Here we are at the end of September and I nearly let the whole month go by without writing a single blog entry. I believe I would have let that happen had I not stumbled upon a headline today on my facebook feed entitled "Women Who Have Abortions Should be Hanged."
Yes, you read that correctly Kevin Williamson actually said this. He followed up saying that Doctors who perform abortions should also be hanged. I am aware that there are nut jobs in this world. I am aware that there are levels of extremism and this guy is probably at the most extreme level you can get however, these statements do not change the fact that this person is deplorable. So much so it makes me sick. The comment stemmed from an article where Williamson wrote in response to Lena Dunhams Here Are the Five Reasons Why I Vote. The Lena Dunham article was part of Planned Parenthood sponsored Women are Watching campaign. Lena Dunham is the creator and actress in the TV show Girls. Mr Williamson was apparently so incensed with this article that he responded with an article entitled Five Reasons Why You're too Dumb to Vote which I won't link to because it makes me want to puke. Google it if you think you can stand it. The display of right wing white male narcissism is unbearable. This ARTICLE quotes it at length and describes how that author turned to twitter to respond to comments about his piece and it is through Twitter that Mr Williamson comes out saying that not only does he think abortion is murder but that it is homicide and women who have abortions should be hanged littlegreenfootballs.com.
This is the same person who has said some of the most offensive and inaccurate statements in the history of saying stupid things:
1. “Can’t wait to launch my Palestine boycott. As soon as they start making something, it’s on.”
2. “Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.”
3. “The fictitious rape epidemic is necessary to support the fiction of “rape culture,” by which feminists mean anything other than an actual rape culture … ‘Rape culture’ simply means speech or thought that feminists disapprove of and wish to suppress.”
4. “Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman.”
5. “Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. … The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too”
6. “The guy looks remarkably like Snoop Dogg … He glances slyly from side to side, making sure his audience is taking all this in, before raising his palms to his clavicles, elbows akimbo, in the universal gesture of primate territorial challenge.”
The article containing this list written by Elias Isquith of SALON can be found HERE
Yes, the man is clearly psychotic but that doesn't mean that he is alone in his dangerous and horrific views. He wants to hang the 33% of women in this country who have had and will have abortions. It's so pro-life it nearly kills you.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Undercover Colors (or if you rape me I should have been wearing this nail polish)
Getting your nails painted or painting them yourself shouldn't have anything to do with you getting assaulted, am I right? Kind of.
This past week it was announced that four male college students have invented and are in the process of marketing a polish which will change color if it comes in contact with a drink that has been drugged. The company is calling itself UNDERCOVER COLORS. Imagine yourself having a drink at a bar or club and quickly stirring it around with your polished finger nail- if it stays the same color... congratulations- your drink hasn't been drugged. If it changes colors however, your drink has been compromised.
Like its predecessors the anti-rape underwear -AR WEAR- and the RAPEX condom (which may or may not have ever actually come to fruition), this nail polish demonstrates that it is easier for society to come up with devices that further place the responsibility on women to be responsible for not getting raped than it is for us as a society to work on stopping rape itself.
How many times have you heard that a rape victim should've been wearing less reveling clothing? Or that they had too much to drink and therefore bear part of the responsibility for their attack? What about when a women is raped by someone she knows or someone she may even be in a relationship with? Victim blaming isn't a rare occurrence in our society it is the norm. Now some people will respond to this saying something along the lines of "I mean I'm not blaming the women for getting raped BUT -insert thing she should have done differently here-." That is victim blaming. You can say that one has a responsibility to be aware of ones surroundings and or be aware of the potential for danger at every turn and that has a degree of validity to it but even that IS STILL blaming the victim.
Jessica Valenti writes online in this ARTICLE that "The problem is that simply being female in public remains an undue risk. Do we really believe that half the population should be required to avoid parties, socializing, drinking, cute clothes and walking alone if they don’t want to be raped?" She goes on to talk about a quote from Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister who after a cabinet member suggested that women be given a curfew to curb a spate of sexual assault: “But it’s the men who are attacking the women. If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay home, not the women.”
I don't think we will ever live in a perfect society and I do not consider myself unaware of my own surroundings. I think we are all guilty of victim blaming because it is a deeply entrenched aspect of our society. It is easier for us to feel sorry for the victim and to shake our heads at them in the same sentiment wondering to ourselves: 'what were they wearing, how much did they have to drink?' Obviously the idea of preventing assault and rape is a good one. If a nail polish alerts one to a spiked substance with a fun self detecting color transforming lacquer then I am not entirely against such a thing. But this also creates a business incentive with selling fear for ones safety in a handy liquid coating. For example, besides the Rapex condoms and the modern day chastity underwear we are quietly accepting that men are inherently "bad" or incapable of controlling their urges.
I want to acknowledge that we can't trust people very often in this world and the need to be on guard for ones safety exists and is a serious thing. That doesn't mean that a person should live in fear that being raped will be something that they ultimately chose in the eye of society. Whether the responsibility for not knowing your drink has been spiked because of your nail polish decisions lays with the victim is a moot point after the fact. Be afraid is the message. But be afraid in the name of keeping yourself safe. Oh, and in the name of not being judged a "slut" because you had the misfortune of being a target of a crime. We can do better and we should be doing better than that.
This past week it was announced that four male college students have invented and are in the process of marketing a polish which will change color if it comes in contact with a drink that has been drugged. The company is calling itself UNDERCOVER COLORS. Imagine yourself having a drink at a bar or club and quickly stirring it around with your polished finger nail- if it stays the same color... congratulations- your drink hasn't been drugged. If it changes colors however, your drink has been compromised.
Like its predecessors the anti-rape underwear -AR WEAR- and the RAPEX condom (which may or may not have ever actually come to fruition), this nail polish demonstrates that it is easier for society to come up with devices that further place the responsibility on women to be responsible for not getting raped than it is for us as a society to work on stopping rape itself.
How many times have you heard that a rape victim should've been wearing less reveling clothing? Or that they had too much to drink and therefore bear part of the responsibility for their attack? What about when a women is raped by someone she knows or someone she may even be in a relationship with? Victim blaming isn't a rare occurrence in our society it is the norm. Now some people will respond to this saying something along the lines of "I mean I'm not blaming the women for getting raped BUT -insert thing she should have done differently here-." That is victim blaming. You can say that one has a responsibility to be aware of ones surroundings and or be aware of the potential for danger at every turn and that has a degree of validity to it but even that IS STILL blaming the victim.
Jessica Valenti writes online in this ARTICLE that "The problem is that simply being female in public remains an undue risk. Do we really believe that half the population should be required to avoid parties, socializing, drinking, cute clothes and walking alone if they don’t want to be raped?" She goes on to talk about a quote from Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister who after a cabinet member suggested that women be given a curfew to curb a spate of sexual assault: “But it’s the men who are attacking the women. If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay home, not the women.”
I don't think we will ever live in a perfect society and I do not consider myself unaware of my own surroundings. I think we are all guilty of victim blaming because it is a deeply entrenched aspect of our society. It is easier for us to feel sorry for the victim and to shake our heads at them in the same sentiment wondering to ourselves: 'what were they wearing, how much did they have to drink?' Obviously the idea of preventing assault and rape is a good one. If a nail polish alerts one to a spiked substance with a fun self detecting color transforming lacquer then I am not entirely against such a thing. But this also creates a business incentive with selling fear for ones safety in a handy liquid coating. For example, besides the Rapex condoms and the modern day chastity underwear we are quietly accepting that men are inherently "bad" or incapable of controlling their urges.
I want to acknowledge that we can't trust people very often in this world and the need to be on guard for ones safety exists and is a serious thing. That doesn't mean that a person should live in fear that being raped will be something that they ultimately chose in the eye of society. Whether the responsibility for not knowing your drink has been spiked because of your nail polish decisions lays with the victim is a moot point after the fact. Be afraid is the message. But be afraid in the name of keeping yourself safe. Oh, and in the name of not being judged a "slut" because you had the misfortune of being a target of a crime. We can do better and we should be doing better than that.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Touching Base (Happy Womens Equality Day)
I am still here. Yes, it has been a month since my last entry. A lot has been going on in the Reproductive Justice world and I cannot pretend that I am keeping up. So instead of not publishing any entries or publishing ones that I haven't put my all into- I am giving you the reader a only slightly compromised post with some current events and random facts and minimal analysis.
Unless you live under a boulder, you've heard of the Ice Bucket Challenge for ALS but have you heard of the abortion funding spin on the challenge? Basically it involves eating a taco and or drinking a beer and then donating to an abortion fund. Sound easy enough? CHECK IT OUT
What's the deal with admitting privileges requirements? My original post on the topic can be found HERE, but the truth it has gotten even more complicated since April. The law is being challenged in Louisiana most recently, however, the last two significant cases involving the issue of admitting privileges have both come down against it. In Mississippi, enforcing the law would have shut down the only abortion clinic in the entire state. The judge ruled that it was certainly an "undue burden" and therefore unconstitutional to literally hand off the abortions needed for Mississippi women to another state to take care of. In Alabama, the judge simply ruled that admitting privileges were unnecessary from a medical and logical stand point. So, will Louisiana make itself the third State in a row to finally stop these politically motivated and absolutely unnecessary requirements? I sure hope so.
AFTER TILLER is the documentary film about the late Dr. George Tiller who was assassinated while at church by an anti-choice zealot. This film follows the only four doctors left in the country who openly provide abortions beyond the second trimester of pregnancy, PBS is airing this amazing film on September 1st at 10:00 pm. Check out your local listings and other air times HERE
AND it is Women's Equality DAY! What you can do to celebrate is to look at THIS ARTICLE gives you an update on some of the things we couldn't do back then and the things we still can't do. If anything there's your extra reminder to vote because you are legally allowed to.
Rock on.
Unless you live under a boulder, you've heard of the Ice Bucket Challenge for ALS but have you heard of the abortion funding spin on the challenge? Basically it involves eating a taco and or drinking a beer and then donating to an abortion fund. Sound easy enough? CHECK IT OUT
What's the deal with admitting privileges requirements? My original post on the topic can be found HERE, but the truth it has gotten even more complicated since April. The law is being challenged in Louisiana most recently, however, the last two significant cases involving the issue of admitting privileges have both come down against it. In Mississippi, enforcing the law would have shut down the only abortion clinic in the entire state. The judge ruled that it was certainly an "undue burden" and therefore unconstitutional to literally hand off the abortions needed for Mississippi women to another state to take care of. In Alabama, the judge simply ruled that admitting privileges were unnecessary from a medical and logical stand point. So, will Louisiana make itself the third State in a row to finally stop these politically motivated and absolutely unnecessary requirements? I sure hope so.
AFTER TILLER is the documentary film about the late Dr. George Tiller who was assassinated while at church by an anti-choice zealot. This film follows the only four doctors left in the country who openly provide abortions beyond the second trimester of pregnancy, PBS is airing this amazing film on September 1st at 10:00 pm. Check out your local listings and other air times HERE
AND it is Women's Equality DAY! What you can do to celebrate is to look at THIS ARTICLE gives you an update on some of the things we couldn't do back then and the things we still can't do. If anything there's your extra reminder to vote because you are legally allowed to.
Rock on.
Monday, July 28, 2014
I Don't Need Feminism oh wait...
Women Against Feminism is a tumblr account where women send in photographs of themselves with signs stating why they don't need feminism. I first spotted the link on a friends facebook page where she posted it along with a sentiment like "this makes me want to cry." I didn't click on the link as that day I was shielding myself from the things I know upset me- I do that on occasion so that I don't just give up getting out of bed. This morning I saw a spoof on the women agaisnt feminism tumblr called Confused Cats Against Feminism and I had to take a look. It made me laugh because it's really funny but it also made me go and give Women Against Feminism (WAF)a thorough look.
Part of why feminism has a bad rap is because there are things about it that are not perfect. Feminism has many different schools of thought. Put two people who consider themselves feminists together and you won't have identical ideologies. You will have conflicts and you may even have differences at the very core of what these people consider feminist thoughts, ideas and policy. Feminism isn't a easy thing to discuss but I think if we did it more it may become easier. When these women hold up their signs about why they don't need feminism they are clearly referring to many different definitions of feminism, some more accurate then others.
I can't condemn the WAF posters as much as I both 1. disagree with them and 2. am confused by them. I more want to know what their experiences with feminism and feminists have been. I am intensely curious about these women and where they come from.
Feminism is not the problem. We don't know how to live in a world without patriarchy because it has not happened yet; that is the problem. The other problem is that there is no one universal experience for human beings. Everyone is experiencing different realities and that is the only reality that one can speak to- our own. What someone else experiences is not of any more or less value but it is different. Your experience doesn't speak to how the world works entirely...we need everyone's experiences in order to put together a broad picture of how things work, then we can start to ask why.
So when I read these signs that are being held up by predominantly (nearly exclusively) young white women I think about why we might not need feminism anymore. I think these signs however, demonstrate that we as a society need feminism very much. I don't pit myself agaisnt men as a feminist. I also don't think the stereotypes of men and women give credit to us as individual human beings. We are more than our gender though it is a big part of our identity. Issues of class, race and gender are interdisciplinary because they often cannot be separated. There is no one school of thought that identifies and deals with the cross over between the gender we identify with and the life we live. I think society is complex and if these women don't want to identify as feminists than that is their right, they don't have to.
So if you want to laugh a little I would suggest checking out the Cat version of WAF (see link above). If you want to know more and this issue and to think about why these women feel the way they do there are some great articles from both perspectives online- simply google the term women against feminists. If you're finding yourself in a third category like I did though, I suggest you make your own sign about why or why not you need feminism and post it on your tumblr, facebook, twitter or instagram. Mine can be found below.
Part of why feminism has a bad rap is because there are things about it that are not perfect. Feminism has many different schools of thought. Put two people who consider themselves feminists together and you won't have identical ideologies. You will have conflicts and you may even have differences at the very core of what these people consider feminist thoughts, ideas and policy. Feminism isn't a easy thing to discuss but I think if we did it more it may become easier. When these women hold up their signs about why they don't need feminism they are clearly referring to many different definitions of feminism, some more accurate then others.
I can't condemn the WAF posters as much as I both 1. disagree with them and 2. am confused by them. I more want to know what their experiences with feminism and feminists have been. I am intensely curious about these women and where they come from.
Feminism is not the problem. We don't know how to live in a world without patriarchy because it has not happened yet; that is the problem. The other problem is that there is no one universal experience for human beings. Everyone is experiencing different realities and that is the only reality that one can speak to- our own. What someone else experiences is not of any more or less value but it is different. Your experience doesn't speak to how the world works entirely...we need everyone's experiences in order to put together a broad picture of how things work, then we can start to ask why.
So when I read these signs that are being held up by predominantly (nearly exclusively) young white women I think about why we might not need feminism anymore. I think these signs however, demonstrate that we as a society need feminism very much. I don't pit myself agaisnt men as a feminist. I also don't think the stereotypes of men and women give credit to us as individual human beings. We are more than our gender though it is a big part of our identity. Issues of class, race and gender are interdisciplinary because they often cannot be separated. There is no one school of thought that identifies and deals with the cross over between the gender we identify with and the life we live. I think society is complex and if these women don't want to identify as feminists than that is their right, they don't have to.
So if you want to laugh a little I would suggest checking out the Cat version of WAF (see link above). If you want to know more and this issue and to think about why these women feel the way they do there are some great articles from both perspectives online- simply google the term women against feminists. If you're finding yourself in a third category like I did though, I suggest you make your own sign about why or why not you need feminism and post it on your tumblr, facebook, twitter or instagram. Mine can be found below.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Eden Foods
It's been two weeks since the SCOTUS handed down the ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and the news since then isn't great. Please see the post prior to this one for a more in depth explanation of the ruling.
Eden Foods is one of the other companies in which the Hobby Lobby decision directly affected prior rulings on plaintiffs arguing the contraceptive mandate.
My personal use of Eden Foods products is pretty straight forward. I used to manage a small, local health food store which carried approximately thirty products from Eden Foods. I regularly bought their soy milk and ordered other products from our distributors. It's organic, non GMO certified and all that other good stuff. I haven't purchased Eden Foods products since I left that job over a year ago and I'm glad I haven't.
While I had the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case on my radar from the onset- it escaped me that Eden Foods was also suing the Department of Health and Human Services. In April 2013, Michael Potter, the companies founder and sole shareholder used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), to hold that his rights were being violated by the contraceptive mandate. The court disagreed. However, given that the SCOTUS agrees that corporations have religious rights we are to now assume that Mr. Potter can refuse to cover anything contraceptive related. Potter has been a very vocal opponent of the Affordable Care Act from the beginning. When responding to the question of why he was suing he stated: “Because I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.” This was in an article from April 2013 on Salon.com. (HERE)
Potter is Catholic and unlike the Green's in the Hobby Lobby case, Potter asserts that his beliefs hold that all contraceptives and contraceptive related care are against the Catholic church. In the case of Hobby Lobby, the types of contraceptives were limited to the ones the Greens "believed" to be abortifacients (though they are not). This is a fact that a lot of media sources and individuals are touting as to how the ruling on Hobby Lobby is being incorrectly portrayed as being agaisnt birth control (i.e. "They just don't want to cover the abortion pill!"). Well, just one day after the Hobby Lobby ruling, the SCOTUS broadened the scope of the ruling and clarified that it could include ALL forms of contraceptives- not just the four being objected to by the owners of Hobby Lobby who don't believe in science (MOTHER JONES).
It looks like Michael Potter will get to deny his employees any coverage of contraceptives, regardless of the reasons they seek to use it. Eden Foods has experienced a backlash by those upset over the ruling and while the long term effect has yet to be determined it is possible that the impact on the financial aspect of the company may eventually hold some sway over Potters stance (though I highly doubt it). Petitions have been started asking stores to stop carrying Eden Foods- the big one of course is Whole Foods. You can find that petition here!
Eden Foods is one of the other companies in which the Hobby Lobby decision directly affected prior rulings on plaintiffs arguing the contraceptive mandate.
My personal use of Eden Foods products is pretty straight forward. I used to manage a small, local health food store which carried approximately thirty products from Eden Foods. I regularly bought their soy milk and ordered other products from our distributors. It's organic, non GMO certified and all that other good stuff. I haven't purchased Eden Foods products since I left that job over a year ago and I'm glad I haven't.
While I had the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case on my radar from the onset- it escaped me that Eden Foods was also suing the Department of Health and Human Services. In April 2013, Michael Potter, the companies founder and sole shareholder used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), to hold that his rights were being violated by the contraceptive mandate. The court disagreed. However, given that the SCOTUS agrees that corporations have religious rights we are to now assume that Mr. Potter can refuse to cover anything contraceptive related. Potter has been a very vocal opponent of the Affordable Care Act from the beginning. When responding to the question of why he was suing he stated: “Because I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.” This was in an article from April 2013 on Salon.com. (HERE)
Potter is Catholic and unlike the Green's in the Hobby Lobby case, Potter asserts that his beliefs hold that all contraceptives and contraceptive related care are against the Catholic church. In the case of Hobby Lobby, the types of contraceptives were limited to the ones the Greens "believed" to be abortifacients (though they are not). This is a fact that a lot of media sources and individuals are touting as to how the ruling on Hobby Lobby is being incorrectly portrayed as being agaisnt birth control (i.e. "They just don't want to cover the abortion pill!"). Well, just one day after the Hobby Lobby ruling, the SCOTUS broadened the scope of the ruling and clarified that it could include ALL forms of contraceptives- not just the four being objected to by the owners of Hobby Lobby who don't believe in science (MOTHER JONES).
It looks like Michael Potter will get to deny his employees any coverage of contraceptives, regardless of the reasons they seek to use it. Eden Foods has experienced a backlash by those upset over the ruling and while the long term effect has yet to be determined it is possible that the impact on the financial aspect of the company may eventually hold some sway over Potters stance (though I highly doubt it). Petitions have been started asking stores to stop carrying Eden Foods- the big one of course is Whole Foods. You can find that petition here!
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Hobby Lobby Wins= Women and America Lose
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.
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.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Breaking Down the Buffer Zone Ruling
On Thursday the United States Supreme Court handed down the ruling that the 35 foot buffer zone outside abortion clinic entrances in Massachusetts is unconstitutional. I was in the lovely Registry of Motor Vehicles when I saw the news- as if being in the RMV isn't enough to ruin ones day, I was heavily disappointed but not as surprised as I thought I would be. Once I saw that the decision was unanimous I was a bit more upset and it wasn't until later on when I had the time to really look at the ruling that I understood why and began to further comprehend what the court was saying. Should you be interested in reading the ruling yourself, all 52 pages of it, you can find it HERE.
Though it is never easy to read legal text or briefings or even summaries of theses things, I read through enough of the ruling to actually understand what it was saying for those of us without degrees in constitutional law. Don't get me wrong, I am furious and disappointed that the SCOTUS failed to see the need for the buffer zone around abortion clinics and why there should be SOME exceptions to where people may physically exercise their right to free speech. However, it could have been worse.
Mind you, the actual Supreme court building has its own buffer zone. Yes, you read that right- the Supreme court has a buffer zone much larger than 35 feet buffer zone at question and they ruled that the 35 foot abortion clinics buffer zone was unconstitutional. Isn't it IRONIC?
The majority ruling in this case was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, also signing on to the majority opinion was Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elana Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor. While the ruling was unanimous in deciding that the zones were unconstitutional the reasoning behind this decision was split. The five previously mentioned judges held the majority, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia held the opposing opinion and Samuel Alito was the lone opinion in his own dissent from the other judges.
The Court determined that the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment, mostly because the buffer zones include public areas like sidewalks. The Court calls for more targeted responses to specific incidents (of harassment, stalking and or threatening behavior) and is stating that the buffer zone law is not "narrowly tailored," the burden the state government must meet when dealing with laws that encroach upon first amendment rights. States can address specific cases of obstruction but broader restrictions are not permitted National Journal. The majority opinion decided that the buffer zone law was content neutral because while it did limit where the protestors could exercise their right to free speech it did not encroach upon what it is that the protestors were saying. Scalia ardently opposed that decision.
While it may seem that the liberal judges sided with the conservatives in the ruling, when considering the breakdown of the majority and minority opinions it looks more like a standard 5-4 decision with the twist being that Roberts joined the liberals. The judges all agreed that the law as written is unconstitutional but the majority opinion leaves room for the State to take other actions. The practical result is Massachusetts state officials still have some room to write laws designed to shelter abortion clinic workers and patients from protest without the strict scrutiny incurred by the First Amendment. What those laws will be and how they will be enforced remains to be seen.
The minority opinion basically stated that the buffer zone law was unconstitutional AND the very core of the law was not content neutral because they believe it unfairly gives an advantage to abortion supporters. There were four exemptions included in the buffer zone law as to who could physically be in the 35 foot space without violating the law. One was for people who were entering and exiting the facility itself, the second exemption included clinic employees and the third exemption was for law enforcement, ambulance, firefighting,construction, utilities, public works and other municipal employees. The fourth exemption was for individuals who were walking through the zone to get to another location. In the case of the last instance clinic protestors have been known to walk up and down the sidewalk thus evading breaking the law as long as they kept moving.
Scalia, of the minority opinion stated that Roberts preserved “the ability of jurisdictions across the country to restrict antiabortion speech without fear of rigorous constitutional review." Scalia also stated that "The provision is thus unconstitutional root and branch and cannot be saved, as the majority suggests, by limiting its application to the single facility that has experienced the safety and access problems to which it is quite obviously not addressed."FORBES.
As of right now there is a big question as to what Massachusetts state officials will be able to do now that the law has been ruled unconstitutional. In Worcester and Springfield the Planned Parenthood buildings have private parking lots which protestors will still not be able to enter for the purpose of protesting. The 35 foot buffer zone at the entrances to those parking lots are a different story. It is still a crime to prevent anyone from entering a reproductive health clinic as the Freedom to Access of Clinic Entrances Act is still applicable (FACE ACT).
The location in Boston unfortunately, does not have a private lot and the entrance is right on the sidewalk. Protestors will no longer be forced back 35 feet from the entrance. This is where the law being overturned will have the most direct effect on patients. Boston has been recruiting extra clinic escorts in the past several weeks and will most likely have them out during the week now as opposed to just on Saturdays. I encourage anyone who may be interested in volunteering to visit the website. PPLM
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Buffer Zone Law overturned in Massachusetts
While the Massachusetts state buffer zone law was unanimously ruled unconstitutional today by the SCOTUS, the outcome was not shocking and could have been worse. Chief John Robert's wrote the majority decision that the buffer zone violated the first amendment but left open the possibility for States to utilize other means in order to protect patients and clinic employees from harassment. While the decision was unanimous the majority opinion (5-2-1) held that other avenues could be explored.
Court Rejects Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinics
It is incredibly disappointing to hear the ruling come down from the Supreme Court where they themselves have a protected buffer zone of 100 feet.
Court Rejects Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinics
It is incredibly disappointing to hear the ruling come down from the Supreme Court where they themselves have a protected buffer zone of 100 feet.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Waiting with Baited Breath
Any day now the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is going to be handing down its rulings on two cases that are especially important to women and reproductive freedom. The first is what has become known as The Hobby Lobby case. This is huge because a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would allow for profit corporations to refuse to cover birth control in there insurance plans and not pay for it under the guise of religious freedom. Original Post HERE.
The second case has to do with the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Buffer Zone law. Will the courts uphold that protestors must stay at least 35 feet away from clinic entrances? More information on the case can be found at McCullen v. Coakley.
I am optimistic that the rulings will come down the against Hobby Lobby and for Massachusetts. This wait has been intense and it's time for it to be over.
The second case has to do with the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Buffer Zone law. Will the courts uphold that protestors must stay at least 35 feet away from clinic entrances? More information on the case can be found at McCullen v. Coakley.
I am optimistic that the rulings will come down the against Hobby Lobby and for Massachusetts. This wait has been intense and it's time for it to be over.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Louisiana Signs off on Admitting Privileges
Bobby Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana signed into law on Thursday an admitting privileges bill that could leave the whole state of Louisiana with one or two abortion clinics. Louisiana is the latest state to fall prey to the unnecessary and politically motivation admitting privileges laws. In order for clinics to operate under the new law, a Doctor from each clinic needs to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles from the clinic. Sure, you may say, that sounds reasonable...right? Well, it isn't. Primarily the problem starts with the fact that a women who needs to be transferred to an emergency room or hospital with abortion complications has nothing to gain by having the doctor who performed the abortion having admitting privileges. All admitting privileges mean are that the Doctor has a "relationship" to the hospital. The patient will not be turned away or disadvantaged in anyway if her Doctor doesn't have a relationship with the hospital. Consider then that even if a Doctor applies for admitting privileges to a hospital the hospital can deny the request for any reason. Recently a hospital in Texas tried to revoke the admitting privileges they granted to two Doctors after being pressured by anti-abortion individuals who threatened to stage protests at the hospital. The Doctors won the right to maintain their admitting privileges after suing the hospital.
The five clinics in Louisiana have approximately two months to comply with these requirements being having to close.
The five clinics in Louisiana have approximately two months to comply with these requirements being having to close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)