Tuesday Reads: Are Women People?

women people2

Good Morning!!

Question for today: Are women human? Are we people in the eyes of our government? We’ve been told that corporations are people. We know that white men are people–that was established by the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified in 1789.  Since that time, there have been amendments that granted some rights to non-white men and to women. We can vote now. Does that mean our government recognizes our humanity?

Today our ultra-conservative, mostly Catholic Supreme Court will hear two cases that bring this question to the forefront, and the Court’s decisions may give us some answers to the question of whether American women are officially people with individual rights.

From MSNBC: Supreme Court to hear birth control case

Depending on whom you ask, Tuesday morning’s oral argument at the Supreme Court is about whether Obamacare can keep treading on religious liberty – or it’s about a woman’s right to access contraception on her employee insurance plan, no matter what her employer thinks of it. Either way, it is the first time the Affordable Care Act will be at the nation’s highest Court since it was first largely upheld as constitutional. The same two men as in that case, current Solicitor General Don Verrilli and former Bush administration solicitor general Paul Clement, are facing off to argue over a narrower provision.

Before the Supreme Court decides whether the contraceptive coverage required of insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act violates a 1993 law governing religious liberty, it has to settle the threshold question: Does a corporation even have religious liberty?

women human

I think the question about the rights of women is far broader than that. Without access to birth control and abortion, a woman has no real autonomy as a human being. If she becomes pregnant–even through rape–she loses the ability to make choices about her future life. It has been a relatively short period of time since women have had the power to make those choices. But that power has led to other advances for women–such as the right to prosecute a rapist or an abusive boyfriend or husband, the right to have credit in her own name, the right to an education, and entry into careers from which women were previously blocked. We can only hope that the justices see clearly what their decisions will mean for women’s lives and women’s personhood.

Back to the MSNBC article:

Hobby Lobby Stores, an Oklahoma-based, evangelical-owned craft chain with about 13,000 employees, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a small Mennonite-owned cabinet maker in Pennsylvania, sued the administration and got two very different answers from the lower courts. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals declared of Hobby Lobby that “such corporations can be ‘persons’ exercising religion.” In ruling on Conestoga’s bid for exemption from the requirement, the Third Circuit disagreed: “For-profit secular corporations cannot exercise in religious exercise.”

The companies are among the 47 for-profit corporations that have objected to their company plans complying with the minimum coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act. Under those regulations, contraception is covered fully, without a co-pay, as preventive care. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood object to a handful of contraceptives that they speculate can block a fertilized egg, which is neither documented in the science nor the medical definition of abortion. Other for-profit plaintiffs object to any birth control coverage at all….

The Obama administration says that the government has a compelling interest in women’s health and in gender equality. The Department of Health and Human Services agreed to classify contraceptives as preventive care after considering testimony from medical experts, who cited the country’s high rate of unintended pregnancy and the persistence cost barriers to accessing effective birth control.

Some legal experts argue that to rule for Hobby Lobby would be imposing religion on others, by forcing the women who work for such companies to pay the cost of their employers’ religion. Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at Brigham Young, has even argued in a brief before the Court that doing so would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

What will SCOTUS decide?

women people4

At NPR, Nina Totenberg offers some scary quotes from Steve Green, the president of Hobby Lobby:

“We believe that the principles that are taught scripturally is what we should operate our lives by … and so we cannot be a part of taking life,” explains Hobby Lobby President Steve Green.

“It’s our rights that are being infringed upon to require us to do something against our conscience,” adds CEO and founder David Green.

Using birth control is “taking a life?” Apparently one of the arguments Hobby Lobby is using that–contrary to scientific facts–some forms of birth control are equal to abortion. So is every sperm is sacred too? Should men be prosecuted for masturbating? But those questions are not likely to be asked, because it is already legally established that men are people.


At the WaPo, Sandra Fluke writes: At the Supreme Court, a potential catastrophe for women’s rights.

