Why Are People So Opposed To Women Having Sex?

Today was a difficult day for those of us who support gender equality.  The much anticipated decision in the Hobby Lobby case, over whether or not the corporate owners have the right to demand that the healthcare coverage provided to employees does not include particular forms of birth control, was handed down.  For many of us, the 5-4 decision in favor of the owners was, sadly, not a surprise.  Never-the-less, the ideologies and conflicting systems of cultural value that we are forced to contend with in light of the ruling, are troubling.

The outcome of the Hobby Lobby case is problematic for a number of reasons.  Many of them have been discussed at length throughout the day across social and traditional media platforms. The one I would like to focus on however, is not explicitly mentioned in the decision, nor is it immediately obvious when analyzing the arguments.  However, it is significant because it seems to be hiding beneath all of the other issues.  It is the larger societal assumption and cultural values that have led us down this path in the first place.  Before we get there, I would like to briefly summarize some of the troubling issues that have gotten the majority of the attention of commentators today (at least those on the "left").

1) The implications for how we interpret the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.  Since when did the freedom to practice your religion without restriction become the "freedom" to impose your particular beliefs onto others? Particularly, those who you already hold a position of power over? Perhaps I missed something but I was under the (apparently misguided) impression that in the United States, one person's Constitutional rights stop when they threaten to infringe upon those of others.  No?

2) Are there any limits on corporate power left?  The entire purpose of creating a corporation, rather than merely running your business as an independent owner, is to detach the business from your personhood. You are essentially choosing to create a legal entity that stands in for you (and your partners) and serves as a shield or a barrier between business practices and personal behavior.  This is beneficial to both the corporation itself and to the founders/owners/investors.  The owners cannot lose their personal resources if the corporation goes bankrupt or is sued.  Likewise, the corporation does not necessarily have to fall apart (or risk being sued) if one of the owners commits an illegal act.  The result of this is that corporations themselves do not have to follow the same standards as human beings.  However, the trade-off was supposed to be, that corporations were not entitled to the same rights as human beings either!  Why not?  Because the corporate owners had themselves declared that they were NOT the corporation by incorporating their business!!!!!  Given this, the notion that a corporation can have "religious beliefs" someone magically transferred to it by the owners is absurd and insulting.  The owners should not be able to exempt themselves from certain laws by creating a corporation while simultaneously saying as "part of the corporation" they have the right to freedoms designated for human beings.

3) The potential for future rulings along similar lines is frightening to contemplate.  Despite Justice Alito's protestations, it is difficult to believe that other corporations will not attempt to follow in Hobby Lobby's footsteps.  What is to stop them from claiming their religious convictions prevent them from serving the LGBT community?  Or that their religion is opposed to vaccinations or blood transfusions?  Alito claims that those cases would be different because of their potential consequences on a societal scale.  But who among us truly believes that will stop corporations from taking the opportunity to destroy more governmental mandates and regulations, now that they've tasted success?  Furthermore, even Alito's colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is unconvinced that her conservative colleagues on the court would refuse to listen to further cases along these lines.

4) At least five justices of the Supreme Court have demonstrated that they lack a basic understanding of the science surrounding reproduction.  A substantial portion of the argument on the side of the owners was that they believe these particular forms of contraception serve as abortifacients.  This is simply untrue.  Scientifically, factually, untrue.  What does this mean?  Quite simply, that the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs can trump scientific fact...but only under certain circumstances.  After all, in a number of state and federal cases in the past, judges have ruled that people do not have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children, or even for themselves, unless they are scientifically and medically informed, and are not at risk for injuring others with their choices, regardless of religious beliefs.  Essentially, this ruling suggests that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas either do not understand the science behind contraception, or they think that this particular form of "unscientific religious belief" is more worthy of protection and consideration than other forms. Hmmm....I wonder why that would be the case?

This brings me to the larger issue - the one lying just beneath the surface of all of the, admittedly very significant, problems with the decision that have been getting so much attention.  What is that issue, you may ask?  In the United States, despite the apparent gains in gender equality and opportunity, the concerns of Women are still seen as fringe issues, less worthy of respect.  Yes, yes, yes.  I can hear you protesting and groaning.  "Not another overly sensitive feminist blogger making everything about misogyny!"  Well, first of all, feminists do not MAKE anything about misogyny.  We're just aware of its' existence and not afraid to point it out when we see it.

Not convinced?  Lets take a look at today's ruling, shall we?  What exactly is the "sincere" religious belief that is being debated in the Hobby Lobby case?  That it is wrong to have an "abortion"?  Well, as previously mentioned, these particular forms of contraception do NOT act as abortifacients.  I suppose we could simply accept that the owners of Hobby Lobby, their attorneys, the individuals supporting them, and five members of the U.S. Supreme Court are completely and entirely scientifically illiterate.  That is of course, a terrifying thought - but one that is hard to truly believe.

