Today, the Supreme Court made an important decision about women’s rights and religious freedom.  Most of this has to do with a woman’s right to contraception–not just her right to an abortion.  Today was a narrow victory for Hobby Lobby, along with several other companies, who were arguing that they shouldn’t have to provide insurance coverage of certain types of contraception for women.

This can all seem sort of vague and hard to pin down what it will exactly look like in action.  Let me show you a concrete reality.

When I was 17 I started taking birth control.  Before I started on this medication, I would get really sick during my periods.  There were two times I remember it being especially bad: once when I woke up unable to feel my legs past blinding cramp pain and second when I had to leave school because I was vomiting from the pain.  Since I started taking contraception, I’ve only had mild cramps that have not prevented me from going to class or participating in any of my other daily activities.

I recently switched prescriptions to find something that better suited my needs.  When I went to pick up my medication I was told it was going to cost over $100.  I said there must be a mistake, I’m still on my parent’s health insurance.  I was then told that I would need my insurance provider’s signature to be able to pick up my birth control.

Read: I needed my dad’s boss’s signature to get necessary medication.

Luckily for me, my dad’s boss is my dad and he is fully aware that I take birth control.  However, he has the “religious freedom” to prevent me, or any of his employees, their wives, or their children from obtaining reasonably priced contraception just by saying it is against his and company values.  However, my father would never do that.  My father understands the importance of people making personal heath choices with their physician, not their employer.

Just as a quick reminder, this scenario is not rare, nor is it even close to extreme.  I’ve known many people who have had difficulty obtaining birth control or insurance coverage of these medications.

However, this is not what this fight is about.  I know this fight is not about an objection to contraception, even emergency contraception.  How do I know that?  Hobby Lobby invests significant amounts of their 401k assets in companies that develop, not only IUDs, but medications used specifically to induce abortions.

A company that feels so strongly about not providing contraception because they see it as a form of abortion is actually investing in its development.  Clearly this is not about upstanding moral values–or even Christian values.

This is about women.  This is about women making decisions about their bodies, choices that will affect the rest of their lives.

I’ve seen so many arguments that women shouldn’t rely on insurance or employers for their access to birth control.  This isn’t a fair expectation.  In our country, healthcare is based on employment.  This isn’t a good system, but it is the reality right now.  Without insurance, birth control is expensive.  IUDs can cost up to $1,000 according to Planned Parenthood.  They also say that birth control pills can cost up to $50 a month, but I will tell you, from personal experience, that it can cost a lot more based on when your insurance decides to stop covering it.

This entire situation is confusing and it’s difficult to sort through all the information.  However, the bottom line is that religious freedom does not mean freedom to take rights away from the people who work for you and it certainly doesn’t mean taking decision making power about a woman’s body away from that woman.

For Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, please click here.  For important key points, here.


8 thoughts on “Just in from SCOTUS: Companies are people, women aren’t

    1. It’s not about the majority opinion actually declaring that women aren’t people, that would be too obviously ludicrous. It’s about taking away a woman’s basic right to make personal medical decisions with her physician. They took that decision away and handed it to the woman’s employer (or her husband or father’s employer) who might happen to have different religious opinions that they can now enforce on their employees and employees’ families.

      This ruling treats the corporation more like a person (giving a business the ability to have religious persuasion which I am entirely skeptical of) than the woman and takes away a woman’s basic rights.

      Employers in our country take on the responsibility to insure employees and their families. If we start allowing them to pick and choose what types of medical procedures they insure, we play a dangerous game where we begin allowing random third parties to have a say in everyone’s medical decisions.

      As a side note: It also bothers me how blatantly this ruling favors Christianity. It says this is ok for contraception, but the majority opinion doesn’t want lower courts using this ruling for any restrictions of pork based procedures or vaccinations. (That beings said, I don’t want those things restricted either, I just think it is amazing how freedom of religion in the United States has seemingly become a freedom to promote Christianity).

      In conclusion, I never meant to pretend that I was quoting the majority opinion, and I am sorry if I gave you that impression. If you would like, I can add a note in the piece clarifying that my title is meant to read between the lines. That is exactly what it does, it takes the larger opinion piece and is meant to create an idea of how this decision may effect our country.

      Thank you for engaging! I appreciate and welcome all comments and really appreciate you keeping your conversation respectful. Have a good night!

  1. Dear Hanna, I must say, at the outset, that I am a friend of your parents, however that has nothing to do with my comment. Your blog was thoughtful, insightful and expressed my views and, I believe that of most women. This is a very scary, slippery slope the supreme court has descended into. Your response to the apposing view was beautifully worded. We need more young people to join in and start the conversation.

    1. Thank you so much for your response. I respect the men and women of our Supreme Court, but we are very lucky to be in a country where we can question their decisions. This is definitely one that everyone needs to really think about and try to understand how it might effect each citizen of our country in profoundly negative and unfair ways.

    1. Thank you. This is an important issue and I think the justices in the majority grossly underestimated the effect this ruling might have. Or maybe they didn’t and that’s another issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s