Unlike my congressional testimony in 2012, which was about Georgetown University — a Catholic-affiliated university — refusing to include contraception in student insurance because it was a religiously affiliated school, the institutions arguing before the Supreme Court are not houses of worship or religious non-profits. The Affordable Care Act already includes special arrangements for those types of organizations. These are private, for-profit corporations — a craft store and a cabinet manufacturer — that want to be excluded from health insurance and employment laws because of bosses’ personal views.

Laws that include religious protection have never given corporations the right to have religious views, and it would be a terrible idea to make such an enormous change to our legal precedent now. Our laws protect individuals’ private religious beliefs, but when you cross over into the public sphere to become a corporation and make a profit off of the public, you must abide by the public’s laws.

Depending on the court’s rulings, the cases’ outcomes could deny millions of women coverage of any or all forms of birth control, limiting women’s ability to control their reproductive health, plan their pregnancies and manage their lives. As I testified, women also need birth control for many other medical reasons, including relief of painful health problems like endometriosis.

women people3

And, Fluke argues, recognizing a right for corporations to hold religious views will open the door to

Allowing any private employer to dictate which laws fit inside its religious beliefs could upset the necessary balance of both religious liberty and employee health and safety laws. Depending on the exact ruling, any for-profit corporation could cut off its employees’ insurance coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations or HIV treatment — all of which some Americans have religious objections to. Any critical health coverage the boss doesn’t agree with could be eliminated.

Furthermore, SCOTUS could not limit these proposed “religious freedoms” to Christians.

Although this country predominantly descends from a Judeo-Christian tradition, our valuable religious protection laws ensure that anyone is free to practice any religion they want, including religions whose belief systems and practices many of us would disagree with vehemently. In fact, far-ranging beliefs that are not associated with any organized religion could be used to justify a corporation’s practices as well.

Sahil Kapur of TPM points out that Justice Scalia, who might be expected to vote in favor of a corporate “right to religious freedom,” will have to deal with one of his previous rulings: Justice Scalia’s Past Comes Back To Haunt Him On Birth Control.

In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, concluding that the First Amendment “does not require” the government to grant “religious exemptions” from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. The case was brought by two men in Oregon who sued the state for denying them unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote, which they said they did because of their Native American religious beliefs.

“[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability,” Scalia wrote in the 6-3 majority decision, going on to aggressively argue that such exemptions could be a slippery slope to lawlessness and that “[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy.”

“The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind,” he wrote, “ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.”

That opinion could haunt the jurist if he seeks to invalidate the birth control rule.

“Scalia will have to reckon with his own concern in Smith about the lawlessness and chaos created by liberal exemptions to generally applicable law,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA. “For him to uphold an exemption now is to invite more of the lawlessness that he warned about.”

women human5

At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser addresses the right wing organizations that have waged a concerted war against women’s rights during the past several years: Read This One Document To Understand What The Christian Right Hopes To Gain From Hobby Lobby.

2009 was a grim year for social conservatives. Barack Obama was an ambitious and popular new president. Republicans, and their conservative philosophy, were largely discredited in the public eye by a failed war and a massive recession. And the GOP’s effort to reshape its message was still in its awkward adolescence. If the conservative movement had a mascot, it would have been a white man dressed as Paul Revere and waving a misspelled sign.

Amidst this wreckage, more than two hundred of the nation’s leading Christian conservatives joined together in a statement expressing their dismay at the state of the nation. “Many in the present administration want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development,” their statement claimed, while “[m]ajorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views.” Meanwhile, they feared that the liberals who now controlled the country “are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.”

The signatories to this statement, which they named the “Manhattan Declaration,” included many of America’s most prominent Catholic bishops and clergy of similar prominence in other Christian sects. It included leaders oftop anti-gay organizations like the National Organization for Marriage, and of more broadly focused conservative advocacy shops such as the Family Research Council. It included university presidents and deans from Christian conservative colleges. And it included the top editors from many of the Christian right’s leading publications.

