Despair, dissent, and a glimmer of hope in the wake of “Hobby Lobby.”

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision has left me feeling angry, sick, disheartened. Wanting to throw up all day. It’s rare that I am so upset by something in the news that initially I don’t even want to write about it, but I think I have finally found my voice and a reason to hope.

I am appalled (though not surprised) by yesterday’s “Hobby Lobby” ruling.  I must say that I expected to witness challenges and setbacks to the hot-button issue of abortion rights in my lifetime, but birth control?  It is sad for our society when a corporation is held to have religious beliefs, and that even when said beliefs are factually and scientifically inaccurate (i.e. birth control = abortion) they trump actual human beings’ (women’s) earned health insurance benefits, as well as the fiscally responsible policy of preventing unwanted pregnancy (think “welfare babies”). This is a horribly warped concept of what “religious freedom” is. By the same logic, a corporation could claim to be Jehovah’s witness and refuse to offer employees a health plan which includes coverage for blood transfusions. Or a Christian Scientist corporation could choose to not provide health insurance at all. The list of absurdities could go on. Because of the frightening precedent set by this case, a corporation could potentially opt out of any United States law simply by claiming that the law doesn’t conform to its religious beliefs, even at the expense of its employees.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that so many people just see anything associated with “Obamacare” and automatically think, “BAD.” It’s also clear that many conservative Christians mistakenly believe their beliefs are being infringed upon unless society’s norms and laws conform to those beliefs. Hobby Lobby probably gained a ton of supporters early on who knew nothing more than that the corporation was suing the Obama Administration for the protection of their “religious freedom.” Many of these people seem to have not bothered to research what the birth control provision of ACA actually says or what different types of birth control actually do. Contrary to one popular rumor, IUDs and Morning After pills do NOT in fact terminate an existing pregnancy. Additionally, the “Obamacare” birth control mandate does not require insurance plans to cover abortions. Nor does it force taxpayers to subsidize birth control, force employers to pay for birth control, or even require non-profit religious organizations to provide employees with health insurance plans which include birth control. All this provision does – did – is require employer-provided health insurance plans granted by corporations to finally cover preventive contraception along with other necessary and preventive prescription drugs.

People forget that employer-provided health insurance is earned. Women work for their employment benefits; these benefits are not “handouts.” 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. If it’s wrong for a boss to tell his employee that she can’t spend her earned paycheck on something that is against his religious beliefs, it’s wrong for him to tell her that she can’t use her earned health insurance for something that is against his religious beliefs. This isn’t women with an “entitlement complex” wanting free birth control. It is women asserting that we are entitled to the compensatory health benefits we have earned, regardless of our bosses’ personal beliefs about our specific health care needs. Especially when said beliefs are medically inaccurate.

The fact is that birth control is a necessary part of health care for almost 2/3 of American women, and like most prescription drugs, it is very expensive to purchase without insurance. That earned employer-provided health insurance plans should cover almost all prescription drugs with the exception of birth control – one of the only drugs which only women use – is inherently sexist and discriminatory.  Why is it that of all prescriptions, only birth control is considered an unearned “handout” when employer-provided health insurance is required to cover it?  I don’t ever hear anyone say, “Need blood pressure meds? Pay for them yourself you moocher!” Some argue that birth control is different from other drugs because it’s not a “necessary” health care treatment – yet many other non life-saving treatments are covered by health insurance without controversy (Viagra, for example). Some may attempt to distinguish birth control by suggesting that it is only for sexually promiscuous women who want to avoid the consequences of their actions. But the reality is, the vast majority of women are not using birth control so they can sleep around. Many of us are married or in long-term, monogamous relationships and are simply not financially or emotionally or professionally in a position to care for a child. In fact, more than 3/4 of married American women use birth control. Contraception must be viewed as a “necessary” part of health care by anyone who realizes that about 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and doesn’t want to see more neglected, starving children who will be supported by taxpayer money.

Last week I explained what this ruling would mean for me and millions of women like me who cannot afford prescription medications without the help of health insurance. Now this is our reality. In short, many of the corporations through which we are insured will likely jump at the chance to save money by, under the guise of “religious freedom,” offering a sub-par health plan that discriminates against women by not covering essential aspects of women’s health care needs like birth control. We’ve been told that it’s responsible to prevent pregnancy when we can’t afford children, but now what will we do? Many of the women who lose their birth control coverage will probably go back to using less-effective methods of pregnancy prevention (e.g. “pulling out”). Some of us will get pregnant with children who will become dependent on the state. Some of us will seek new jobs, or a non-employer source of financial help so that we can continue protecting ourselves from unwanted pregnancy without insurance coverage. These latter routes however, are often not feasible. I have already begun searching for state programs which might help me bear the costs of contraceptives and have been unsuccessful. Regardless of what action we as women choose to take, the impact of this decision is likely to leave most of us feeling lost and helpless.

From the moment I learned of this ruling, there have been so many angry things I’ve wanted to write about the 5 conservative (male!) Supreme Court Justices, men who think they own women’s bodies, the owners of Hobby Lobby, Christians who believe the First Amendment allows them to run other people’s lives (and that if they can’t, someone’s waging a “war on Christianity”), and the institution of religion in general. Now at the end of a mentally exhausting 24 hours, I instead find myself more comforted to think of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This awe-inspiring woman has devoted her whole life to gaining ground for women in the fight for equality, and wrote a scathing dissent to yesterday’s majority opinion.  Though they were outnumbered, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan were there to represent women yesterday. Their presence in the legal profession has paved the way for women like me to join the legal community and make my voice heard as well, and I am grateful. I am grateful for women like Margaret Sanger and Estelle Griswold, who pioneered a woman’s legal right to use contraceptives. I am grateful for Cecile Richards and everyone at Planned Parenthood who works tirelessly to ensure that women like me have access to affordable birth control and reproductive health information so that we can make responsible choices. I know these women (and men!) will continue to help those in need until the day birth control coverage is considered a non-controversial part of health care.

Thinking of the extraordinary women in America’s past and present, one thought above all gives me hope – the truth that, no matter how slow or difficult it may seem – no matter how many times a Supreme Court ruling sets us back – progress is as inevitable as the passage of time. So pick your heads up, ladies. We have a long road ahead.

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.

 

SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act: The return of Jim Crow

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 to dismantle the Voting Rights Act (1965) by striking down the key part of the law which requires states and counties with histories of racial discrimination to seek the approval of the federal government before making legislative changes to voting procedures or laws. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts essentially argued that the law is no longer necessary:  “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions…Things have changed in the South. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare.”

English: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965 while Martin Luther King and others look on (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Chief Justice Roberts is largely correct in implying that the South no longer has the same racial discrimination problems it once did, but recent elections have proven that conservative leaders in red states and swing states will still readily disenfranchise minority voters if it means a Republican victory in any election, and that voting rights still need federal protection. Even as recently as in 2012, several states have passed or attempted to pass voting laws that, much like the Jim Crow laws which led to the Voting Rights Act, indirectly but disproportionately affect minority voters. Where there once were poll taxes and literacy tests, there are now identification requirements, illogically-drawn district lines, and inconsistent voting hours. For example, last year lawmakers in Ohio and Florida restricted early voting specifically in urban counties with high-minority populations, forcing voters to wait in long lines, in many cases for hours. Prior to the 2012 elections, legislators in Pennsylvania and Texas proposed voter ID laws that would have made it more difficult for the poor, young people, the elderly, minorities, and people who live in urban areas to vote. Given the virtual non-existence of in-person voter fraud, it is nearly impossible for an educated person to deny that the sole purpose of issuing photo ID requirements for voters is anything other than to prevent Democrats from voting, especially when laws regarding absentee ballots (which are more likely to be fraudulent but are more often used by Republicans) remain untouched. For over a decade, states such as Mississippi, Texas, and Arizona have attempted to redraw district lines in ways that would cause minority votes to be diluted or packed all into one district, making them less powerful than white votes. Nearly all of these attempts were blocked by the Voting Rights Act. Without the frequent invocation of this law (which has been used to block discriminatory voting legislation over 72 times in the last 12 years alone), the changes listed above and many others would have made it substantially more difficult for minorities around the country to make their votes count.