What makes greater sense is the idea that these individuals are obviously aware that contraception does not abort fetuses.  However, what it DOES do, and what many religious groups are opposed to, is prevent women engaging in sexual intercourse from becoming pregnant.  Why would they object to preventing pregnancy?  Quite simply, because their religion teaches them that sex exists solely for the purpose of procreation.  Meaning that if you are using contraception you are obviously a sex crazed harlot who is "sinning."  You are unworthy of the money the Green family pays (ignoring that you yourself pay a substantial employee contribution) for your healthcare! You must change your ways - meaning give up your need for these forms of contraception - meaning stop having so much sex, seriously! - or go pay for your IUDs yourself.  This perspective has been laid out repeatedly throughout the day by conservative pundits and bloggers, reacting with jubilation to the decision.  Erick Erickson immediately tweeted that his religion "...trumps your 'right' to employer subsidized consequence free sex."  His sentiment was replicated a number of times.

Oh Erick Erickson...if you were only in my court room!

How about Alito's claim that the issue of birth control is "different" than that of vaccinations?  This is, yet again, indicative of certain members of the Supreme Court's inability to understand perspectives beyond their own experience.  Are there really, any women out there who would argue that contraceptive care is NOT a human health issue, one with larger societal implications?  Sure, a lack of access to birth control will not lead to an epidemic, like we could experience if enough people choose to stop vaccinating for measles, for example.  However, numerous studies have demonstrated that lack of access to affordable contraceptive care has immediate and significant consequences for women.

The ability of a woman to choose her spouse, her career options, and make economic decisions, is directly tied to her ability to control her fertility. Options for women with children are severely limited, particularly women working full time at an organization like Hobby Lobby, who are often paid little more than minimum wage.  Still, Alito's decision does not appear to take these issues seriously.  It, in point of fact, argues that the reproductive and economic freedom of women, or the "gender issue" is less critical than the right of a corporation to believe in scientifically unsound principles!  He truly seems to believe that society would be more severely undermined by a corporation being "forced" to provide contraceptive coverage than by restricting the choices of women.  The ideology behind such a statement is profoundly troubling.

Finally, one could argue that this decision is more indicative of a tendency among the conservative judges to support religious freedoms or corporate power.  It is certainly true that the court has proven to be very friendly to business and religious groups.  However, as previously mentioned, the court has ruled in favor of restricting the actions of religious groups and even corporate groups in the past.  In fact, the Hobby Lobby decision blatantly states (despite the doubts of many people) that the court does not want to give businesses or religious groups the right to deny ALL treatments that they do not believe in...just this one.  The larger pattern that the Hobby Lobby decision does neatly fit in with is one of not taking the needs and rights of women in the United States seriously.  Particularly in relation to sexuality.  The recent decision in McCullen v. Coakley demonstrated all too well that the court is not concerned with protecting women - at least not when there is a competing interest group claiming their rights are being trampled on.  ANY competing interest group will do.  For this Court, corporations, religious groups, and protesters are all worthy of serious consideration and respect....Women....not so much.

John Roberts - I Wish I Lived in Your Utopian America

Back in April when the Supreme Court issued yet another ruling relaxing restrictions on campaign financing in McCutcheon v. FEC, many people were...shall we say...displeased with the justifications for the ruling as presented by Chief Justice John Roberts.  Roberts made a number of statements that came across as shockingly uninformed to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of our political system.

For instance, in discussing the potential for increasing amounts of money in politics to create unfair class divisions in terms of political power, Roberts stated that "the possibility that an individual who spends large sums of money may garner 'influence over or even access to' elected officials or political parties," was not something that should be the concern of the federal government.  And why does Roberts seem to think this is not the job of the federal government?  Why, because it would be limiting the freedom of speech of individuals who wish to express themselves monetarily, of course!

Ok, lets put aside the far from settled debate over whether money should constitute speech for a second.  I know, I know, I don't want to put that aside either, but just bear with me!  Assume that we accept this idea. The question then obviously becomes, why should freedom of speech automatically take precedent over the right of all citizens to have an equal amount of influence in our political system?  Speech trumps equality? Many people, myself included, felt that Roberts ought to explain why he apparently felt this was an easy decision to make.

Unfortunately, what we were given (instead of a thoughtful argument - which I am perfectly willing to concede may be possible to make) was Roberts' disbelief in the very idea that denying the government the ability to regulate certain campaign contributions could possibly result in inequality or political corruption! That is because, according to Roberts and the conservative wing of the court, there cannot possibly be corruption unless their is a quid pro quo exchange, and clearly campaign contributions are not that.

I just...I don't even...ugh.

Of course, this is ridiculous on many levels.  First of all, many states (and indeed the federal government) have repeatedly ruled that corruption and bribery can be found in instances of undue influence, not just direct, overt exchanges of items of equal value.  Perhaps more importantly, it implies that people cannot be corrupted on a personal level (psychologically, emotionally) unless someone blatantly comes out and says to them "I want to buy your votes!"  One would assume that any human being with a sense of self and emotional intelligence, which we would hope the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has, would be able to recognize that people do not usually buckle under the pressure of influence merely because of the possibility of overt monetary rewards.  It is a subtle process of wooing people - of convincing them that they are doing the right thing; that by throwing a few votes someone's way they can stay in Congress and continue to "do good;" of befriending them and stroking their ego - that corrupts.  Finally, Roberts' statements suggest he thinks that US politicians are too good to be corrupted by campaign contributions.

Unable to understand how someone could rise to the position of Chief Justice and yet be unable to grasp these basic ideas prompted Bill Maher to (notoriously) state about Roberts that "either he is a liar or he is too naive to hold any important job including, and especially, this one."  Other rulings seem to support Maher's idea.  Who can forget the ridiculous justification for the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act? Apparently the South has changed!  Racism is no longer a major problem!  In fact, the larger concern is that the equal rights of Southern states are being violated by demanding that they ask for permission to change their voting laws,when other states do not have to.  Considering that those same states immediately moved to enact prejudicial Voter ID laws mere hours after the decision was handed down, one wonders what world Roberts is living in!

Source: John Cole, CagelCartoons.com

Which brings us to the most recent Supreme Court decision to send shock waves through the social justice and civil rights communities - McCullen v. Coakley.  In McCullen, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters (oh excuse me, I mean, "advisers") were being violated by a law in Massachusetts that restricted protesting to 35 feet outside of clinics providing abortion services.  Of course, there are,once again, legitimate arguments to be made for not restricting free speech in any instance of protestation.  If that was the position consistently taken by the Roberts Court, well then, whatever your political leanings, you would have to respect it to some degree.  However, the Supreme Court has in the past agreed with the idea that speech can and should be limited, including protest speech, particularly if that "speech" devolves into harassment or intimidation.  Furthermore, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, it is currently impossible for citizens to protest in front of the Supreme Court!  Apparently, in the case of the Court itself, free speech is less important than order.

How is it that the Roberts Court could not see the blatant hypocrisy behind this position?  Is it simply that, as Maher stated, the Court is full of idealists or liars?  I think it is a little more complicated than that.  Lets look at Roberts' justification for the decision in McCullen.  According to Roberts, the people whose speech they are protecting here are "petitioners, not protesters," who merely want to have the right to converse compassionately with women about their options.  They do not want to shame them, merely to help them! Oh ok!  Sorry, I guess all of those posters of dead fetuses and the cries of "slut" and "murderer" hurled at women as they walked into Planned Parenthood had me confused....

On the surface, this would, again, appear to support the notion that Roberts is simple naive.  That he lives in a happy little utopian America in his head.  One where anti-abortion activists are all sweet, helpful old ladies, women seeking out abortions are doing so only because they do not know they have other choices, Southern states have no interest in restricting voting rights, racism is dead, and money in politics does not corrupt!  It is a lovely dream - one that clearly has no basis reality for most Americans.

However, and this is the crucial point, for Roberts and many others like him, this is reality.  Their reality.  This IS the world as they know it.

Quite simply, Roberts is not a liar.  Perhaps you would be justified in calling him naive, but that suggests a problem with him personally, and hides the systemic problem that leads to this lack of understanding.  That problem is a disconnect between different social and cultural groups within the United States.  As has been pointed out recently in a number of academic and media outlets, Americans are increasingly self-segregating. As a result, we have little ability to understand and empathize with the struggles and experiences of people whose lives do not mirror our own.

Anthropologists and other social scientists have struggled for years to push people outside of their comfort zones, and help them see that, just because something someone says does not reflect your personal experiences, does not mean that they are "making it up" or "exaggerating."  That struggle must continue.  Until a wealthy, powerful, middle aged, white man, like Chief Justice John Roberts, can look past his own experiences and empathize with people whose lives are not as rosy as his (an elderly black man in North Carolina who suddenly cannot vote; a young women with three children and no job, who simply cannot afford to be pregnant yet again), there will be little chance of achieving legal equality in our society.  

Conflicting Values : Loss of Democracy in Detroit

I have always been fascinated by situations where conflicts within value systems and policies of institutions, societies, and cultural groups get negotiated.  Sometimes the conflicts are necessary for the organization in question to even exist.  Case in point - the United Nations.  The emphasis placed on the sovereignty of nations states, the desire to promote universal human rights, and the ability of cultures to live according to their own systems of belief, are constant sources of friction.  This has particularly been the case when you investigate human rights violations and disastrous peacekeeping missions.  And yet, without the principle of sovereignty being enshrined in the Charter, the UN would certainly cease to exist and would be incapable of doing anything to uphold more humanistic values!

Similar conflicts seem to lie beneath the surface of our own political system.  One of the most troubling of those conflicts is, of course, that between federalism and civil rights.  These two seemingly fundamental ideals have been battling it out since the founding of our nation-state.  Federalism has, problematically, often won this battle.  The idea that the Federal Government does not have the right to step in and "police" the actions of States when they are dealing with traditionally reserved or non-designated powers, has allowed politicians (and increasingly, corporations) to get away with a range of disgusting activities.

Protests in the Streets for Civil Rights - Because Federalism Can Be Used to Justify the Unjustifiable

Most recently, we have seen the complete loss of representative government within the city of Detroit. When Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed an "emergency manager" to control Detroit unilaterally, despite never being elected to office by the city's population the people of  Detroit effectively lost all ability to have a say in the way their city operates.  You heard that right.  A supposedly "democratic" American city - in point of fact one of the cities that laid the foundations for American prosperity and power in the world - became an authoritarian state.  The authority in question set about dismantling Detroit's pension and school systems, and privatizing areas that had traditionally belonged to the people as a whole.  Free spaces and public utilities were also up for grabs.  All in the name of "fiscal responsibility."

Lately, the situation in Detroit has taken an even more disturbing turn, as the emergency manager's office and the wealthy corporate interests behind that office, have taken an interest in Detroit's public water system. Suddenly citizens of Detroit have found their water bills skyrocketing.  Having difficulty making the unreasonable payments, more and more people are having their water turned off.  The city is full of homes with no running water.  In the middle of summer people are finding themselves stuck with no clean drinking water, an inability to shower, and the unsanitary situation of not being able to use the toilets.

So what are the people doing about this, you might ask?  Well, in MOST American cities the people would put pressure on their local representatives - councilmen and women, the mayor, etc. to negotiate re-payment plans that locals could live with.  Or to ensure that those water bills are accurately priced and the people are not being taken advantage of.  Oh but that's right!  Thanks to the "emergency manager" being imposed on Detroit, the people have no representatives to turn to.  They have no recourse at the city and state level.

Let me re-state this clearly and concisely - American citizens are having their water taken away and they have no ability to democratically prevent this because their rights to choose their representatives have been stripped from them.

I know what you're thinking.  You're thinking that there must be more to it or that it cannot be as bad as I, (and Rachel Maddow, and the guardian ) am making it out to be!  Of course, if something like this was actually happening in a major American city, the Federal Government would do something to protect the needs and rights of the people.  Except...here's where that pesky Federalism comes into play.  States have the rights to create their own Constitutions and pass their own laws.  They have the right to decide the formats of State and local governments.  In Michigan today, that means, all of this is technically legal.  Of course, this ignores the brutal and possibly rule-breaking techniques used to get these laws passed through the Michigan legislature.  But none the less, if the Federal Government were to step in, they'd be faced with the backlash of supposedly "small government" conservatives screaming that this was tyranny!

Yet surely these actions violate the Civil Rights of Detroit's citizens.  According to the United Nations, the situation is even worse than that.  The take over of the water supply, and the holding it over the heads of Detroit's population like some Somali warlord controlling the food stores demanding exorbitant fees, is the violation of a basic human right.  After the UN made that declaration, the media exploded and Americans across the country called out for action.

Oh wait, no, that's right!  The move was ignored by most national media organizations, with the exception of certain MSNBC nightly anchors (Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes), and international outlets, like Al Jazeera.  After all, there's no time to discuss the decline of a great American city into a wasteland of despair along the lines of a poverty stricken, failed state, when Hillary said she was broke!

I know Hillary...I know

The bitter irony behind my whole rant is that the very notion that Detroit's citizens should have a say in how Detroit operates locally is based on, you guessed it, Federalism.   Because of course, the principle is not the problem.  Just like the conflicts in the UN Charter, the principle is necessary for the success of the United States as a whole.  However, we need to re-think its application.  Federalism is there to protect the people from government tyranny, NOT to protect smaller state-level tyrants from Federal interference!  As such, Federalism should never come before Civil Rights, just as sovereignty should not be placed above human rights.  To do so, is to miss the point entirely.