Hobby Lobby opens a new front in the ‘War on Women’

[theHandpuppet]

MSNBC
Hobby Lobby opens a new front in the ‘War on Women’
07/13/14
By Karen Finney

The next round in the political battle over the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby could come as early as next week, according to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), when the Democratic Majority Leader intends to hold a vote on the “Not my Boss’s Business Act.” The legislation, introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), would reverse the religious exemption granted to Hobby Lobby when the Court ruled that a “closely held” for-profit corporation could impose its “sincere religious beliefs” on female employees – regardless of their personal beliefs or medical decisions – by refusing to cover four forms of contraception it deems morally objectionable...

...Contraception is a fact of life for millions of women of reproductive age, 62% of whom are currently using a contraceptive method. More than 99% of women ages 15-44 who have had intercourse have used at least one form of contraception. Yet the Supreme Court’s majority opinion focused instead on the rights of corporations. In fact, in a decision with significant implications for women’s health, the words “woman” or “women” appear only 13 times in 48 pages. Women’s well being is never discussed.

It’s unacceptable that in 2014, the Supreme Court would legalize a form of discrimination against women and fail to fully examine the impact of its decision on only female employees. So while the “Not My Boss’s Business Act” is not expected to pass in the Senate next week, it will force members of Congress to go on the record as either supporting or opposing women’s equal access to contraception. It sets up a new front in the “War on Women” that Democrats can and should use to motivate women voters in the 2014 midterm elections....

MORE at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hobby-lobby-opens-new-front-the-war-women

[libodem]

1. You do nice work Handpuppet

Thanks for the information. This is really important. You must have been a feminist for a long time. You know your stuff.

[theHandpuppet]

2. I'm just old.

Or some folks would be kind and call it "experienced". But thanks. These issues mean a lot to me. I've been getting into loads of trouble since I was a young teen protesting the War in Vietnam. Been around the block a few times.

[libodem]

3. I'm 58

We must be somewhat close in age. I protested Viet Nam too, even if I was in high school.

I've been studying ideas about Feminism since Jr high. I still remember an article in the early 70's that started people waking up to the fact that women were often blamed for being out or wearing a skirt and that was an excuse for assault or worse. It started back then. I think it has gotten somewhat better than the old days. Better than the Madmen era. Have you watched that series. It's a real throw back.

[theHandpuppet]

4. We seem to be rushing headlong back to the old days.

You and I remember when women couldn't get contraception and abortions. The days when girls who were pregnant and unmarried were shunned and shamed, sometimes sent away "to visit relatives". Back then women were dying by the thousands from back alley abortions and "home remedies". We CANNOT go back.
Yeah, Mad Men is pretty accurate in portraying how it was, even though NY was still much more progressive than the rest of the country and that's saying something.

[libodem]

5. Do you think it is about control?

I don't understand minding someone else's business. Why should it be any of their concern. I'm a live and let live type of person. I find it intrusive. What gives them the right?

[theHandpuppet]

6. It's always been about control and misogyny

Two of the pillars of all patriarchal religions. But that's just MHO.

[TNNurse]

7. Don't forget

Self-righteousness and singling out Bible passages that suit your needs.

[theHandpuppet]

10. Speaking of yesteryear...

It's been over three decades now since we went through those original battles for the ERA. There are some new developments that I posted about just a few days ago. Here's the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5225878

A poster by the handle of "Jim Lane" really helped to clarify some of the legal issues involved, which I really appreciated.

[libodem]

18. Thank you I'd missed that one

I got. married in 1979. I tried to become a Mormon of all things, and my ex was dyed in the wool. I tried to be a good traditional wife.
One of my best and oldest friends was getting signatures for the ratification. I used to listen to Sonja Johnson on a cassette tape she had. I asked to listen over and over. It gave me strength.

I'm on board for this to happen again.

You know I got off on the wrong foot with many of the women in the other group.


Years ago I took a ridiculous stand that really was not worth bothering with. Maybe there is more. It started with my trying to explain why hearing 'bitch' used on nation tv in almost any context does not get me exercised. It's on from the morning soaps to late night drama.
Say back in 1984, I was really disguised with the hip hop talk of pimps and Ho's and how the men just called their wives and girlfriend's bitches. I was hurt by it. I didn't like it. I really hated the n-word trend. It seemed like prison talk became popular an "making someone your "bitch" 'would be making your cell mate subjugated to your power over them. It was offensive to me.
It seems to have taken off on its own and now men can be bitches, too. Breaking Bad uses it regularly. Do other women not watch TV because of the language. Are they home furious and fuming? How do they stand the constant offence. How do I become one of them so they will like me and I will fit in? 'Bitch'just no longer has the impact as the most damning slur ever used on me anymore.
And I'm not advocating assaulting women with it. I just want the right not feel like I'm doing it wrong, by not throwing a tantrum over a word that means the woman had the audacity to act like a man.

[littlemissmartypants]

8. Thanks for your post.

Love, Peace and The Righteous Fight.

Hat tip to Uncle Joe.



Women are Coming.
See you in September.
Remember In November.
2014
#FJL

[theHandpuppet]

9. Glad to see you here

Yes, women will be coming this fall and we're going to kick some political ass!

[Raine1967]

19. WE already have our extra bedroom and basement filled with friends coming in from out of town! eom.

[theHandpuppet]

20. Good on ya!!

[Raine1967]

22. We wouldn't miss this come heaven or hell… :)

I am so grateful that we were able to move here 5 years ago. Love this city but LOVE that I can always be at an event that matters to me (and us) and offer a place for friends to stay -- especially for important things like this.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. Scalia's Church of the Supreme Court. "Theocracy Now! Theocracy Forever!"

Sieg Heil! And amen, too!

[theHandpuppet]

16. Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves from this case

Here's just one reason why: http://jezebel.com/is-justice-scalias-wife-an-anti-abortion-pregnancy-coun-1566238671

This case should never had made it to the SC.

[pnwmom]

12. Kudos to whoever named it the "Not My Boss's Business Act." Well done!

[theHandpuppet]

14. Yeah, I loved that!

Right on the mark.

[riqster]

13. It's about the illusion of control.

White male "conservatives" constantly try to control the world, and have sometimes managed to control bits and bobs of it at most. But so long as it LOOKS LIKE they are large and in charge, they are as happy as they can get.

When their illusions collapse, they amp up the rhetoric and violence so as to feel more in control.

[theHandpuppet]

15. They feel it slipping through their fingers

It's full-on panic mode now.

[riqster]

17. Yep. It's gonna get uglier before it gets better.

[sheshe2]

23. Good, let's help accelerate that slip.

They have already inflicted far to much damage on women, it's time that they stop.

Great OP, thank you theHandpuppet.

[BrotherIvan]

21. If the bill doesn't go through

I hope they have a backup plan that allows all women who can't get access to contraception to get onto some kind of public option. And some kind of penalty for the employers who discriminate would be nice.

This is what happens when you negotiate with conservatives. The first "religious objection" for churches and non-profits was a purposeful foot in the door. I wouldn't be surprised if Fat Tony told them how to do it.

It's not any boss's business, and healthcare should be single payer NOW with perhaps a tax to the employer to pay for it. With no loopholes at all.

[SnakeEyes]

24. I don't think any of this gains any traction

Until we have a for-profit business that actually refuses to allow contraception coverage.

[theHandpuppet]

25. You mean like Hobby Lobby?

[SnakeEyes]

27. No I mean a business that actually denies birth control

I just don't think enough people get worked up about a company that allows 17 of 20 forms of birth control. I'm looking for who's next to take things to truly denying birth control as opposed to covering everything except IUD/morning after. Then we will get traction on measures against the hobby lobby ruling. That still assumes who's next holds up in court. As it stands now the SCOTUS ruling would have to be significantly widened, misinterpreted, or flat out ignored.

[theHandpuppet]

31. IUDs ARE for birth control

You are aware, apparently, of all the other types and exactly how many are denied or covered by Hobby Lobby -- but hadn't heard of all the other organizations and businesses who are lined up to deny coverage?

You must know that not all women can use hormonal forms of birth control?

[niyad]

36. how much more interfering in women's lives do you think companies should be able to do

before there is "traction"?

it is fascinating how you are so determined to prove that the 5 catholic woman-haters on scotus will have no impact at all on women's lives. do, please, keep trying. I seriously need the laughs.

[BrotherIvan]

26. There are over 80 for-profit businesses lining up to deny coverage

That is what the Hobby Lobby decision was for.

[SnakeEyes]

28. Haven't heard about this, got a link?

Are these companies planning to deny all coverage or just certain forms like hobby lobby?

If you don't have a link, do you know how these 80 companies compare to the SCOTUS ruling that one must be a closely held company and prove that those close who hold the company have a shared belief? If thye don't meet this requirement we WILL get traction MUCH sooner than I expect.

[BrotherIvan]

29. It has been widely discussed on DU

See the thread on Eden Foods in the Greatest tab. The SC just two days later said the ruling covered all forms of contraception because of Wheaton College's objection.

Here is a link discussing some of the companies piling on. There are more since the article was written.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly

Here is a link to an article that says 90% of all companies in the US are considered "closely held" which was part of the ruling. That means all of these companies can state religious objections to any number of things.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hobby-lobby-ruling-begs-question-what-does-closely-held-mean-1404154577

I do not know the requirements for "closely-held belief" according to the SC, but I assume it has something to do with Christian, monied, and powerful.

[theHandpuppet]

30. Another link

To both the non-profits and for-profits which have filed against the HHS contraception mandate:
http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/

[theHandpuppet]

33. And another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11384174

[SnakeEyes]

32. Actually "closely held" is not referring to their belief

it refers to the company being closely held, simplified it means it's owned by family. So the ruling wouln't apply to a public company or a privately company owned by people whose only connection is being investors

[theHandpuppet]

34. Not so fast.

The Wall Street Journal
Hobby Lobby Ruling Raises Question: What Does 'Closely Held' Mean?
By Stephanie Armour and Rachel Feintzeig
June 30, 2014

Their success may rest on the type of company they are and state corporate laws that can vary.

The three firms in the lawsuit—Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. and Mardel—all have the same business structure: they are owned and controlled by members of a single family.

But closely held firms can take other ownership forms. The Internal Revenue Service defines a closely held company as a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock directly or indirectly owned by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year. It also cannot be a personal-service corporation.

Closely held companies are owned by a relatively small number of investors, typically including their founding families and management. Roughly 90% of all companies in the U.S. are closely held, according to a 2000 study by the Copenhagen Business School....

MORE at http://online.wsj.com/articles/hobby-lobby-ruling-begs-question-what-does-closely-held-mean-1404154577

[BrotherIvan]

35. You're doing an awesome job of educating

But perhaps some people don't really want to hear. That's the trouble. The rw media got on top of this one fast, so many people think it's not a big deal and it's only the few forms of bc in HL. But anyone who cared at all could see quite clearly what this means. I think they have no idea just how many women will be affected by this, that a closely-held company means just a few employees when it can, in fact, mean thousands.

[theHandpuppet]

37. Don't you find it interesting that some are trying to downplay the importance of this ruling?

When day by day, we are witnessing the snowball effect of this disastrous decision, the scope of which is only now being realized.

By the way, thank you for your kind words. I only wish I was better versed in the law; pretty much all I can do is pass along the knowledge and wisdom of others.