Because of yesterday’s ruling, we now face a reality in which Republican leaders have free reign to change voting laws and procedures with almost no resistance. The Court’s decision was almost definitely a political move by the Court’s conservative Justices, since the Voting Rights Act is in no way unconstitutional and has successfully protected voting rights for over 45 years. In the words of dissenting Justice Ruth Ginsburg, the decision to throw out the preclearance section of VRA on the basis that it is no longer needed is like “throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm because you’re not getting wet.”  Roberts himself even acknowledged the good that the Voting Rights Act has done for voters, writing, “The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process…there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our Nation has made great strides.” Despite this, the Supreme Court has chosen political activism rather than ruling based on constitutionality, placing the burden of creating an updated replacement law on Congress.

Unfortunately, the dismaying enormity of this decision is only emphasized by the strong likelihood that the current Congress will fail to rise to the occasion. Despite the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by the Senate unanimously and the House with over 400 votes, the current Congress has proven itself dysfunctional and more concerned with retaining political power than passing even the most popular bills. Though it would undoubtedly be a good idea to rewrite the Voting Rights Act to apply to all states equally rather than only Southern states, Chief Justice Roberts knows that his decision has done the opposite; by gutting the law, it now applies to no states at all.

The Supreme Court doesn’t waste time striking down laws simply because they’re unnecessary. The conservative Justices on the Court knew very well that they were eliminating a law that has been successful for years, simply to empower conservative lawmakers, even at the expense of leaving voting rights vulnerable. They have betrayed voters by making way for Republican-controlled states to pass an unchecked wave of 21st-century Jim Crow laws. A mere two hours after the ruling was announced, Texas lawmakers announced that they would immediately begin to implement both  the minority-diluting redistricting and extremely strict voter ID law which had not been allowed to pass only a year ago because of the Voting Rights Act.

Conservative Christians seem to have forgotten the meaning of “religious freedom.”

In recent years, a constant complaint of the religious right has been that they are victims of political correctness, forced to hide their beliefs because their religious freedom is being threatened by the government. To put it simply, this assertion is completely absurd.

In reality, Christians in this country have long been the majority, the ruling force. So many of our laws cater to their views, even at the expense of ostracizing others. Conservative Christians are so powerful in the United States, that 80% of states do not allow same-sex couples to marry (a practice thought to be immoral by many Christians), even though the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. They are so powerful that in many states, leaders are pushing to teach creationism as science in public schools, even though religious beliefs based on faith are not at all scientific. Yet, conservative Christians complain that Uncle Sam is victimizing them, mainly because of emerging restrictions which have finally begun to limit the Christian faith’s influence in government entities such as public schools.

The laws which these Christians complain about do not threaten their religious freedom, contrary to their claims. In reality, laws which disallow the use of institutionalized religion in public establishments merely seek to reign in the wildly out-of-control power of the church that extends to all parts of our government, including schools. They protect non-Christians from being discriminated against by a religious majority that they do not belong to in government-run settings. For example, organized prayer led by school employees is banned in public schools because allowing it would be “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, but this does not mean that prayer is not allowed in school. Children are allowed and have always been allowed to pray individually or in groups and form Christian clubs or bible studies. What Christians need to realize is that laws prohibiting government institutions from allowing one religious group to enforce its beliefs onto others is NOT the same as the government threatening your religious freedom. In the United States, people have the right to send their children to get an education regardless of their faith, without someone telling them that their beliefs are wrong or less worthy of recognition than someone else’s. If organized Christian prayer were allowed in public schools, it would be an actual threat to the religious freedom of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.

Too often have we heard lately the ridiculous implication that these smaller and less influential religious groups are somehow bullying or victimizing Christians. In actuality, we are simply seeing the beginning of the end of Christianity’s dominance over our diverse society. Non-Christian Americans have always lived in a society heavily influenced by a religion that was not theirs, and if Christians were able to recognize this, they would realize that they are in no position to complain. Perhaps Christians believe so strongly in the superiority of their religion that they fear lessening its influence is harmful to our country, but this does not make it unconstitutional or unfair. The United States was founded on the principles of religious freedom and that no one religion should hold more sway over any part of government than any other.

