Now don't go all Ginsberg on me until you've heard me out. I've been listening to the backlash over the Supreme Court ruling allowing Hobby Lobby to dictate what contraceptives they will not cover under the Affordable Care Act.
Let's look at what Ho Lo won't cover:
Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”) Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”) Copper Intra-Uterine Device IUD with progestin
The first two suggest a possible theme of Roe v. Wade while the remaining duos have me stumped. What do copper and progestin have to do with IUD's? And who the hell uses IUD's anymore? At least Walmart supplies every woman employee with a complimentary S hook and a can of WD-40 from their hardware department.
Let's take a look at Ho Lo's list of contraceptives they are willing to pay for:
- Male condoms
- Female condoms
- Diaphragms with spermicide
- Sponges with spermicide
- Cervical caps with spermicide
- Spermicide alone
- Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
- Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
- Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
- Contraceptive patches
- Contraceptive rings
- Progestin injections
- Implantable rods
- Female sterilization surgeries
- Female sterilization implants
If you do the math of the twenty contraceptives covered by the ACA, Ho Lo won't cover the 20% of the baby blockers that conflict with their religious beliefs. Is that really worth the outrage? It's not that their employees can't use the verboten 4. They just have to pay for them out of pocket. So what's all the fuss about?
Here's what appears to be the issue at stake:
Corporations can now cherry pick the laws they will follow based upon their religious beliefs. Translation: Women are being scre*ed again. Bye bye Rowe v. Wade. And thanks to the Citizens United (C.U.) ruling, originally called Citizens United Naturally Together (C.U.N.T.), there appears to be an alarming pattern developing.
Enter Ruth Bader Ginsberg...
It took an 81 year old non-Christian woman to explain the ramifications of this Supreme decision. Let's have a look:
• Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
- "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga 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."
- "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
- "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
- "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."
- "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
- "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
- "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."