Perhaps most significantly, however, the document’s signatories includes Alan Sears, the head of one of the two conservative legal groups litigating what are likely to be the two most important cases decided by the Supreme Court this term. Indeed, the Manhattan Declaration offers a virtual roadmap to understanding what religious conservatives hope to gain from Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, two cases the justices will hear Tuesday which present the question whether a business owner’s religious objections to birth control trump their legal obligation to include it in their employee’s health plan.

Read the gory details at the link.


Finally, I ask that everyone read this year-old article at Time Magazine by Jessica Winter, Subject for Debate: Are Women People? It is both darkly humorous and deadly serious.

All my adult life, I’ve been pretty sure I’m a sentient, even semi-competent human being. I have a job and an apartment; I know how to read and vote; I make regular, mostly autonomous decisions about what to eat for lunch and which cat videos I will watch whilst eating my lunch. But in the past couple of months, certain powerful figures in media and politics have cracked open that certitude.

You see, like most women, I was born with the chromosome abnormality known as “XX,” a deviation of the normative “XY” pattern. Symptoms of XX, which affects slightly more than half of the American population, include breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a menstrual cycle, and the potential to bear and nurse children. Now, many would argue even today that the lack of a Y chromosome should not affect my ability to make informed choices about what health care options and lunchtime cat videos are right for me. But others have posited, with increasing volume and intensity, that XX is a disability, even a roadblock on the evolutionary highway. This debate has reached critical mass, and leaves me uncertain of my legal and moral status. Am I a person? An object? A ward of the state? A “prostitute”? (And if I’m the last of these, where do I drop off my W-2?)

Please go read the whole thing. It’s not long.

So . . . those are my recommended reads for today.  What stories are you following? Please post your links on any topic in the comment thread.


47 Comments on “Tuesday Reads: Are Women People?”

  1. Pat Johnson says:

    Why worry about Sharia Law when we have our own version right here in the USA! Listen to Ann Coulter and women should even be denied the right to vote. And this coming from a woman!

    We are in the grip of a minority of religious zealots from a variety of religions who have made women’s role in society one of subjugation. Unfortunately, many of these are the lawmakers of this nation whose intolerance has led to a number of state laws that have placed a stranglehold on women by using in their defense a book of stories written thousands of years ago and written by men.

    I have no idea what it will take for women as a collective to rise up and put an end to this form of discrimination. Especially from those who have benefited from costly educations and have taken their seats at the corporate table yet remain silent in the face of this oppression.

    Perhaps when a law is eventually passed that prohibit women from working outside the home will it finally “get through” to them that this stuff is actually happening and right at their own doorsteps.

    I am long past the age of childbearing but I fear for my own granddaughters that they are about to enter a world where they are merely valued for the number of pregnancies they can endure before they die of exhaustion.

  2. Delphyne49 says:

    Wonderful post, BB! Sandra Fluke makes some really good points. I am looking forward to hearing what SCOTUS’s decision is.

    (The link to the Jessica Winter article doesn’t work.)

  3. NW Luna says:

    Great post!

  4. janicen says:

    OMG I love the comic strip! The Winter article is excellent.

  5. bostonboomer says:

    Retired Ukrainian General: Russia Is ‘Placing Europe On The Verge Of A Third World War’

    Read more: http://20committee.com/2014/03/24/putin-is-putting-europe-on-the-verge-of-world-war-iii-ukrainian-intel-general/#ixzz2wzVATX2r

  6. bostonboomer says:

    NYT: Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.’s Bulk Data Collection


  7. bostonboomer says:

    Florida state atty Jeff Ashton: No charges against FBI agent who killed Ibrigim Todashev.


  8. RalphB says:

    This is a great post bu TBogg, not least for outing a massive conspiracy to set wages etc throughout the tech industry.

    TBogg: I, for one, do not welcome our new tech-bro CEOverlords

    Confidential internal Google and Apple memos, buried within piles of court dockets and reviewed by PandoDaily, clearly show that what began as a secret cartel agreement between Apple’s Steve Jobs and Google’s Eric Schmidt to illegally fix the labor market for hi-tech workers, expanded within a few years to include companies ranging from Dell, IBM, eBay and Microsoft, to Comcast, Clear Channel, Dreamworks, and London-based public relations behemoth WPP. All told, the combined workforces of the companies involved totals well over a million employees.

  9. RalphB says:

    If Hobby Lobby wins in the SC then I want every penny I pay in taxes that goes to anything explicitly or implicitly religious back. I’m an atheist and any person or entity that gets federal tax dollars while having any mention whatsoever of religion or spirituality on its premises or in its operations violates my First Amendment rights. Every fucking cent. The local school district just put on “Godspell” as its spring musical. I want my school taxes back. That’s what I want.

    • dakinikat says:

      Better yet, I want every freaking religious organization to be taxed. And, I want my government to quit pouring money into religious organizations like Catholic Social Services and Catholic Hospitals, and Baptist colleges and the like … every damn one of them should be taxed and not one of them should ever get a penny of government money.

      • RalphB says:

        I’ll go for that! One wrinkle in Hobby Lobby, the people don’t actually own the company. It’s owned by a, I assume family, trust. So not only the people have religious beliefs but the damned trust has to have religious beliefs as well.

      • RalphB says:

        There doesn’t seem to be any way of saying that there is a corporate veil that protects stockholders when the corporation acts in a business capacity but at the same time there is no corporate veil that prevents the same stockholders from using the corporation to express their religious beliefs. I really don’t know how the court would handle that issue.

  10. bostonboomer says:

    Mark Ames latest on illegal mistreatment of Silicon Valley employees.

    Newly unsealed documents show Steve Jobs’ brutal response after getting a Google employee fired


    Steve Jobs was a major asshole. I’m so glad that I’ve never owned an Apple product and trust me, I never will.

    • RalphB says:

      See the comment I placed above about the labor market fixing which Jobs started. Totally illegal and the DOJ has busted them, along with a class action suit which could effect over a milllion people.

    • RalphB says:

      This is not just Silicon Valley. This damned cartel was all over the country, if not the whole world.

      • bostonboomer says:

        I know. Mark Ames broke the story a few weeks ago, and has done several follow-ups. The NYT ripped him off without any credit.

        It’s common practice of course. The Universities in Boston have regular price fixing meetings every year to set wage limits, and nothing has ever been done about it.

        • RalphB says:

          Someone who was/is affected should file a complaint with the DOJ. If there is hard evidence of wage fixing, it’s an anti-trust violation.

  11. bostonboomer says:
  12. bostonboomer says:

    Unredacted partial confession of Ibrigim Todashev to Waltham triple murders.


    I wanna tell the story about the robbery
    me and Tam did in Waltham in September
    of 2011. That was [?] by Tamerlan.
    [?] [?] he [?] to me to rob
    the drug dealers. We went to their
    house we got in there and Tam had
    a gun he pointed it [?] the guy that
    opened the door for us [?]
    we went upstairs into the house
    [?] 3 guys in there [?] we put them
    on the ground and then we [?]
    [?] taped their hands up

  13. RalphB says:


    Maybe we should start churches of secular humanism and assert our rights under the new post-Hobby Lobby order. We struggle to advance the cause of climate science, or evolution, or reproductive rights by appealing to reason — maybe we’d do better if we could whine that our enemies are guilty of religious bigotry. How much worse could it get?

    • dakinikat says:

      I think I will start a business and operate as a strict Buddhist … no one can eat meat, no one can kill bugs or mice or any sentient being, no one can celebrate holidays that aren’t related to Buddhist holidays, and they have to shave their heads