7/2/14

Feminist Rant II: Because I have to

I can't have a feminist rant one week and then say nothing when the Supreme Court passes a sweepingly stupid judgment that affects reproductive rights.  So here comes another rant, but first let's get our facts straight.

1. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled against a provision in the Affordable Care Act that mandated that the health care businesses provide employees must include access to no-copay birth control. Religious nonprofits and churches are already excluded from that mandate.

2. The Supreme Court sided with two plaintiffs, including a closely-held single family corporation called Hobby Lobby, who had argued that provided birth control violated their freedom to practice religion. In point of fact, the issue for the Hobby Lobby wasn't birth control per se, but forms of birth control that they believe are types of early abortion, such as The Morning After Pill.

4. The ruling is strictly limited to contraception and cannot be used to justify exempting things like blood transfusions, vaccines, or psychiatry, which other religions may oppose.

5. For more specifics look http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/30/327065968/hobby-lobby-ruling-cuts-into-contraceptive-mandate

Ok. I'll keep the rant brief because others have written plenty on this already.

1. I respect religious liberty, but if this were really about religious liberty than why clarify that this cannot apply to other things, like those blood transfusions? Why is religious liberty when it comes to reproduction considered more sacred than religious liberty when it comes to blood?

2. I know that in the US corporations are considered the legal equivalent of people, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that corporations can hold religious opinions? Here's a thought: Once my girls turned 13 I was no longer allowed to email their pediatricians because my right to parent butted up against their rights to privacy. If my girls are on birth control it is secret from me--no matter what my religious beliefs may be. How come a parent can't even know if her daughter is on birth control but an employer in Oklahoma can effectively control the birth control choices of his/her employees by effectively controlling their affordability?

3. Don't think for one minute that this is not about women. This is one more in a countless line of stands that says women's lives are defined by their ability to reproduce. They are SO defined by that function a pill that keeps an egg from sticking to the side of the uterine wall is seen by some as the equivalent of a bullet in a baby's head.

4. From where I stand, from what I see, there is palatable aggression against women for being women. The aggression of those five judges who cling to their activist conservative agenda was big, so we are all up in arms. But most aggressions fly low under the radar and most of us fly ride along with them every single day. Every day somebody says you must be mad because "it's your time of the month," you were punched in the face. Every day somebody makes fun of Taylor Swift's many boy friends (as opposed to any male rock star's girlfriends) you've been punched in the face. Every day a TV shows celebrates hook up culture, you've been punched in the face.

5. When you are punched in the face, you do not smile and laugh. So don't smile and laugh when someone punches you in the face.

10 comments:

Cathy Perlmutter said...

Right. On. Sister.
I wish there was a Hobby Lobby around here that I could march in front of.
Or a Supreme Court.
Grrrrr.

Heather said...

We can never forget -- this is what they wanted to do to us for saying we ought to be able to vote.

Desiree said...

The patriarchy is way at work here. We need to remember this in 2016

Daisy said...

speak up - speak out. Revive Helen Reddy's song: "I am Woman" and sing it loud. Raise a ruckus.

Ms M said...

I agree!

Petrea Burchard said...

Although the Court's decision doesn't apply to blood transfusions or psychiatry, I believe this is a gateway decision.

I agree that the Supreme Court's decision is clearly anti-woman. I wonder what will happen when other companies come demanding that health coverage apply to their religious beliefs as well, and the Court has to legislate against, say, blood transfusions. Men get blood transfusions, right?

Bellis said...

Well said: "A pill that keeps an egg from sticking to the side of the uterine wall is seen by some as the equivalent of a bullet in a baby's head." This is very anti-woman, and it makes me mad. The old men on the Supreme Court (are they all Catholics?) have allowed their religious beliefs to obstruct their ability to make an impartialjudgement. I agree with Petrea, it'll open the floodgates.

Olga Hebert said...

I do not have a Hobby Lobby nearby in VT so I am glad to be in Florida now just so I can drive by Hobby Lobby and not stop to shop.

Most of my discretionary spending is on hobby supplies and Hobby Lobby gets none of it. Ever. It is a religious principle with me.

Bellis said...

When this judgement came out I kept hearing the reporters on KPCC saying Havi Lavi, so I googled to see what kind of company it was. Didn't find it, of course. My English ears need tuning to American.

Pasadena Adjacent said...

Not a legal scholar but the fact that the three women on the bench voted against it was all I needed to know.

'killer' line about the baby and bullet