One of the biggest downfalls of the Citizens United case is that we have created an environment where for-profit corporations are now viewed as “people” with the same religious expression rights of the individual and not for profit entities. This is extremely evident in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga decisions this week. The IRS identifies a “privately, closely held company” as a for-profit company with share ownership by 5 or less individuals. A closely held status is not based on size of the company, per se, and does not remove the for-profit status. The Federal Government and the Supreme Court have now identified for-profit corporations as individuals that can impose their religious views on their employees’ health insurance options, and further, curtail medical contraceptive methods that may conflict with their Judeo-Christian beliefs. But rest assured… if you are a male employee that needs to “get it up/get it on” with Viagra, Levitra or Cialis, you’re covered without complaint. All that company has to do is say that theirs is a “sincerely held belief” however, and a woman’s access to equitable medications is denied. The Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling (by a majority of male conservatives) gives way for oodles of future interpretations: from vaccines, to psychotropic drugs, to anything produced with marijuana, pig or cow materials for that matter.
Some statements I’ve read in support of this ruling are simply don’t work for Hobby Lobby, then. This argument implies that a potential female employee would know, upon application and acceptance of said employment with a “closely-held company” that the options in the hiring company’s insurance program prior to acceptance of the job limits her access to contraceptive care (this particular circumstance truly only affects women). But because that due diligence rarely happens before enrollment and hire date, I’d say we can consider that possibility a moot point. Not going to happen. Companies don’t divulge their entire insurance policy information to a minimum wage employee prior to the hire date. The burden is just too much on the HR departments.
As for the gender implications… to ignore them is just plumb dumb. There’s no moral objection against any “medications” for men – only women. For a group of managers at a hobby company that view the Bible as their guidance, I can only state the obvious: women, the crux and blame for all things evil in a book developed by several male authors in a religion created by a tent-maker with momma issues (Paul), will NEVER move forward if you guys keep this up.
This is ABSOLUTELY a gender issue right now. It’s an issue about ABORTION and about these religious organizations literally legislating our ovaries, and frankly, I’m sick of it. I wish I could look forward to the day when the tables turn on others to feel the pinch, which, the way the SCOTUS left it, maybe that day will come in the form of denial of medicinal marijuana and drugs that may offend Hindu’s, Scientologists, or Jews.
I’ve read the Bible-thumping, band wagoner’s expressions of glee with incredulity. Who are we kidding, here? I don’t look at this as though it’s some sort of boon for the individual – a company is NOT an individual. Period. To deny that this is about dictating a woman’s body and her healthcare options is an insult to any logical person’s intellect.
While men continue to request ED drugs and get them without hesitation, I think about the women they knock up that won’t have the RU-486 option available to her. Or the women like me, who literally cannot use pills, shots or patches and have had to use an IUD for the past ten years to avoid hemorrhaging from the hormone issues caused by BC Pills, shots, and patches. Or, the women who became pregnant while on a patch or pill (both of my children we conceived while on birth control), or a broken condom (on average it’s 2.5% of those using condoms according to a leading manufacturer), who now cannot turn to their regular physician for other options preventing an unwanted pregnancy and will be relegated to an outside clinic and no longer under the care of her physician.
The same religious groups that don’t want to deal with young, unwed mothers (the majority of which are, contrary to some beliefs, white and Christian according to DHS and the CDC) have pushed for corporations to exercise individual rights to religious freedom denying these women access to low-cost contraceptive options. Religious freedom is a right solely intended for the citizen, of which for-profit companies, closely held or not, do not qualify. Or rather, didn’t qualify.
Religion: No matter how you slice it, the authors of the Bible simply didn’t value women in their society, and the pushers of these religious organizations still don’t view women as equals.
I’m wary of ANY company that lays down Christianity (or ANY religion) as a road-map for management of their healthcare program when it comes to women’s issues. Why? Let’s take a look at how that book views women. Authors are notated.
Leviticus author: Unknown (Moses)
“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)
I Corinthians author: Paul (aka as Never-Married, Fatherless, Tent Maker)
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3)
“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Exodus author: (unknown 6th BCE priest)
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” (Exodus 22:18-20)
Timothy author: (Paul AGAIN)
“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Ephesians author: (Paul AGAIN – he was a very busy man)
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Ecclesiastes author: (Solomon)
“Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman.” (Eccles. 25:13)
“Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” (Eccles. 25:22)
“If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.” (Eccles. 25: 26)
“The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty.” (Eccles. 26:9-10)
“A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued.” (Eccles. 26:14-15)
“A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord.” (Eccles.26:25)
“For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach.” (Eccles. 42:13-14)
Good thing we have Hobby Lobby to make sure we women know our place in society.