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.

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.