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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment