" to debate access to birth control. Those experts – acting as representatives of their faiths – argued against requiring insurers to cover birth control for employees of religiously affiliated organisations, as it would violate their religious freedom. They also contended that methods of contraception including morning-after pills and IUDs were "abortifacients": they prevent sperm from reaching, or fertilising, an egg during sexual intercourse. The photograph shows, from left to right: Catholic bishop of Bridgeport, Rev William E Lori; president of the Lutheran church (Missouri Synod) Rev Matthew C Harrison; Graves professor of moral philosophy at Union University, C Ben Mitchell; associate rabbi at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik; and chair of the ethics department at Southwestern Baptist theological seminary, Craig Mitchell.
Still not seeing what's a bit off with these? The omission I am referring to, of course, is women. In both photographs, it is men who, while involved in making decisions on women's reproductive rights, will never have to undergo an abortion, or – bar vasectomies – use medicalised forms of birth control. It is women's bodies that are being passionately debated, yet they are nowhere to be seen. It's not just the political sphere, either: BBC Radio 4's Today programme was recently criticised for hosting a debate on abortion in which a male presenter asked two male experts for their views.
Away from the pro choice and anti-choice camps (if you are interested in this debate, we have plenty on offer), I'm interested in hearing readers' thoughts on this. Is it necessary for women to sit on expert panels, policy committees and hearings, or are male politicians and religious representatives as capable of discussing the nuances and consequences of such laws? If you are an religious woman (pro- or anti-choice), what are your thoughts on this lack of inclusion – do you trust your spiritual leaders to make the right choice with enough empathy, or do you worry that without first-hand experience, they might not be able to advocate for women as well as female experts could?
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree