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.

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.