Feminism - Frightbats Galore!

[Shryke]

Figures. I just wondered if this sort of decision can actually stand for long? Over here it would be a political decision, not something for a court to decide. Or at least it would end up being a political decision fairly soon.

It'll stand for a long time. The only ways to fix it would be for a different SCOTUS to repeal it (which means waiting possible a decade or more at least for the court's composition to shift) or constitutional change (impossible given the hurdles and politics in play).

There might be a way via legislation too, but that runs into the issue that the US is currently almost incapable of passing legislation at all, and certainly incapable of passing any on this subject. And that too is likely to persist for many years to come.

And it shouldn't be something for a court to decide in the US either. At least, not in the way it was. But the Robert's court is just downright terrible in every way and has been pushing absolutely awful opinions since, really, before it was the Robert's court. The SCOTUS in general has been highly politicized and, more importantly, the conservative justices have no compunctions about pushing extremely narrow and unsupported by legal precedent decisions in order to push a political agenda.

Any issue touching on feminism that hits the SCOTUS is likely to have lasting damaging effects on the US because of this.

[Weeping Sore]

Oh my. I would not travel down that road, DreamSongs. Getting birth control coverage was a fight to begin with, I wouldn't want to turn back the page 50 years. So many times in different threads over different topics, the argument comes down to the fact that only women get pregnant. And if you are going to argue about choices, why should companies provide coverage for lung cancer caused by smoking, or high blood pressure or diabetes caused by being overweight?

It would only not cover lung cancer caused exclusively by out of wedlock, post-coital cigarettes. Diabetes caused by over-eating of sweets as sexual substitute would be covered.

[Shryke]

Personally, I agree with the SCOTUS decision. Adults should be responsible for their own reproductive decisions and expenses. The choice to use birth control or not is an individual one and both Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A are well known to be corporations based on Christian principles. If I don't want to be hammered over the head with their OPENLY Christian principles, then I don't have to work or shop there.

That does not mean that I don't believe in feminism. It simply means that I believe that women should be in control of their reproductive decisions and not give away their right to that control. Once birth control is subsidized by health insurance, that begins to chip away at the feminist gains over their reproductive rights over the past 50 years IMHO.

Except by saying you agree with this decision (which most likely means you don't know anything about it, given your post here), you are explicitly giving their employers control over their reproductive decisions.

It is literally the opposite of what you are claiming.

[DreamSongs]

Oh my. I would not travel down that road, DreamSongs. Getting birth control coverage was a fight to begin with, I wouldn't want to turn back the page 50 years. So many times in different threads over different topics, the argument comes down to the fact that only women get pregnant. And if you are going to argue about choices, why should companies provide coverage for lung cancer caused by smoking, or high blood pressure or diabetes caused by being overweight?

*throws hands up* No matter how I phrase it, someone is going to twist my words around.

So I'll just say it bluntly and be on my way: Contraception is a choice for most people, not a health condition. Fertility problems are a health issue. What happens when Nanny State Insurance tells you at 40 that you cannot receive fertility treatments because you were on BC pills for 20 years? That's not an unrealistic projection. Women need to think about what they might be giving away in order to save a few bucks. Independence and personal liberty is far more important. At this point, I will concede to Lyanna's remark about keeping politics out of the thread.

[Shryke]

*throws hands up* No matter how I phrase it, someone is going to twist my words around.

So I'll just say it bluntly and be on my way: Contraception is a choice for most people, not a health condition. Fertility problems are a health issue.

Contraception is a health issue because it's preventative care. It's also used for other things in many cases.

It's a choice as much as any health condition is. And like those health conditions, it's not up to the person paying the people who pay for your health care to decide what care you do and do not receive.

What happens when Nanny State Insurance tells you at 40 that you cannot receive fertility treatments because you were on BC pills for 20 years? That's not an unrealistic projection. Women need to think about what they might be giving away in order to save a few bucks. Independence and personal liberty is far more important. At this point, I will concede to Lyanna's remark about keeping politics out of the thread.

Yes actually, it is a ridiculous and silly and utterly unsupported projection. Your use of the word Nanny State alone here makes you look silly, let alone the rest of this argument.

I hadn't even considered you'd take this silly of a view on this issue. If you want to make this about personal liberty, why are you giving someone's employer so much control over an individual's personal healthcare needs?

[Lyanna Stark]

I wasn't aware that we were off-topic.

Because now it has veered into a discussion on domestic politics which can be talked about in the US politics thread. Whether or not it is a decision that fits with anyone's Christian values is something better left for the politics thread where specific domestic issues are discussed.

Plus we are now faced with a discussion about State's rights which also belongs in the politics thread.

Or you know whatever, fuck it. I'm fed up with trying to keep this thread on track and keep the discussion relevant and interesting.

[UVA]

It'll stand for a long time. The only ways to fix it would be for a different SCOTUS to repeal it (which means waiting possible a decade or more at least for the court's composition to shift) or constitutional change (impossible given the hurdles and politics in play).

Any issue touching on feminism that hits the SCOTUS is likely to have lasting damaging effects on the US because of this.

My 2 cents is that this decision is written in a way that it doesn't matter if it is just so called abortifacients or all birth control. Private corporations now have a right to refuse to offer birth control if doing so violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

As an aside and slightly more heartening are these two videos that are making the rounds, maybe some you have seen them. One is a spoof about a mother giving her daughter a First Moon Party. I have two daughters (ages 8 and 10) and I showed them the clip and even threatened giving them first moon parties. :laugh:

The second clip has a more fiercely feminist message centering around menstruation as a source of pride and power.

[bbstark]

My 2 cents is that this decision is written in a way that it doesn't matter if it is just so called abortifacients or all birth control. Private corporations now have a right to refuse to offer birth control if doing so violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

As an aside and slightly more heartening are these two videos that are making the rounds, maybe some you have seen them. One is a spoof about a mother giving her daughter a First Moon Party. I have two daughters (ages 8 and 10) and I showed them the clip and even threatened giving them first moon parties. :laugh:

The second clip has a more fiercely feminist message centering around menstruation as a source of pride and power.

I've watched the first moon party video probably 10 times by now :D

I just love what they've done with it! And yes, I can see you threaten your daughters with a party ;)

[Theda Baratheon]

My 2 cents is that this decision is written in a way that it doesn't matter if it is just so called abortifacients or all birth control. Private corporations now have a right to refuse to offer birth control if doing so violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

As an aside and slightly more heartening are these two videos that are making the rounds, maybe some you have seen them. One is a spoof about a mother giving her daughter a First Moon Party. I have two daughters (ages 8 and 10) and I showed them the clip and even threatened giving them first moon parties. :laugh:

The

has a more fiercely feminist message centering around menstruation as a source of pride and power.

the first moon party is hilarious, have seen it quite a few times now, but...

Wow @ that second video...wow. "women made of moonlight magic and macabre" ...gorgeous...

[Shryke]

My 2 cents is that this decision is written in a way that it doesn't matter if it is just so called abortifacients or all birth control. Private corporations now have a right to refuse to offer birth control if doing so violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

It's all birth control. SCOTUS clarified that.

It's literally a decision saying that your employer, if Christian and if it's about women's reproduction, gets a say in the health care you receive.

[Galactus]

It's all birth control. SCOTUS clarified that.

It's literally a decision saying that your employer, if Christian and if it's about women's reproduction, gets a say in the health care you receive.

Time to take healthcare out of the hands of employers then?

[UVA]

I've watched the first moon party video probably 10 times by now :D

I just love what they've done with it! And yes, I can see you threaten your daughters with a party ;)

My girls are generally reasonable, kind, and love a good joke but there are times, which I attribute to their ages, when they cop a cooler-than-thou, snarky attitude much like the girl in the spoof. This is when I give them an "ah no, this isn't going to work for me girls. Eh eh." That said, My oldest is pretty sophisticated and finds the spoof absurdly hilarious. She's sharing it with her friends.

the first moon party is hilarious, have seen it quite a few times now, but...

Wow @ that second video...wow. "women made of moonlight magic and macabre" ...gorgeous...

Yea, it's hard not to get fired up about a wonderful performance with an empowering message of "my own cervix is mad influential, everybody I love knows how to bleed with me. Hold on to that, there's a metaphor in it." It's fuck-yeah ness in abundance -- the slam performance is a rallying cry. I have not shown this to my girls, yet. :)

[Fragile Bird]

Painting the pad with red nail polish was a nice touch.

[Theda Baratheon]

nvm

[LongRider]

It's all birth control. SCOTUS clarified that.

It's literally a decision saying that your employer, if Christian and if it's about women's reproduction, gets a say in the health care you receive.

if your employer is religious, not Christian. Wonder how Christian women will feel when an 'other than Christian' religious company decides their health care decisions for them?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

if your employer is religious, not Christian. Wonder how Christian women will feel when an 'other than Christian' religious company decides their health care decisions for them?

They better feel whatever it is in private if they don't want it used as ammunition.

[Shryke]

if your employer is religious, not Christian. Wonder how Christian women will feel when an 'other than Christian' religious company decides their health care decisions for them?

Nah, not really. They specifically don't want the decision to apply that broadly.

[LongRider]

Nah, not really. They specifically don't want the decision to apply that broadly.

That genie has been released from the bottle tho.

"Unintended consequences"

They're a bitch.

:shocked:

[Shryke]

That genie has been released from the bottle tho.

"Unintended consequences"

They're a bitch.

:shocked:

Oh, it may have unintended consequences, but they only specifically intended to allow Christians to fuck over women.

[LongRider]

The ruling upholds the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which states: "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the“Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion..."

So, sorry, any misogynist, woman hating "closely held 'religious' corporation" can fuck over women.

Linky to ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf