Disaster in Upending Religious Freedom

Emily Horowitz — July 16, 2014 – 1:35 pm | Women's Leadership Network | Democrats | Women's Issues Comments (0) Add a comment

The Hobby Lobby Case: A Loss for Reproductive Freedom and Religious Freedom

On June 30, 2014, five men handed down the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision.  These five men will never have to take Plan B, use an IUD, or obtain a prescription for the birth control pill, yet are responsible for making a decision that affects millions of American women.  The three women on the bench dissented, warning of the discrimination, inequality, and health concerns that would come from the Court’s decision.  Doesn’t it say something when no women’s voices are heard about a matter of women’s health and basic healthcare rights?

While Hobby Lobby refused to pay for four types of birth control, the Court expanded the ruling to include any and all contraceptives. Limiting the options available to women is dangerous, as different types of birth control work better and are safer for different women.  In the aftermath of this ruling, many organizations are already seeking to refuse to provide all forms of birth control.  A nonpartisan, independent group of doctors and other medical experts have deemed birth control an essential preventative health benefit for its many uses beyond preventing contraception.[1]

There are many health, economic, and personal benefits to birth control use, but when it comes down to it, the reason that a woman is on birth control should not matter; it’s a woman’s choice if or when she wants to use contraception.  99% of women make the choice to use birth control at some point in their lifetime, in consultation with medical professionals - not in consultation with their employers.

The Court’s majority decision specifically states that it only applies to the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate,” and that it does not apply to “vaccines and blood transfusions.”  By doing so, the Court implies that birth control is less important than other medical procedures and medications, when this is not the case.  Birth control is a necessary matter of women’s health and reproductive freedom. There is clearly a double standard being exercised when corporations that decry the use of contraception for women have no problem allowing insurance to cover vasectomies and Viagra for men. It is hard not to view this as a case of sex discrimination.

Furthermore, the Court phrased its decision to sound like a narrow ruling that affects few women, when this is simply untrue.  Closely held corporations, those who are affected by the ruling, account for more than 90% of all businesses, and 52% of the American workforce.  Even Wal-Mart is considered a closely held corporation (though it should be noted that Wal-Mart has not expressed that they will stop covering birth control).  To date, at least 82 for-profit and non-profit corporations have filed suit to not cover birth control.  For a full list, visit http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/82-employers-who-want-deny-birth-control-coverage/.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is not limited to sex discrimination - companies have already filed cases attempting to expand the decision to allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Congress has introduced legislation to ensure employees have access to birth control regardless of their boss’s beliefs.  The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act of 2014 (S. 2578 and H.R.5051) was written in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.  This act will protect employees’ rights to all federally mandated health services, including contraception.   

The National Jewish Democratic Council believes that healthcare is an individual right. Providing fair access to birth control upholds the Jewish value of attending to the rights and needs of women.  Justice Ginsberg wrote, “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the Establishment clause was designed to preclude.”  NJDC affirms the first amendment right that prohibits one private citizen from denying the rights of another.  We must do whatever possible to protect personal medical decisions from Supreme Court Justices, politicians, bureaucrats, and employers.  As Justice Ginsberg said in her dissent, “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”  Unless Congress acts quickly on the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act of 2014, women and families across the country will be hurting from the Court’s decision.

---

[1] http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_26083760/keep-bosses-out-private-health-choices

Comments

There are no comments for this entry