Everyone is at Risk Because of SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision

Religiously affiliated or “closely held” corporations are now exempt from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. The Supreme Court’s divided 5-4 decision has altered women’s health care coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as well as changed how corporate powers are viewed by legislators. 

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. These are both for-profit companies that have federal group-shared healthcare plans. These plans offer contraceptive coverage for women, including FDA-approved birth control like pills, diaphragms, injections and implants, emergency contraceptive drugs, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). The CEOs believe these requirements are infringing on their right to exercise their religious beliefs, one being that life begins at the fertilization of an egg in the womb. 

As of February 2013, religiously affiliated nonprofits and faith based organizations of worship were exempt from providing contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plans to employees. The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases essentially asked the question of whether or not a for-profit corporation could take federal healthcare benefits away from it’s employees on the grounds of religious practices and beliefs. The companies used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to make these claims. The Health and Human Services Department focused their argument on the fact that these companies are in the business to sell products to consumers. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects persons who are engaged in the “exercise of religion,” not people trying to make money (HL Writ Pg. 23, Pew Research Center). 

The major issue the court decided is if “personhood” could be applied to companies in this situation. Previously the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee that a company can act as a “person” and exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of speech in the political arena. Throughout the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. cases, both companies argued that their employees should be viewed as “persons exercising religion” (HL Writ. Pg. 24A) and the requiring this specific healthcare coverage could also be inhibiting their freedom of speech (C Writ. Pg. 13). 

If the court had ruled in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services, it would have ended all “religious liberty-based” challenges to contraception coverage by companies and other claims made by businesses under the RFRA. 

So, what exactly does this decision mean for Americans?  

Allowing for-profit companies to pick and choose what their group federal healthcare plan offers to employees is detrimental to women’s health. By giving companies the right to decide if they want to cover contraception, a gap may form in women’s healthcare options. In a way, this could also allow companies to push a religion onto their employees since they are essentially deciding what treatments they can receive based on the CEO’s belief system. For-profit institutions are now essentially taking away treatment options from their female workers, which creates more tension and inequality for women in the workforce.  

This doesn’t only hurt women. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that ACA was constitutional a few years ago, this current decision may be used to take away other health benefits if shareholders’ fundamental beliefs don’t support certain treatments. The Supreme Court made it clear that companies could not use religion as reasoning for discrimination, but giving this type of liberty to the RFRA could backfire. This divided decision applies to 90 percent of all American businesses, since they are considered “closely held.” Now workers, such as people who are LGBTQ, single parents or pregnant women, at risk.

Religious people who do not agree with this ruling are also affected. Multiple amicus curiae briefs were sent to the court on behalf of religious organizations that were against the corporations’ stance on contraceptive coverage. The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. decision is not a “win” for the pro-life or religious liberty movement. Instead some ideologies are clearly being favored over others and are being pushed onto millions of people, inevitably lessening the rights of approximately 52 percent of American employees.

It does not matter who you are or what your religious preference is. There is one thing that is certain: corporations now have religious rights like every other person in this country. Your right to take care of your own body, believe what you want and to freely seek employment are now entangled with shareholders’ ideologies. Everyone’s rights are in jeopardy.

What Barbie and Women in the Media have in Common.

[Note: I wrote most of this a few weeks ago and didn't publish it right away. I was waiting for my blog post to be published and then a lot of things happened very fast. Will explain at another time.] 

Huffington Post published a short story about what a "normal" Barbie would like look if it was proportionate to the average 19-year-old girl. I was startled, because Barbie looks so good when she's "average!"

If you look at media today (i.e. movies, TV, broadcast, commercials, video games etc.) women are portrayed in a very sexual way and are not usually strong protagonists. The documentary MissRepresentation reveals this portrayal and how it actually hurts young girls ambitions.





I mention this documentary constantly to my friends and family because I have never seen anything like it. I am constantly thinking about how to change the dialogue about women in the media from a reporting stand point. It isn't just enough to change how I dress so I don't look, well, really overly sexualized because I don't feel comfortable or empowered by wearing that kind of clothing.

It shocks me though, because there are so many women in newsrooms now. The staff is pretty small in general at FAIR, about 6 people, half of which are female and all of the interns are too (and from Ithaca College!). At FOX a large number of the writers, editors and producers are women. About half of the talent are too. I have become very close to and really look up to many of the women I have meet over the past few weeks, but it still scares me how many women issues are down played by news outlets.

Here's one example. A month or so ago, I shadowed a reporter who was working on a story about a blog run by mothers' who are trying to stop mothers from putting down each other's child rearing styles and lifestyle choices. This is a really important topic, and the reporter honestly didn't have a lot of time to treat this story with the care it needs. Luckily the reporter had great interviews, but it failed to address that women are competitive with each other for a reason - that women put each other down because of stereotypes which are actually created by the media. It's hard to dive into that on a local news program, but hopefully one day it will be easier to discuss this more seriously.

Something really good though happened a few weeks ago at FOX. I researched women networking groups for a producer. She had pitched the story of "women leaders," in a staff meeting I sat in on, and then I suggested this to go along with it. She really liked the idea. We had to figure out how to flesh out the idea in full, like any news story, but I'm really happy that it went over well with the news director.

And sometimes women's issues aren't reported on in the same way, even though it might be the same exact topic. My recent blog post for FAIR explains how the coverage of Senator Wendy Davis received more coverage than the new Ohio budget, which creates new provisions for mothers seeking and redefines when a woman is actually pregnant. The reason the Ohio budget story isn't that big is probably because there isn't a figurehead trying to protect the women.

After working on this, I decided to write a longer study on the topic. It will be published soon, hopefully.

One thing that I would like to point out, though, is that these issues aren't just women's issues. They're societal -- men are greatly affected too. The creator of MissRepresentation is now making a film called The Mask You Live In  which is about how men are depicted in the media. I'm very excited to see how it turns out! (I donated to the kickstarter... just revealing my bias!)

Gender in the News!

I know I have a lot of explaining to do.. I shall later. A lot of big things happened in the past few weeks.. and soon my stay in NYC will end.

On another note: Just to keep yourself updated on a few things in the news, here are a few important links on women and families.

I firmly believe changing how women are perceived in the media and by society is not a feminist issue... it's a gender issue. Look at yourself... MEN: groping and rape culture, how this isn't just a feminist's problem -- society needs to look at itself too.

The number of stay-at-home dad's is increasing and articles mention how these father acknowledge how gender roles are changing. Most of these dad's are white and educated, which is not the norm for stay-at-home fathers.

Did you hear about the woman who organized a campaign in the UK to have Jane Austen put on the 10 pound note? Well, she was threatened with rape and murder by Twitter users. One of them, a 21-year-old male, was arrested this weekend.

Night at the Theatre with Ann Richards and Gloria Steinem

My step-mom is a huge fan of Ann Richards, democrat governor of Texas. Holland Taylor recently wrote a play about her and actually plays her in the one woman show Ann at Lincoln Center. Holland never met Ann, but was inspired by her after Ann passed away in the mid 2000's.

The play was amazing and to our surprise there was a talk back with Gloria Steinem, the woman who is a key leader in the feminist movement, who knew Ann. Holland came out before the talk back started, and said that this play is "about a woman who believed in living all the way," and that it is not meant to be political even though it evokes politics.

Holland Taylor dressed up as Ann Richards (in white), Gloria Steinem and
one of the producers of the play. Michelle and I sat in the second row.

Holland explained that of course women are inspired by her. She made women feel like they have ground to stand on, solid ground. Men already have the privilege to have ground to stand on, but young men who were around her felt like they could fly. Everyone was effected by her and that's why she wrote the play.

Gloria went on to say that alcohol, divorce and ambition never stopped letting her be a valuable woman. The talk back went on to discuss modern feminism, the Defense of Marriage Act as well as Senator Wendy Davis who is right now trying to continue filibustering an act in Texas that would close many abortion clinics.

One thing that Gloria and Ann hit me hard - that anyone and everyone should try to participate in politics, that we need people to represent us.

I don't see myself as being a politician, but I think the best way to serve my country is by making sure our government is transparent and reporting on their actions to inform the public.

And then, Gloria went on to say that women know that we can do what men do, but men don't know that they can do what women do. We, as a society, "don't expect men to be real parents" and they miss out because of it.

I always think about this: What am I going to do when I have children? Am I going to stay home? More and more I think to myself that I don't want to give up a full time job because I love working, then coming home to my family and telling them the amazing things I do. I know over time things may change over time, but right now I'm very happy working and wouldn't have it any other way.