For the second time in a span of five days the Supreme Court left me with a bitter taste in my mouth and a burning disgust in my being- so much so that it may take several days for me to finish this post. As I begin it's Tuesday July 1st. As I sit down now to finish it is Saturday July 5th.
Yes, the SCOTUS came down with the ruling Monday that it would exempt some closely held, for-profit firms from covering contraception in workers' health plans. Read the full ruling in this PDF link *
HERE- or spare yourself and don't. Let me provide a summary in terms that many more individuals will be able to wrap their heads around.
The question poised to the Justices was if the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration (RFRA) in that it required that closely held for-profit companies had to provide contraceptive coverage in the health plans they offered to their employees or pay a fine for failing to do so. The RFRA needs a quick bit of explaining. The RFRA was passed by the SCOTUS and signed in to law by Bill Clinton. Its aim was at preventing laws that substantially burdened a persons free exercise of their religion. In order for a "religious freedom" to be considered unprotected under the RFRA the court has to come to a decision that it meet two requirements. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest." Secondly, it must be proven that the rule is the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. So if whatever (X) burdens a person's religion it can only do so if it meets the rubric of a "compelling argument" and the implementation by the government(of X) has to be the least restrictive way the government can carry out that law (X). The RFRA was initially intended to protect Native Americans belief that their land was sacred. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to all religions, but at the time of its passing it was most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. ~
Wikipedia RFRA~ It should be noted that the RFRA has been rejected in the application that citizens holding that military ventures violate their religious non-violent beliefs and therefore should be allowed to refrain from paying taxes some of which go towards military operations. In all of these cases the court has found that the RFRA does not apply because "the Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest." (see above link)
There are inherent issues with this act, not to mention the fact that its very existence is questionable regarding the whole separation of church and state.
The Establishment Clause for one.
Also, what the history of the RFRA act has demonstrated is that all religions are not held equal. The "sincerely held beliefs" of one religion can supersede the "sincerely held belief" of another.
In the instance of Burwell v.Hobby Lobby the RFRA act was used to justify that closely held public for profit companies cannot be forced to cover contraceptives that "violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies owners." (*See PDF link)
Churches are tax exempt as well as many religious institutions. These religious entities are given exceptions to rules which have traditionally been mandatory for others. For profit corporations and companies, even those which are operated by people of faith have not been allowed to play by a different set of rules. Well, until now. The ruling by the SCOTUS talks about "closely held public for profit companies"- so how many closely held for profit companies are there that can now use this ruling to refuse contraceptive coverage (and who knows what else)?
"Over 90% of all corporations, commercial enterprises, partnerships, and sole proprietorships are “closely held corporations” that employ over 52% of the American workforce. A closely held corporation is one in which 5 people or less hold more than 50% of the control of an enterprise. This list of closely held corporations includes very, very large corporations that include, besides the Christian Dominionist’s Hobby Lobby, 71 “religious corporations” that enjoined the lawsuit, Cargill, Dell, and the fascist Koch Industries among many, many others."
Yes. PoliticaUSA.
The 5-4 vote for Hobby Lobby and thus for granting religious freedoms to businesses went down as one would expect. Conservatives Antonin Scalia (arguably the most partisan justice), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts sided as the majority. Scalia penned the courts decision which ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Ruth Bader Ginsberg penned what has been referred to a "scathing" 35 page dissent which included the statement: "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons; not of artificial legal entities." -Ruth Bader Ginsberg
"In the Court’s view, [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)] demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent."
— Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
To summarize, the SCOTUS,using a 20 year old statute said that religious freedoms and the freedom to be "exempt from government mandates" can be extended to private companies and corporations. A company can object to the rules because the rules don't match their religious beliefs.
I contend that the entire sentiment that contraceptives are not health care is incorrect. When the courts declared the Affordable Care Act constitutional the issue of contraceptives as health care should have been solidified within those rulings instead of the contraceptive mandate becoming a separate issue for courts to rule on. Once religious institutions were allowed to opt out of the contraceptive mandate it absolutely should have stopped there, but of course it didn't.
Contraceptives are health care. Human beings require health care. Women are human beings (in case the memo didn't get to you). Women's bodies include reproductive organs such as the uterus as well as other important things like fallopian tubes, the cervix and the vagina. These body parts exist in women regardless of whether she has willing or unwilling sexual intercourse. The reproductive system is not currently optional in human biology. Birth control is used for a variety of conditions, not just to prevent pregnancy and that is fact.
There are those that contest that health care is not a right. There are those who hold the belief that health care is a right but that health care dealing with the (at least female) reproductive systems is not included in those rights. This is claim that I find to be absolutely false. When it comes to the laws of the world I don't see how anyone can argue that men aren't the primary- if not the exclusive writers of such laws. Therefore it is not a stretch to think that perhaps these basic factors about women and the bodies of women have escaped the discussion. It's simple though, women are people and people have reproductive systems that require treatment. Whether it is treatment that controls reproduction or treatment that deals with disorders, diseases such as cancer or symptoms of other problems the need for health care is the need for health care.
This is how the SCOTUS ruling is unfair and discriminatory towards women. It penalized women for being women. Women want and deserve health insurance and that health insurance needs to provide coverage for ALL health care.
To address a factor brought up by the naysayers who say that Hobby Lobby still offered birth control- Yes, it is true that Hobby Lobby provides some forms of birth control in their health plans. However, the specific forms that they object to are not SCIENTIFICALLY different in their function or intention of preventing pregnancy from the forms that they cover. No, really. I've seen the internet trolls comment again and again that there are all these lies being told by whoever or whatever and that Hobby Lobby provides contraceptives (pregnancy preventing drugs) just not abortifiacients (drugs which induce miscarriages/abortions). Okay, yes, Hobby Lobby does not object to some methods of contraceptives but the ones they do object to are not abortifacients. Fact. "What?" you say. "Obviously if it wasn't true than the court could have brought that up and shown that the forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby objects to are really no different then the forms they do not object to, right?"
Wrong.
The case was not about whether or not the owners of Hobby Lobby were accurate in their opinions- just the fact that they BELIEVED that these types of contraceptives caused abortions was enough.
So, based on feelings, opinions and beliefs Hobby Lobby won the right to deny certain kinds of contraceptive coverage because they BELIEVE that they cause abortions even though they do not?
Yes.
IUD's (Intrauterine Devices) do not prevent fertilization if it has already occurred. There are two types of IUD's available, one with hormones and one made of copper. The morning after pill- plan b and ella do not prevent fertilization if it has already occurred. Think of women who become pregnant while on birth control, if they are on birth control they will still be taking it when fertilization occurs until they become aware of their pregnancy. Plan B contains hormones found in birth control pills at a higher level. If fertilization has occurred then it simply doesn't do anything. IUD's diminish sperm and make the uterus or womb inhospitable to implantation/fertilization and even at their extremely high rate of effectiveness it is possible to get pregnant with the IUD inserted.~
The Craziest Thing About Hobby Lobby Decision~
In addition, Hobby Lobby's retirement plan funds offers eight (out of twelve)investment options for firms which manufacturer not only Plan B (the emergency contraceptives they so strongly object to), but the actual abortion pill, yes, the one (unlike the four they are objecting) that induces abortions. Mother Jones broke
THIS story as well as the one revealing that Hobby Lobby covered emergency contraceptives in their health care plan until they were approached by
The Becket Fund and encouraged to file suit.
IS IT TRUE?
At some point the question may have entered your mind about what this ruling says about contraception that isn't included directly in Hobby Lobby's "sincerely held beliefs." Just in case you were wondering, the SCOTUS clarified a day after their initial ruling that while Hobby Lobby was suing over the four kinds of contraceptives that they incorrectly believe to be abortifacients, the ruling will apply to all contraceptives. Yes,
ALL CONTRACEPTIVES. The progesterone only pills (the mini-pill), the hormonal pill, the patch, the nuva ring, the depo shot, the diaphragm, the progestin IUD, the copper IUD, the implant and all emergency contraceptives including Ella, Plan B and Next choice. I assume male and female condoms are also included in this bill but perhaps just the female condom. Hobby Lobby now doesn't have to cover any form of birth control and even if they do there are a number of other companies who filed similar objections to the coverage of any and all contraception and the court has just given them the go ahead regardless of what lower courts have already decided. Those cases have automatically been sent down to be re-ruled upon as the law has been decided by the higher court.
The public response has, in some instances, been so asinine that I find myself tempted to engage in every uninformed commenter on every website and every message board. Those who hail this as a win for religious freedoms are woefully inaccurate. How can the religious beliefs of a non-religious institution trump the right for women's access to medications? Religious freedoms have not been solidified by the ruling that companies can refuse to cover a very specific, very gendered type of health care. This case is about more than the women employees who can now legally be discriminated agaisnt based on their reproductive organs. Those companies who claimed their rights were being violated by having to provide health care were unsuccessful in overturning the Affordable Care Act. Once it was solidified that they would be unable to avoid extending coverage the next step was to get out of the contraceptive mandate and now the SCOTUS has given them the tools to do so. This is not a women agaisnt men battle or a government versus business battle. This is a human rights issue.
In conclusion, the extension of "religious freedoms" to owners of closely held for profit companies asserts some simple facts about what the highest court of the land deems to be constitutional. As it did in the Citizens United case, the SCOTUS said that corporations are people, have people like beliefs and don't have to play by the rules if they don't want to. The SCOTUS says that you as an individual cannot have your beliefs or rights unless the "company" says you can. What this does is bring subjective religious beliefs to the forefront of womens health. I've read over and over again in comment sections online that "birth control" is a choice therefore if you choose to take it you should be forced to pay for it. Again, no ones personal health decisions should be subject to the type of scrutiny that contraceptives are. Who is anyone to tell me that I should or should not use a medication that has various uses besides preventing pregnancy? It's disappointing albeit not surprising that individuals are so quick to attack another persons private health care decisions. There is nothing so private and personal about someones right to bodily autonomy.
I have chosen not to venture into some further issues related to the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling in this entry for a couple reasons, mostly because I would like to publish this post before the end of July. One being that health insurance coverage for the entirely recreation based medication called Viagra has not been called into question. Another being that the people clamoring about the ruling and the great things it does to ensure religious freedoms may be in for a shock when the full ramifications and scope of this ruling has played out further. There is also the boycott Hobby Lobby movement uprising, the many other companies which will be able to get a pass on the contraceptive mandate and perhaps most importantly the epic Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent and the calls that her retirement is imperative to maintain the 5-4 conservative/liberal split on the SCOTUS. More to come on those issues at a later date.
I encourage you to find out as much as you can about the ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby because it is crucial that you have the correct information before deciding how you feel about it. Are you angry and or invested enough to call out the individuals who don't have their facts straight? Are you effected to the point that you want to boycott Hobby Lobby and other companies who will use this ruling to not pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees? Does this move you to vote in future elections for candidates that hold the same beliefs that you do? Are you happy to have just made it through this long and at times boring (I know and it's okay) blog entry from a concerned women from Massachusetts? Do you hope to never hear the company name Hobby Lobby again?
However this makes you feel or whatever you have taken away from this post, I hope that I've offered you an explanation that shows what this case has stood for and what its ruling means. I hope that you will take the time to check the facts and become informed about how laws like these effect not only you but those around you that you care about. Most of all, I hope that when it comes time to do your craft supply shopping you take a few moments and consider how you feel about spending your money at Hobby Lobby. This company has been allowed to follow a different set of rules because though some of their beliefs are scientifically inaccurate, the fact that they believe them so strongly is enough to give them a pass on including a basic and necessary medication in their health plan that negatively effects half the countries population. Who is going to say that women are not humans and not entitled to quality and inclusive health care? Who is going to say that for-profit companies should be considered to have the legal right to impose their beliefs on those who do not share those beliefs? I guess the individuals who are for their own religious freedoms over those of others and I suppose only those who already believed health care should not be compulsory or universal but with that in mind I ask those people not to separate health care and contraceptives. They are without a doubt one in the same.
