![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Ruth Bader Ginsberg's dissent to the (note: all male) Supreme Court Majority Decision:
From Jezebel Why Women Aren't People But Corporations Are.
"... five men agreed that corporations (people) shouldn't be able to use Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby to justify discriminating against anyone except women (lesser people-ish entities), and won't be able to use it to deny other health care besides contraception. {...} This ruling applies to whore pills only. Not to blood transfusions, vaccines, or antibiotics purchased to fight off a nasty case of the clap caught while raw dogging a stranger in a bar bathroom. Just birth control. No matter why a woman needs it. {...}The five men also agreed that their ruling only applies to corporations (people) with "sincerely held" religious beliefs. You know, the kind of religious beliefs that are so sincerely anti-birth control that they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture birth control. {...} Today, five men on the Supreme Court said that women's reproductive health care is less important than a woman's boss's superstition-based prudery {...} The five men of the Supreme Court made pains to specify that this only applies to bosses who specifically object to women who want to use a portion of their compensation to obtain a pharmaceutical that will help them not get pregnant. But the actual women of the Supreme Court — each of whom joined in dissenting from the majority Five Man Opinion — see things differently. In a dissent I'm bound by SCOTUS commentary tradition to call "blistering," Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the decision "of startling breadth" that could unleash "havoc" on American society (in fact, Mother Jones surmises that 90% of all American businesses fit the criteria to be classified as "closely-held corporations," so, gird your loins, ladies. Literally). She wrote that for-profit companies, unlike nonprofits, don't exist to further an agenda beyond money making and therefore cannot be said to have religious beliefs, and points out that one of the forms of birth control objected to by the fact-ignoring folks at Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby is the IUD, which, if purchased and installed without the help of insurance, would cost about as much as a woman earning minimum wage would make in a month. "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield," she wrote. {...}None of the five men behind the majority ruling have have ever suffered from endometriosis, painful periods, or dangerous pregnancies {...} The Court won't classify Hobby Lobby's woman-only scientifically illiterate objections to contraception as "discrimination" against women. But it would be discrimination if Hobby Lobby's religious objections applied to [racial minorities]. Are you following? Me neither.{...} Women are lucky that they at least have Justices Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bader Ginsburg in their corner (NEVER DIE, RUTH BADER GINSBURG!!).
Supreme Court "Clarifies" their Asshattery:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
So, no, it's not about just two kinds of birth control. It's birth control PERIOD. (BTW.- the five male justices in this ruling... all Catholic.)
Unsurprisingly, polls say that trust in the Supreme Court is at a record low
In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.{...} The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations' employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage. {...}Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community... The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court's attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight. {...}[the ACA] calls on the companies covered by the requirement to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans...Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers... Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults. {...}one Member of the majority recognizes, without reservation, that "the [contraceptive coverage] mandate serves the Government's compelling interest in providing insurance coverage that is necessary to protect the health of female employees."{...}Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be "perceived as favoring one religion over another," the very "risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." Ibid. The Court, I fear, has wandered into a minefield.
From Jezebel Why Women Aren't People But Corporations Are.
"... five men agreed that corporations (people) shouldn't be able to use Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby to justify discriminating against anyone except women (lesser people-ish entities), and won't be able to use it to deny other health care besides contraception. {...} This ruling applies to whore pills only. Not to blood transfusions, vaccines, or antibiotics purchased to fight off a nasty case of the clap caught while raw dogging a stranger in a bar bathroom. Just birth control. No matter why a woman needs it. {...}The five men also agreed that their ruling only applies to corporations (people) with "sincerely held" religious beliefs. You know, the kind of religious beliefs that are so sincerely anti-birth control that they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture birth control. {...} Today, five men on the Supreme Court said that women's reproductive health care is less important than a woman's boss's superstition-based prudery {...} The five men of the Supreme Court made pains to specify that this only applies to bosses who specifically object to women who want to use a portion of their compensation to obtain a pharmaceutical that will help them not get pregnant. But the actual women of the Supreme Court — each of whom joined in dissenting from the majority Five Man Opinion — see things differently. In a dissent I'm bound by SCOTUS commentary tradition to call "blistering," Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the decision "of startling breadth" that could unleash "havoc" on American society (in fact, Mother Jones surmises that 90% of all American businesses fit the criteria to be classified as "closely-held corporations," so, gird your loins, ladies. Literally). She wrote that for-profit companies, unlike nonprofits, don't exist to further an agenda beyond money making and therefore cannot be said to have religious beliefs, and points out that one of the forms of birth control objected to by the fact-ignoring folks at Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby is the IUD, which, if purchased and installed without the help of insurance, would cost about as much as a woman earning minimum wage would make in a month. "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield," she wrote. {...}None of the five men behind the majority ruling have have ever suffered from endometriosis, painful periods, or dangerous pregnancies {...} The Court won't classify Hobby Lobby's woman-only scientifically illiterate objections to contraception as "discrimination" against women. But it would be discrimination if Hobby Lobby's religious objections applied to [racial minorities]. Are you following? Me neither.{...} Women are lucky that they at least have Justices Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bader Ginsburg in their corner (NEVER DIE, RUTH BADER GINSBURG!!).
Supreme Court "Clarifies" their Asshattery:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
So, no, it's not about just two kinds of birth control. It's birth control PERIOD. (BTW.- the five male justices in this ruling... all Catholic.)
Unsurprisingly, polls say that trust in the Supreme Court is at a record low
