They've Gone Insane, They've Gone Insane, They've Thrown that (Hobby Lobby) Glitter and Made It Rain: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, The Notorious R.B.G., and the Sub-Human Race
7:15 PM
The Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was a means, by the legislative body,
disallowing the imposition of burden on persons exercising their religious
freedoms by the government. RFRA established a two-tiered standard that
mandated: (1) that a burden may be imposed only when furthering a compelling government interest, and (2)
such is only applicable when the government uses the least restrictive means possible.
Today, #SCOTUS
published their Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
(please pronounce as HOB-BAY LOB-BAY, throughout the course of reading this
post) decision; it was a decision that rocked faith, feminism, and fertility (too, much? Nah!).
The majority
stated that the Affordable Care Act [aka ACA aka Obamacare] mandate that employers cover the cost of
contraceptives in their health insurance policies was a violation of RFRA. The
majority said that “persons” (we’ll come back to this later) are being burdened
by this mandate, and that it doesn’t matter that those “persons” aren’t
actually at all persons, nor does it matter that those “persons” are for-profit
corporations.
The majority
opinion said: “RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide
very broad protection for religious liberties… like Congress meant wicked
broad, super broad, like so broad it can apply to anything and anything, yes
anything - actually, let’s just be clear, Congress only meant it to apply to
things.”
Hmm… Okay, you
caught me, so maybe I added in that second part (whoops!), but do you see what
I’m saying? Are you picking up what I’m
putting down people?!
The majority
called out the dissent for stating that corporations can’t be considered people
because they “cannot exercise…religion” and giving no further explanation… the
majority initially said “dem silly ladies i.e. sub-persons with whom we, the
majority, i.e. actual persons, i.e. men, share the bench with, doe – are all
cute and confused” – Hmmm, actually maybe that line didn’t make the final
version of the published decision.
Hmm… wait. What?
#WaitWhat I’m confused.
Ah, yes, I
remember now. See the majority stated that the definition of “personhood”
included people and corporations.
You’ve seen this
before – remember that whole Citizens
United thing? That time when SCOTUS said that there was such a thing as
“corporate personhood.”
(Just to quickly
recap: “Corporate Personhood” as identified by the Supreme Court has officially
made it easier for businesses to vote and exercise religious freedom than it has
persons… as in like people-persons, like person persons….)
By allowing
business to take on the morality of persons, they are allowing such personal
and moral decisions to be more easily and more readily made by “persons” than
by women, i.e., the Supreme Court has made female personhood, less “person-y” than
“persons” (aka the inanimate entities once known as businesses).
Gosh, ya stinkin’
Pink Politico this isn’t an attack on
women, I mean HELLO! the entire Hobby
Lobby legal team was made up of women. This is about religious freedom!
(cue U.S.A., U.S.A. chant in the distance).
But you see my
dear reader, it is. That is exactly what it is.
By deciding in
favor Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS has said
that I, in my state of autonomy, as a human being with a beating heart, as a
woman, as a person who actually faces the decisions surrounding reproductive
health (i.e. as someone with female biology), am not able or capable, nor are
my rights worth protecting.
In making this
decision the Court reinforced “urban legends” of birth control and
contraceptives.
The Court stated
that the Christian belief that life begins at the moment of conception is
violated by the birth control mandate… Hmmm… that’s weird SCOTUS, because if
you’re taking birth control – there is
not moment of conception, that’s actually the whole point of birth control. This one sweeping statement
affirmed the super-dooper untrue
notion that birth control is the same as an abortion, and it simply is not. The
Pro-Life Generation movement fails to recognize that taking birth control, in
and of itself, is in fact a parenting decision. The decision, NOT TO PARENT, is a decision, and one
that demands respect and security.
In making this
decision the Court dangerously solidifies that birth control and reproductive
health are separate entities than “regular” health. “Health” regards personal
decisions, whereas reproductive health decisions are obviously for the entire
community. Yet oddly enough, healthy women in their early twenties often
utilize their GYN as a PCP because their gynecological health is so closely
their “general” health… #GASP
**Please note
here that Viagra is still covered by your religiously bound for-profit
insurances packages… #PraiseHands #PreachHands
I’d encourage the
majority Justices to take a sexual and health education class, but seeing
as how sex education, by law, neither has to be scientifically or medically accurate,
why on earth would I expect the decisions of the Supreme Court to be?!?!
#CanIGetanAMEN
Notorious R.B.G.
(Canna get a “what, what” for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and her 35 page
dissent), marked the majority decision as a “minefield,” placing the rights and civil liberties of all persons
at risk, and challenging the majority with what would be next:
“Would the exemption…extend to employers
with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's
Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs,
including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin
(certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there
for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
Does Hobby
Lobby and those like it, via their “sincere Christian beliefs” reserve the
right to exception from accusations and convictions of marital rape or other
means of sexual assault (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or what about discriminate
against female employees for working outside of their homes (Titus 2:3-4)?
When will it
end? Where does it end? What if these things happen?!
While
conservative bodies shout “No, none of those things are possible” from the
hilltops, we must ask WHY they are
not possible. They are not possible because a group of men said they were not possible. Using dicta they
insinuated that such restrictions would only reach as far as up the dress of
the nearest lady worker, and not farther or beyond… Oh gee, thanks.
But, we are at
risk. We are in danger. In a nation founded on the principles of religious
freedom and fair representation – when our highest judicial body used the “SINCERE CHRISTIAN BELIEFS” test as an
actual and measureable means, our nation suffers. Suffers because an impactful
decision was made by 5 men. 5 men that will never have to make these decisions,
5 men who see birth control as purely sexual, 5 men who don’t want women be at
all sexual. 5 men made a choice that would and will never effect them, but one
that touched more than half of our national (*cough* and global *cough*) population.
Once again, the majority populace has been marginalized by our minority
representation – our representation in Congress and our representation on our
nation’s highest court of law.
The notion of
“sincere Christian belief” amazes me in this context because Jesus – ya know,
ya know, the guy that started this whole thing – may not have had a worldly knowledge
of birth control or reproductive health in modern science, he did caution the
world with this:
"And Jesus answering unto them, render
to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's,
and they marveled at Him…" [Mark 12:17, KJV]
Freedom of
religion, my friends, includes freedom from it. Jesus himself suggested that
the practices and regulations of secular laws should be followed and the pieces
of your heart and soul, as so you belong to God, should go to God.
I'm fine if the government
doesn’t want to impose a burden on the religious freedoms of others, all I ask
is that in the mean time, they do not impose a burden on the status and rank of my
personhood.
1 comments
The issue of birth control being seen as akin to abortion, is a grey area. Birth control typically functions in three ways: the primary manner is that the rise in progesterone and or estrogen causes prevention of ovulation (not like abortion), the second is an increase in cervical mucosa, making it difficult for sperm to pass (also not like abortion), and the third- which is where the right wing movement grabs it's steam, is the weakening of the endometrium (which COULD be argued as akin to abortion). In the rare event that a woman should conceive while on the pill, weakening the endometrium produces a less physiologically supportive environment for a zygote. A zygote is only created after the combination of gamete cells, which is technically the moment of conception. This of course brings us back to the hotly debated question of: "When does human life begin?"- Is it at the moment of conception? Is it at birth? Is it at the start of third trimester? Again--- far too many grey areas.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like to view a persons body as their own dominion, which is none of my or anyone else's business. Health and wellness maintenance is part of every persons dominion, and should be the primary focus in health care. A woman should have the right to control a medical condition within her body, which could be detrimental to her health. Given that pregnancy can be detrimental to a woman's health, she should be able to prevent or terminate pregnancy, as a health and wellness measure. The prevention or termination of a pregnancy, as a health and wellness measure, should be allotted under an insurers health care coverage.
Aside from the aforementioned, we are dealing with a world population crisis, in regard to the human species. 7.4 billion people and climbing--- yikes! Resources-- food, shelter, and potable water are finite for growing populations. We need to focus our efforts on responsible reproduction practices, and preservation of our species, before its too late.
I feel like corporate person hood has not only affected reproductive treatments and modalities, but all health care treatments and modalities. Insurance companies direct health care through compensation allotments. Clinicians and hospitals base the care of their patients, on the patient or insurers willingness to pay. It's forcing many clinicians to abandon ship, because what is compensationally acceptable, and what is ethically acceptable, are often two very different realms of operation.
Great article, thanks for the read.