Stronger than misconceptions and misogyny: How we can fight back against “Hobby Lobby” – NOW

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.

What the Supreme Court’s upcoming “Hobby Lobby” decision means for me – and maybe you, too.

Next week, the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, the case in which owners of a for-profit craft store argue that the provision of the Affordable Care Act which require employers to provide contraceptive health insurance coverage for their female employees violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The statutory claims and legal issues at stake are well-outlined here:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/waiting-for-the-supreme-court-on-the-hobby-lobby-decision.html

Unfortunately for the many women who will be affected by this decision, the Hobby Lobby case is engulfed in highly-politicized issues such as the validity of “Obamacare,” the notion of “separation of church and state,” and reproductive healthcare. It is unlikely that the owners of Hobby Lobby would have much chance of success in this case, had they been Jehovah’s Witnesses who wanted to restrict their employees’ access to blood transfusions, or Christian Scientists who wanted to restrict their employees’ access to any medical treatment. Instead, they fall into the majority religious group – Christianity – and are opposed to a healthcare law initiated by President Obama which is connected to the hot button issue of sexuality. Thus, even though the three female Justices on the Court have indicated their intent to rule in favor of women’s health, I fear that certain Justices’ desires to make a point on connected political issues will prevent them from doing the same.

I will be anxiously awaiting the Hobby Lobby ruling because it will have an impact on my own life, in addition to the lives of many other women. At the risk of being slut-shamed, I feel that empathy for those affected by a Supreme Court decision makes it easier to grasp the importance and potential impact of the decision, politics aside. So here’s my personal story.

Yes, I use contraceptives – along with 62% of American women. Before the ACA (or as it’s more commonly known, “Obamacare”) went into effect, the cost of my birth control was about $80 a month – almost $1,000 a year – because my insurance company did not cover the particular type I use. Some might have suggested I simply “find a different type,” but as most woman who have used birth control know, it’s not that simple for many reasons which I will save for another day.

As I quickly learned, $1,000 per year for birth control simply isn’t feasible for a full-time student with no income. Fortunately, when I lived in Pennsylvania I qualified for a state program called SelectPlan to help me afford it. This secondary insurance program allowed me to not only obtain birth control at a reasonable cost, but also to have regular check-ups to ensure that my blood pressure and reproductive cycle remained stable and healthy.

I was quite distressed upon moving to Las Vegas for law school when I discovered that a similar program does not exist in Nevada. For over a year, I was left with no choice but to sacrifice either my preventative reproductive health care or my already shaky fiscal stability. It was a huge relief when ACA went into effect this past winter, and I was finally able to get birth control through my insurance company. Now I can make sure I’m being safe without having to worry about breaking the bank. All American women should be able to do the same.

My insurance company’s original denial to cover for my birth control may or may not have been for religious reasons, but the upcoming Supreme Court decision has the potential to again restrict my access to birth control. A decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would strike down the provision of the ACA which requires employee health plans to include contraceptive coverage, opening the door for employers to deny coverage to their employees for any reason, be it religiously or economically motivated.

It is imperative that the United States government protect the rights of employees and their families to necessary and preventative healthcare, especially in consideration of the national economic and social importance of preventative and reproductive healthcare. It should be obvious that one boss’s Constitutional right to religious freedom and his own personal religious beliefs cannot be reasonably interpreted by the Court to allow him to dictate the healthcare to which other Americans may have access. All one has to do to recognize this faulty logic is imagine the same scenario, but with a different religious group trying to restrict a different type of right. A ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would set a dangerous precedent, allowing employers to cite religious reasons to refuse to follow other federal laws intended to protect the rights and interests of employees.

At least two of the male Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court must realize this. But then again, four of them recently attempted to rule that people should be allowed to lie about their identity on federal forms when purchasing a gun, so I can’t help but worry.

 

A plea for reason: Thoughts on Bowe Bergdahl

I am frequently distressed by the way that, once people accept propaganda as true, it’s nearly impossible to convince them to see anything objectively which might vary from their beliefs. In the age of information, public opinion can so easily be swayed by rumors and false information before reports of truth come to the surface, creating a huge setback in the productivity of political discourse. In the case of POW, Bowe Bergdahl, I’m particularly disturbed by many current public sentiments. After 5 years of imprisonment on the other side of the world, a soldier comes home, not to be welcomed, but to be vilified because of a stream of speculative accusations for which little factual support exists, arguably ignited by little more than an irrational hatred for the president who initiated his release.

On the one hand, I absolutely believe that it generates legitimate foreign policy discussion to question the practice of trading members of the Taliban in exchange for American hostages. However, those who claim this is an unprecedented outrage must be unaware that the policy of the U.S. has ALWAYS been to never leave a soldier behind, and that because the 5 released prisoners were members of the Taliban, not al Qaeda, and have not been charged with crimes, they would have to be released at the upcoming end of the war in Afghanistan regardless. Additionally, our modern history has involved many similar of hostage exchanges, including the release of John McCain (also a 5:1 trade) and the Iran-contra incident in which Reagan secretly sold approximately 1500 missiles to Iranians in return for American hostages. The suggestion that this most recent trade is an unprecedented, illegal move to expand the scope of executive power by Obama is simply false. Though Congress was not given the requisite 30-days notice of the trade, given the slow, obstructionist practices of Congress during the Obama presidency, a case can certainly be made that because of “unique and exigent circumstances” the success of this mission required immediate executive action.

Still, the questions of what should be the scope of executive power, and how far we should be willing to go to rescue POWs, are definitely fair questions that the public should be asking. The legitimate, objective dialogue currently found in responses to Bergdahl’s release, however, stops here.

It seems that the attempt to distinguish this particular hostage negotiation from those of the past (so as to isolate Obama’s action from his those of his predecessors) has spurred a search for reasons why it was “wrong” to make the trade for this American soldier. Thus, objections have taken the form of  strangers making countless personal attacks on Bergdahl’s character and worth as a human being.

First, the “deserter” hypothesis. The idea that Berdahl deserted his camp is, at this point, purely speculative and not supported by much factual information. Some say that Bergdahl must have willingly gone to his captors since he walked away from camp with only his lighter (I suppose that he was going to smoke a cigarette is out of the question?); other reports suggest that Bergdahl was actually captured while in the latrine. Regardless, Bergdahl was promoted and honored while in captivity – a truth which is wholly inconsistent with the idea that his comrades and superiors viewed him as a deserter not worthy of rescue, as has also been claimed. While the Army is at liberty to pursue an investigation, mere accusations of desertion do not disqualify the U.S.’s policy of retrieving POWs. Innocent until proven guilty.

Claims in connection with the desertion argument that before he went missing, Bergdahl was acting “odd” and had made criticisms of the war and the United States, are largely unsupported by primary sources. Even if taken as true, however, these allegations create no logical basis for the idea that Bergdahl was a deserter whose release, unlike those of other hostages, should have not been sought. Criticizing America is not anti-American, but a normal and necessary means to affect change and something that every single who cares about our country has often done. Such commentary, particularly the criticism of war and U.S. policy is not odd among veterans of America’s recent wars. What IS “odd” is that, in a desperate attempt to make the situation meet their existing biases that Obama must have been in the wrong, people completely disqualify the very real possibility that any odd behavior or “walking away” may have been the result of the mental toll taken by being in combat. While the true mental state of Bergdahl is only known by him and his psychologist, we have seen countless soldiers return from war acting “strangely” because they are in need of mental healthcare and recognize them as heroes. Yet, now a POW is rescued on Obama’s watch and the rumor is easily accepted that strange behavior must be evidence of a crazy, bizarre traitor.

Some attacks on the justification of Bergdahl’s rescue are so silly that they are hardly worth addressing. For instance, that his father must be “pro-Islamic” since he has a long beard and speaks Arabic. Mr. Bergdahl even spoke in Pashtu at the Rose Garden press conference: “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate.” The facts of the situation – that Mr. Bergdahl grew his beard to show solidarity with his captured son and taught himself to speak Arabic in order to attempt to convince his son’s captors to release him – are ignored. Yet, even if Bergdahl did happen to be part of a Muslim-American family, that this is even used as a way of demonizing him is absolutely disgusting. I don’t want to even imagine the horrific comments people would be making if Bergdahl actually was Muslim, but the fact alone that his father having a long beard and speaking Arabic is being used to spur outrage over his son’s return reflects nothing but a frightening perception that even among servicemen, only white Christians are actually “true Americans” worthy of trust and respect. This is a ludicrous argument against a hostage release.    

Finally, the argument circulating social media that Bergdahl wasn’t worth rescuing because six soldiers allegedly died searching for him. The Pentagon is currently investigating these claims, but Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren says it’s “impossible” to confirm right now whether anybody’s death was directly linked to a hunt for Bergdahl. Because of the complex and dangerous nature of war, it may remain uncertain whether or not Bergdahl’s capture was a proximate cause of the death of others. Either way, soldiers bravely risk their lives every day in an attempt to do what is right and uphold the values of the United States, and one of the most basic core values which military personnel are instilled with from the beginning of the their training is to never leave a man behind. For those lawmakers who have advocated to send Americans to war in the first place to be maimed and killed while looking for false WMDs, to now argue that it isn’t worth the risk for them to rescue a captured soldier is disgustingly contradictory. Thus, the argument turns to discrediting Bergdahl’s character with loose interpretations of speculative facts. But again, the importance of discrediting Obama to so many people outweighs the worth of a soldier’s life, so now Bergdahl is blamed for the deaths of his fellow servicemen and demonized upon his return.

My aim here is not to argue that Bowe Bergdahl is a hero, or to indicate that I fully agree with America’s past or present foreign policy, or even to argue that rescuing him was necessarily the “right” decision. My goal, as with most pieces I write, is to point out the lack of objectivity and logical reasoning in the dialogue surrounding an issue for which very little confirmed factual information exists. At the end of it all, you might not agree with Obama’s decision to trade for the release of Bowe Bergdahl, but let that opinion be policy-based and fact-based and not biased-hatred-for-Obama-based. In a society in which people form their core beliefs from blogs on the internet, most people whose beliefs stem from the latter category probably don’t even realize it. So I implore you, when you read something online, consider the source. Know your history so you can be objective; read primary sources such as the actual laws of our country and testimony of first-hand witnesses. Wait for empirical evidence before drawing conclusions rather than believing every rumor and premature assertion from political pundits.  For the sake of productivity and progress…don’t abandon reason.

HGTV’s cancellation of show with anti-gay hosts is not about opinions.

There was a time in American history when white people could go on TV and say the most racist, hateful things imaginable with little to no consequence – how interracial marriage would destroy America. Similarly, men could talk about women as being inferior – how women in the workforce would destroy America. Race and gender problems still exist, but mindsets have changed so that, for the most part, such sentiments in the media are simply no longer tolerated (except perhaps on Fox News).

Presently, it seems our society is reaching another tipping point – the one in which we no longer sit quietly when public figures advocate against LGBT rights. More and more people are facing consequences for their words and actions which serve to oppress this community, most recently the Benham brothers, whose HGTV show was cancelled after the surfacing of their anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, and anti-public school activist work.

Growing acceptance of the LGBT community has empowered more people to stand up to anti-gay bigotry and encouraged the responsiveness of media outlets to bad PR from it. Still, the public as a whole has certainly not reached the point of accepting that there will be inevitable consequences for such words and actions. In response to HGTV’s decision to cancel the Benham brothers show due to disapproval from its audience, conservatives have written about how political correctness, the left agenda, or the gay agenda is destroying America. Some people protest that everyone is entitled to their opinions, or that the gay community is hypocritical for being “intolerant of Christian values.” Well, here is my response:

It’s not about “everyone has the right to their own opinion.” It’s about human dignity, and more importantly, human rights. The “gay agenda” is to be treated as a human being – the same goal every oppressed group has ever had. There are many people in the U.S. whose “opinions” still – in 2014 – lead them to oppose interracial marriage or females as breadwinners. But those who speak out about these views face backlash, not because of political correctness or intolerance for differing opinions, but because in America, our idea of what is “right” and “wrong” is constantly evolving from traditional notions of the past. We have decided that racism and sexism are wrong. Likewise, the American majority is starting to decide that speaking hatefully and using religious views to deny rights to homosexuals is wrong. The Benham brothers do not simply harbor anti-gay feelings or believe in Christian values. They have actively taken extreme measures to oppose equal rights for homosexuals, reproductive rights for women, and have demonized Muslims and public schools. The public pressure HGTV faced to cancel its show did not stem from intolerance of Christians or differing opinions, but for intolerance of archaically-rooted hate.

The Benham brothers, and all anti-gay activists, are entitled to their extreme, bigoted, and homophobic views. But our society is changing. Just as with every social movement of the past, there will come a time when acceptance of LGBT individuals and their rights is the norm, and hate will not be tolerated.

“Get real” – The need for defense spending reform.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently told the nation to “get real” about defense spending, proposing a reformed, long-term Pentagon budget. The plan scales back the size of the military by reducing the size of the Army to its pre-WWII size, retiring the A-10 “Warthog” jet, and reducing some benefits for fighting forces. “This is a budget that recognizes the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges, the dangerous world we live in, and the American military’s unique and indispensable role in the security of this country and in today’s volatile world,” Hagel said of the Defense Department spending plan which would take effect in 2015.

Analysis of past and present defense spending trends indicates that such changes are absolutely necessary. (See attached links for detailed analyses).

Because we all respect the people who are/have been a part of the military and know that they are often underpaid, suggestions of cuts in defense spending are unappealing. On an emotional level, we don’t want to make things more difficult for service members than they already are. However, we must look at the big picture. Hagel’s proposals consider what is best for the Defense Department and its members in the long-run. We wish, of course, that service members (and all of us, for that matter) could get what they “deserve.” Unfortunately, in a capitalist society the amount one gets paid is directly proportionate to the profit his/her job generates, and defense spending creates relatively no return on investment. The government simply cannot continue the defense spending trends spurred by the Iraq War in 2001. Therefore, the livelihood of present and past service members AND the reduction of the national deficit require drastic changes towards more sustainable defense spending, as unpopular as it may sound on the outside. Making these reforms now is necessary because it will ensure military readiness and that service members continue to receive their due compensation in years to come. 

Hagel articulated such reasoning in presenting his plan: “We recognize that no one serving our nation in uniform is overpaid for what they do for our country. But if we continue on the current course without making these modest adjustments now, the choices will only grow more difficult and painful down the road. We will inevitably have to either cut into compensation even more deeply and abruptly, or we will have to deprive our men and women of the training and equipment they need to succeed in battle. Either way, we would be breaking faith with our people. And the president and I will not allow that to happen.”

The U.S. military has a specific purpose, and the more efficiently it can achieve that purpose, the more effective it becomes. The proposed changes favor quality over quantity, embrace technological advances which reduce the need for manpower, and retreat from wartime buildup. We must implore the DOD to do whatever they can to ease the transition for current military personnel as these reforms are made, but I ask the public to keep an open mind. Looking at the big picture, defense spending reform is necessary for our fiscal security, for the sustainability of our defense department, and therefore all military members and their families. Hagel’s budget proposal is a very realistic start. 

