***
I was beyond disappointed in the SCOTUS ruling on Hobby Lobby. I was outraged. As a woman of child-bearing age (what a lovely term), I care a lot about access to contraception. I want to be able to have children when I am emotionally, financially, and spiritually ready, if I decide on motherhood. I do not want to make decisions about contraception based on what the people who own my company (or my hypothetical spouse's company) believe about contraceptive methods.
I have the crazy idea that my decisions about my reproductive health should be guided by my health, my doctor's advice, and my personal wishes. Even though in the real world, there isn't a sacred bubble around a patient and health care provider, there need to be reasonable guidelines for third-party limitations. How is the religious beliefs of a company owner trumping those of an employee "because I believe so" reasonable?
Women are people. Everyone deserves the right to practice their religious (and non-religious beliefs), as long as they do not infringe on others' beliefs or on others' physical and emotional well-being.
As a Jewish person in a country that is mostly Christian, I care deeply about my ability to practice my faith as I choose. I make an effort to keep kosher, and in the past regularly went to Shabbat services. But I do not think my practice is compatible with forcing other people to practice as I do, "because I believe so." My boyfriend is Catholic, and sometimes he asks if I mind him eating ham, or bacon, at restaurants. I do not mind it. If I did, I might tell him nicely that smelling bacon reminds me that I can't eat it.
I like to think that when he eats a bacon cheeseburger and I eat a fish or vegetarian dish that we demonstrate an example of mutual respect of one person's religious beliefs and one person's love of bacon. What if I told my boyfriend he can never eat pork around me, or use medicines with a gelatin coating (often pork-derived) or get a porcine heart valve, because I think pigs are unclean animals?
He might consider leaving me. (What a control freak!) But it would be much easier for him to do that than for a female employee of Hobby Lobby to abruptly quit her job to find one with more comprehensive contraceptive coverage.
If the SCOTUS ruling were directed at a company unwilling to cover blood transfusions, pork-derived products, psychiatric drugs, or vaccines, how would you feel? It's easy to see how both men and women would be impacted if any of these treatments weren't covered by insurance.
Though access to birth control also affects men who don't want to knock up their partners, and, indirectly, the number of unwanted children, it hits women the hardest. Saying a company can refuse to cover treatments exclusively used by women, but cannot touch transfusions or vaccines (used by almost everyone) isn't just sexist. It's misogyny.
Because I'm at an age where lots of my friends are having babies (not me!), I have also thought about the futures of our daughters and sons. I do not want to see their rights to healthcare of any kind to slip away. I do not want the "controversy" about Plan B and IUDs to envelop hormonal birth control or condoms, until contraception and sexual health are completely separated from "regular" healthcare. So I am going to make noise, and make sure I am aware of what my reproductive health coverage includes. Fortunately my current insurance coverage is not impacted by the Hobby Lobby ruling, but I worry about what might follow this ruling.
There isn't a Hobby Lobby near me, but I will not buy from them. I happily support my local Michael's and a local fabric and yarn store when I buy yarn. Since I do a lot of crochet, this is a serious amount of money for me. But even though my avoidance of Hobby Lobby only has a small impact on their finances, I'm happy I'm not paying for their lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment