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.