Wow. I thought the SCOTUS agreeing that my IUD made me (regardless of science) a baby-killer was insulting enough. I also thought it was enough of a blow to women’s rights to their own bodies. Boy, was I wrong!
It turns out that “what much of the country may not realize is that the same conservative justices quietly returned to their decision – twice.
The first “clarification” came a day after the ruling – which was intended to bring clarity to the law – when the legal community was left wondering about the applicability of the Hobby Lobby decision. The chain store’s lawsuit did not target all birth control, just the forms of contraception the corporation’s owners found morally objectionable. Did the court’s ruling apply to the contraception methods included in the litigation or everything, including regular ol’ birth control pills?
On Tuesday, the Court said the ruling covered all 20 forms of contraception protected through the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit only covered 4 of the 20. By what rationale did the conservative majority reach this expansive conclusion? I believe it’s called the “because we said so” rule of American jurisprudence.
For proponents of reproductive rights and the separation of church and state, Tuesday’s “clarification” simply added insult to injury. But on late Thursday, the Supreme Court returned to the same issue again, this time granting an emergency request from an evangelical school in Illinois called Wheaton College …
Wheaton College is effectively raising a religious objection to paperwork. The school starts with the premise that the birth control methods they don’t like are literally abortion – all scientific evidence to the contrary notwithstanding – and from there, Wheaton also says it, as a religiously affiliated non-profit, wants to exclude contraception from its coverage plan.
Fine, the Obama administration responds, just fill out some forms, letting insurers know about the moral objection.
No, Wheaton responded, filling out the forms about the moral objection is itself morally objectionable. Indeed, the school’s administrators and lawyers went so far as to suggest filling out paperwork raising moral objections to birth control – which, again, is abortion in their eyes – is practically the same thing as endorsing the moral wrong itself. The college filed a federal case and on Thursday, the Supreme Court granted emergency relief – an extremely rare event – ensuring Wheaton won’t have to do the paperwork, despite what the same court justices said on Monday.”
On behalf of all the sluts in the country who thought that birth control use – in many cases so we could have sex with our husbands just for funsies – was okay, thanks for letting us know that birth control pills are exactly the same thing as an abortion! Whew. We certainly needed a reminder that our boss has first say about our sex lives! We’ll keep our legs shut now. Thanks.
Oh wait! It looks like skanks like me can continue to get freaky with our husbands!
The Obama administration has pulled an end run around the SCOTUS and when businesses are too moral to let us have birth control then “the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it’s cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there’s very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they’re eligible.”
I guess the SCOTUS will have to find another way to make women not have sex. Burkas and chastity belts mandated by employers, perhaps?