ColumnThe Supreme Court decides that Hobby Lobby is a person with values that matter. Women? Meh.

This week, the Supreme Court took a big step toward preventing women from easily accessing and paying for birth control.

In case you missed it, here’s what happened: Hobby Lobby and its cronies argued that having to cover the cost of specific forms of contraception, like the morning after pill, as part of its employee health insurance was the same as paying for abortion, which goes against the owners’ Christian beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell V. Hobby Lobby. According to The New York Times, 5 of the 9 Justices decided “Requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom.”

This decision, while a direct attack on abortion and access, is more than a right wing assault on Obamacare. It’s another move toward prioritizing corporations over humans—specifically lady humans.

What the ruling means is that corporations are being granted the same rights as people, which makes no sense at all. But, the precedent was set back in 2010 with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case which promised free speech rights to  corporations—a case that was actually about campaign contribution limits, not free speech, but I digress.

To date, in addition to Hobby Lobby, there are 71 companies with owners that have said they don’t want to pay for birth control either. And not that it’s anyone’s business—especially an employer’s—why a woman might choose to take the pill, but for many, the decision has nothing to do with pregnancy prevention. About 1.5 million women use birth control to help with medical issues such as ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, endometriosis and endometrial cancer, according to a 2011 study.

But, with the Hobby Lobby case, contraception coverage is just the tip of a giant discrimination iceberg.

Why the Hobby Lobby Case Is a HUGE Deal

This ruling is an extreme attack on women’s health coverage here in the U.S., and it will impact women in developing nations as well. And while the Hobby Lobby case is about access to healthcare and contraception, like the Citizens United Case before it, the language in the ruling represents a massive shift in how we value corporate responsibility versus individual freedom.

This week’s ruling has sweeping consequences, according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who wrote a dissent chock full of staggeringly awesome quotes that earned her the social media title The Notorious RBG almost instantly). One consequence is that any company can declare a religion for itself and have at it.

How might that go? Justice Ginsburg has an idea. She wrote, “”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.”

Okay, so don’t work for a company with a religious affiliation, and you won’t have these problems, right? In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg warned that the ruling would have wide repercussions and “untoward effects.” She wrote, “Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.”

Can. Of. Worms. Or, as Ginsburg put it: “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

Oh, By the Way, Hobby Lobby Invests In the Abortion Pill

In case it’s not clear that, in reality, this is a financial issue and a power grab couched in morality, it turns out that Hobby Lobby (which does still cover Viagra and vasectomies) invests in the abortion pill, according to Mother Jones.

Oh, fancy that! Hypocrisy. Sweet, sweet hypocrisy.

Here’s what Mother Jones uncovered: “Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).”

So Now What?

I would love to wrap this up with something positive, but this ruling is a shitshow. The best thing we can do is to keep supporting candidates that value women and basic human freedom. We also need to continue supporting Planned Parenthood (because as our insurance stops covering reproductive care we need a place to go) and supporting Mother Jones, a publication that consistently offers up spectacular reporting.

Most importantly, four months from now, we have to vote in the midterm elections. The candidates we elect have approval over Supreme Court Justice appointments, people that arguably have more power than the President and much longer shelf lives. Each Representative and each Senator has a vote that can help us or hurt us, so pay attention to local elections.

Donating is a great start (and donor numbers do send messages), but dollars don’t count as people—yet. So get offline and vote, unless you want the company you work for to do it for you.

That Happened is Libby Lowe’s weekly column for EcoSalon analyzing media, news and pop culture through a feminist lens. Keep in touch with Libby @LibbyLowe.

Image: Nicholas Eckhart

Related on EcoSalon:

Jesus, Enough With the Chicken

Choice Without Access Isn’t Choice

When Roe V. Wade Is Overturned 

The post Hobby Lobby Is a Person, but You? Not So Much: That Happened appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnNBA star Udonis Haslem’s wedding announcement in the New York Times adds to the cultural conversation about reproductive choice.

In many ways, the New York Times story celebrating Udonis Haslem and Faith Rein’s wedding is pretty typical. Two kids with wildly different backgrounds meet in college. They start dating. Then, she gets pregnant. The circumstances of their courtship, reports The Times, weren’t so unusual (I mean aside from the whole NBA draft thing, of course):

“Their first challenge took place the following spring when she became pregnant. It was her junior and his senior year, and he had begun training for the N.B.A. draft. Despite the pregnancy, she was busy with track meets and helping him complete homework. The timing was bad. ‘I am not a huge fan of abortion, but we both had sports careers, plus we could not financially handle a baby,’ said Mr. Haslem, noting how he struggled with supporting Kedonis, the son he had in high school, who is now 14 and who lives with his mother.”

The decision the couple made to end the pregnancy, give the relationship time to mature and wait until they felt ready to start a family isn’t unusual. In fact, one-third of women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetimes.

What is unusual is how this story was reported. This chapter in this couple’s life was written as part of their story—something they supported each though, which contributed to their bond but did not define the relationship. The writer presents the abortion with the same perspective as the couple themselves say that they did: As a reasonable and sensible decision for that couple at that point in their lives.

It’s time for the media to start putting abortion in the context of normal rather then abnormal. That this story is told at all, that it is told in a wedding announcement and the way in which it is told is hugely, massively important to the cultural conversation around reproductive choice.

Unless we’re reading a story about a rape or incest survivor (a story in which readers can decide that the woman is a victim, which somehow justifies her decision to make a legal, medically safe choice for herself and terminate a pregnancy), it’s rare that we read about abortion as something that is part of life—which it is for many women and many couples.

The Times refers to the decision as one of many challenges the couple faced. And, as readers, all we know is that it’s one they faced together. And that’s all we need to know.

Though the couple’s choice to talk about the abortion in this article celebrating their relationship is in itself a political statement, the lack of  political commentary and the lack of apology is refreshing.

There’s a lot of power in the language we use to talk about reproductive choice—and a lot of power in what is left unsaid.

Image: Keith Allison

Related on EcoSalon:

The Summer of Restrictive Abortion Laws

Choice Without Access Isn’t Choice

Texas Restricts Doctors from Talking About Abortion

The post Udonis Haslem’s Wedding Announcement: That Happened appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnIt’s been a wild week for civil rights. Here’s what you need to know about DOMA, Wendy Davis, Voters’ Rights and…vaginas.

Oh my god; my head might explode. It’s only Wednesday and this week has been so chock full of news that I feel compelled to offer a round-up. Last night, I was getting ready for my next Lean In circle meeting about the power of storytelling—and in many ways, what connects all of these events is the power of stories.

In the presentation I was watching, I learned that people are 22 times more likely to remember—and connect with—a story than they are to recall or be inspired by a statistic alone. What we saw yesterday in Texas is an amazing example of the power of stories, not to mention perseverance and comfortable shoes.

Don’t Mess With Wendy Davis

It all started yesterday at 11am. The Democratic Texas State Senator attempted a 13-hour filibuster to prevent the passing of an incredibly restrictive anti-choice law that would criminalize abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and put into place a number of restrictions on doctors to provide care (we’ve seen this before). If it had passed, SB5 would have left Texas with only five abortion providers. If you haven’t noticed, Texas is a pretty massive state.

Davis arrived prepared with pink sneakers, a back brace and—most importantly—stories about  reproductive choice from real women. In a dramatic 15-hour battle, Davis was not allowed to get water or go to the bathroom, receive assistance, lean on an object for support or stray from her topic. The republicans tried some shady moves to shut her down, supporters gathered, Twitter blew up. At the end of the long day, she won!

But not all is right in Texas, today. The state is executing its 500th person and Davis’ fight may not be over.

The Right to Marry, Defended!

In the best pride month celebration to date, the Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote. I would have appreciated a larger number, but a win is a win.

Here’s a piece of the majority opinion: “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

This is a huge step toward equality, but the fight isn’t over. While the federal government has to recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples, individual states are not required to legalize marriage equality. Hopefully, those who haven’t will see this as a sign that it’s time to get on board. (Looking at you, Illinois.) Throughout this fight, countless minds have been changed because of people brave enough to step forward and share their stories before the world, and sometimes their families, were ready to hear them.

A Terrible Day for Voters’ Rights

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that kept discriminatory voting laws from going into effect in areas of the country with histories of disenfranchisement, reports Think Progress. The justices struck down a provision requiring certain jurisdictions, mostly counties in the South, to receive permission from the federal government before changing any law related to voting. In 1965, the slim majority argued, this was necessary to prevent sneaky tricks to keep blacks and Hispanics from having an impact on elections. Apparently, the five Justices who voted to remove the provision believe that racism is over. Had you heard? Great news, huh?

Once again, the Daily Show helps us put this in perspective. John Oliver pointed out that this portion of the VRA has been invoked to protect voters 74 times since the year 2000. And, there’s a direct connection to last night’s events in the Lone Star State. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced this week that the state would advance the nation’s most restrictive voter ID law—the very same redistricting map that was designed to keep Davis out of office.

As Oliver said, “Two hours! They couldn’t even wait for two hours. It takes Texas less time to disenfranchise minority voters than it takes for them to barbecue a pig.” Hopefully, these real stories of the impact of the VRA will inspire people to fight back.

The Vajayjay Monologues

The world doesn’t want to hear your vagina’s story. Earlier this week, iTunes censored the word “vagina” in Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues on its e-book page, spelling “vagina” as “v****a.” This comes on the heels (can I still say heels?) of a newspaper in Wisconsin replacing the repulsive and terrible anatomically correct word with XXXXXXX in an ad for the play. I have said it before and I will say it again, vagina is not a dirty word. Say it loud, say it proud. And with that: Vagina.

Images: Planned Parenthood and The ACLU

The post That Happened: DOMA, Wendy Davis, Voters’ Rights and Vaginas appeared first on EcoSalon.