U.S Postage Stamp, 1957 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is likely that the laws seeking to finally limit the power of Christianity in American government have started appearing nationwide because of growing tolerance for other faiths and differing lifestyles, and a growing percentage of young people who identify themselves as religiously unaffiliated. Losing power over every aspect of our society is very frustrating for conservative Christians, and it’s to be expected that they throw a bit of a tantrum as a child would when his parents finally decide to stop spoiling him.  However, this is how our founding fathers would have wanted us to react to a religion that has for so long held too much power over government, and it in no way restricts a Christian person’s ability to practice his or her faith.  The laws which prohibit organized religion in government establishments are not the result of over-sensitivity or politically correctness. They are a reaction to an extremely powerful religious entity, and an effort to protect the values set forth by our constitution. Laws preventing Christians from continuing to exert their religious influence in public establishments are protecting religious freedom, not threatening it.

Do national tragedies belong in political conversations?

In recent months, the United States has faced far too many national tragedies, including Hurricane Sandy, the shooting in Newtown, CT, the terrorist attacks in Boston, the explosions in West, Texas, and the recent spree of tornadoes in Oklahoma.  Each of these events has caused loss of life, injuries, and/or the destruction of property – as well as political debate. Every tragedy has somehow related to politics, but it seems that within each debate there has been a group of people crying out that it is disrespectful to victims to politicize national tragedies.

This occurred to me after reading an article in the Huffington Post, which highlights the sticky situation of Oklahoma Senators Inhofe and Coburn. The fiscal conservatives have voted multiple times against federal aid for other states (including New Jersey last year) and against funding for FEMA, but now need millions of dollars in aid for their own state. In response to this article, there have been numerous outraged voices criticizing liberals for “using” the disastrous tornadoes to make a political statement about the Oklahoma Senators. This raises the question, do national tragedies belong in political conversations?

If we want to create a better future for America, the answer is yes.

When the lesson to be learned from a tragedy validates our pre-existing beliefs, we recognize this. It seems that those on each side of a divisive issue will only claim that it is “wrong” to make a political statement about a national tragedy when the tragedy seems to reveal a flaw in their own position. For instance, many Republican leaders have criticized President Obama for “using” victims of gun violence to promote stricter gun laws, yet they are fine with “using” the victims of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi to reveal weaknesses in our national security. On the other side, many Democrats have criticized Fox News reporters for “using” the victims of the attack in Boston to support their political argument for slowing immigration reform since the attackers were immigrants. Yet they are fine with “using” the victims of the plant explosion in Texas to exemplify the need for government regulations. It’s not the politicization of national tragedies that people hate, it’s the emotionally-charged (and therefore effective) arguments against our own interests.

The truth of the matter is that regardless of which side you’re on, tragedies often reveal something that can be improved in our government, laws, or both. If these horrible events teach us how to create a better and stronger America, debating about the ways we may do that is not “disrespectful” to the victims. In fact, families of the victims of tragedies more often than not want the deaths of their loved ones to mean something, to serve a larger purpose, and to teach us how to better prevent and cope with future tragedies. Pointing out the hypocritical voting records of the Senators from Oklahoma hurts their image and puts political pressure on ALL Congressmen and women to support federal aid for natural disasters occurring anywhere in the U.S. – thus creating a Congress that, in the future, will more swiftly provide federal aid to states in need. I doubt anyone in Oklahoma would find that to be disrespectful right now.

Gerrymandering: A Shame to the USA

If you love the USA and the people having a voice in government, gerrymandering should outrage you whether it helps your party or not.

In 2012, in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina, it took an average of three times as many votes to elect a Democratic representative than a Republican representative because of the way district lines are drawn (in completely illogical shapes). In states like Maryland and Illinois, the same principle favored Democrats on a smaller scale.

It’s estimated that in 2014, Democrats will have to have 700% more votes than Republicans in order to earn more than 50% of the House. If you’re a Republican, you probably don’t mind that statistic, but it’s undeniable that it is a shame to democracy. One person’s vote should never count less than someone else’s.

Gerrymandering By the Numbers