Government is not an à la carte system where you can pick and choose based on your beliefs. Taxation is more of an all-you-can-eat salad bar. You don’t get to show up and say, ‘Look, I know it costs $10.99, but I’m only paying $7.50 because I have a moral objection to beets.

Everyone has their own version of beets. If you really want to be treated like a person, corporations, then guess what? Paying for things you don’t like is what it feels like to be one.
This idea — that women can always find another way to get the coverage or care they need — underpins just about every recent restriction on women’s health. What’s another 24-hour mandatory abortion waiting period? To a woman who lives 25 miles from the nearest provider, it’s everything. What’s one more tweak to a law about the width of clinic doors? To a clinic that can’t afford to remodel, it’s everything. What’s a minor policy change that means you have to pay full price for that IUD? To a woman who makes $14 an hour, it’s everything.

anonymous said:

How do you feel about Hobby Lobby denying their employees the right to buy birth control? Their reasoning is opposing it on religious grounds even though birth control is used for more than just preventing pregnancy.

Hey, there’s a lot of misinformation going around. Here’s a few facts that often get missed. 

1) Hobby Lobby is ok with paying for 16 out of the 20 required types of birth control under Obamacare. 

2) They have a religious objection to 4 of them, specifically the morning-after pills. The types that stop a baby from surviving after conception. Abortion inducing drugs. The birth control they are talking about isn’t used for anything except preventing pregnancy after conception.

3) They aren’t denying their employees the right to buy birth control. They can buy those 4 drugs themselves if they wish. They pay their employees well, and they have stated again and again that they aren’t trying to control anyone’s decisions. In fact, this whole discussion is about the right to make decisions, and whether or not you can force someone to pay for something they have a religious objection to. 

Here’s a nice video of a spokeslady that blinks a lot. She does a nice job of explaining it. 

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflects on the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, she sees an inconsistency.

In its gay rights rulings, she told a law school audience last week, the court uses the soaring language of “equal dignity” and has endorsed the fundamental values of “liberty and equality.” Indeed, a court that just three decades ago allowed criminal prosecutions for gay sex now speaks with sympathy for gay families and seems on the cusp of embracing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

But in cases involving gender, she said, the court has never fully embraced “the ability of women to decide for themselves what their destiny will be.” She said the court’s five-justice conservative majority, all men, did not understand the challenges women face in achieving authentic equality.
—  Adam Liptak, As Gays Prevail in Supreme Court, Women See Setbacks, The New York Times (Aug. 4, 2014).
Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video