The above pie chars show U.S. Military spending as of 2012, proportionate to the rest of the world, in comparison to GDP and population.  

Why A&E is both right AND wrong to suspend Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty.

It’s almost impossible not to notice the recent eruption of national debate surrounding the graphic comments made by Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson likening homosexuality to bestiality in GQ magazine. Much of the controversy comes from the response of the television show’s network (A&E), which released a statement distancing itself and the show from Robertson’s comments, and indefinitely suspended Robertson from the show. As in the controversies surrounding Paula Deen and Riley Cooper earlier this year, the discussion focuses on freedom of speech, bigotry, political correctness, the accountability of celebrities for their words and actions, and the rights of their sponsors to fire/suspend them. To make sense of the present controversy, it must be analyzed from three main perspectives: legal, political, and business.

From a purely legal view, whether one thinks Mr. Robertson deserved to be suspended by A&E is irrelevant. Gaining celebrity status for starring in Duck Dynasty, Mr. Robertson represents the show and the entire network. An organization has the right to fire/suspend a person who represents it in a negative way, as is typically boilerplate language in such entertainment contracts. We all have freedom of speech, but this does not protect one from repercussions when comments made could potentially hurt the public image of the organization represented. Mr. Robertson has the constitutional right to express his beliefs, no matter how bigoted they may seem, but A&E is also legally within its rights to cut affiliations with him as a result. It is no secret that when one is in the public eye representing a network or company, he must be conscious in interviews that his words do not solely reflect on himself. Though the bible-thumping family’s views on homosexuality shouldn’t be surprising to viewers of the show, Robertson should have known better than to publicly insult a large segment of the population at the network’s expense.

Despite A&E’s legal right to express apologies to the LGBTQ community and suspend Mr. Robertson from the show, it has received immense criticism for doing so. Perhaps the loudest voices come from conservative politicians such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who offered support to Mr. Robertson, embracing the opportunity to point his finger at the evils of “political correctness” and the “liberal media.” Many Americans also place blame on the marginalized group itself (and its supporters) for being too easily offended, over-sensitive, or even oppressive of others with differing beliefs. When Americans see their favorite TV personalities face the repercussions of their controversial words, it is easy to become angry with the minority group the comments were directed toward, even if the network was in no way pressured by this group. This public backlash is the exact reason why politically, A&E’s choice to suspend Mr. Robertson was wrong choice for the LGBTQ community, which has become the scapegoat here. A&E has indirectly harmed the LGBTQ community and its supporters in its response to Robertson’s bigoted comments, because many members of the public now confuse A&E’s business decision with a political agenda of punishing anyone for saying something that could be construed as offensive towards homosexuals, or “political correctness.” In reality, the majority of the LGBTQ community merely wants equality, not to harm anyone for expressing their beliefs, however offensive or cruel they may be. 

For A&E itself, however, any political harm inflicted upon the LGBTQ community and its supporters does not make its decision wrong, because the main concern of A&E is not political, but financial. The latest season premiere of Duck Dynasty was one of the most-watched hours of television in American history, and the series is currently the second most-watched program on cable television. A&E’s recent expressions of support for the LGBTQ community and disdain for Robertson’s comments may be the genuine feelings of some of the network’s leaders, but it is a mistake to believe that the network’s purpose was to make a political statement. As with all media outlets, A&E’s main purpose is always to to retain viewers and protect the show’s “most-watched” status. Despite stereotypes suggesting the show is only enjoyed by the politically conservative, the producers of Duck Dynasty must know that to make it the most-watched show, a wide variety of people must tune in – including members and supporters of the LGBTQ community (which now make up the majority of the U.S. population). For A&E, protecting its image means protecting its profits; the political damage to the image of the LGBTQ community is not the network’s concern. And in a few months when public attention turns to a new controversy, Phil Robertson will be back on the air bringing in millions for A&E.