I have made very clear to my family, friends, and anyone who will listen, where I stand on the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision: Employers should not have the right to dictate which types of health care their employees’ compensatory health insurance benefits will and will not cover merely because of “sincerely-held” yet scientifically inaccurate beliefs. The Court’s decision is a skewed interpretation of “religious freedom.”
.
In response to the ruling, I have spoken out and encouraged readers to lift their heads and continue fighting (for an issue that should have been long-settled by 2014). Since the ruling was issued, hundreds of thousands of women have actively joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent. Because we made our voices heard, Senators and Representatives introduced the “The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act” bill, which would effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s decision. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this bill, like most bills introduced these days, did not pass. This is especially predictable when women hold only 17% of seats in Congress.
.
As we approach mid-term elections, I raise my voice because I understand the importance of public opinion when it comes to shaping policy. This is why it is so important to me that the public understands the many layers of this issue and has accurate information with which to form its opinion. Unfortunately, there is still a ton of misinformation (or lack of understanding) out there about the ACA birth control mandate, birth control in general, and the importance of legal precedent. Some of the following misconceptions are sillier than others, but I have heard all of them, multiple times, from supporters of the recent Court ruling. Battling these falsehoods is essential to our fight.
.
“Obamacare allows the government to control women’s sexual health decisions.”
Simply – no. The ACA mandates that the employee insurance plans offered by employers (with the exception of non-profit religious institutions) include coverage for all preventative and curative reproductive health care treatments, including contraceptives. As with all other medications however, employees are in no way required to use contraceptives simply because they are covered by their health insurance.
.
“Obamacare forces employers to pay for birth control.”
First of all, employers do not directly pay for employees’ medications; they pay for their health insurance, which pays for the medication. As I have said before, people forget that this employer-provided health insurance is earned. Women work for their employment benefits; these benefits are not “handouts” from their employers. A woman’s boss isn’t “paying for her birth control” by providing her with the health insurance benefits that she has earned any more than he is paying for her groceries by providing her with the paycheck that she has earned. We never hear, “You need cholesterol medication? Pay for it yourself!” We know that health insurance is an earned benefit in this context, and the only reason some people draw a distinction for birth control coverage is because it relates to women’s sexuality.
.
“Birth control is not a necessary part of health care.”
It’s easy for the judgmental and self-righteous to claim that medication related to women’s sexuality is not necessary or important. But birth control coverage matters for everyone. It’s important for the 99% of sexually active women in America who use it, and their partners. It’s important for Americans who wish to see drops in teen pregnancy rates, and the prevention of abortion. It’s important for Americans who want to see an end to child poverty, neglect, and death. It’s important for Americans who dislike their tax dollars supporting the impoverished population that results from unintended pregnancies. Birth control is an important part of health care for all Americans, not just sexually promiscuous girls who want lots of “consequence free sex.”
.
“The Supreme Court only created an exception for employers who don’t believe in the types of birth control that cause abortion.”
Wrong again. None of the four types of birth control considered in Hobby Lobby actually cause abortion. If the Court gives more weight to a “sincerely held” yet scientifically-inaccurate belief than to earned employee benefits and federal employment laws, what types of beliefs can courts hold do NOT outweigh employee rights and federal laws? Can a Jewish or Muslim employer refuse to allow their employees’ health benefits to extend to medications which contain pig co-products? At least it is scientifically correct that many pills are coated with this substance which they believe should not be consumed by humans. The Court cannot attribute credibility to only the beliefs held by Christians or by substantial chunks of the population without being in direct violation of the First Amendment, so there is [now] no legal limit as to what “beliefs” employers may use as a guise for refusing employee benefits.
.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling was very narrow.”
As an individual well-versed in Supreme Court case law, this statement particularly troubles me. Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains better than I could how this decision is one of “startling breadth,” and for anyone with some level of legal education this is hard to deny. While, yes, the holding of this case applies to just one company and four types of birth control, the case’s legal importance comes from the precedent it sets – the legal “rule.” As of June 30, 2014, all 108 Federal Courts across the U.S. must now abide by the principle that closely-held corporations (which employ about 52% of America’s workforce) have religious beliefs, and if those religious beliefs conflict with federal labor laws, the benefits earned by its employees can be revoked. The popular belief that this case only allows employers to constitutionally deny certain types of benefits could not be further from truth (see above). Even my conservative colleagues well-versed in the law don’t pretend this Supreme Court decision will have small effects.
.
Though I find the amount of ignorance surrounding the ruling disheartening, I am revitalized by the public’s disapproval of the Judicial Opinion in large part. In 40 days we can make that disapproval mean something. The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong before, and it only takes time for their incorrect decisions to be overturned. But for the sake of the millions of women potentially affected, I implore you to vote this November to create a Congress with the capacity to #FixHobbyLobby sooner rather than later.
Reason For Progress 