I was questioning why the recent Supreme Court rulings on anti-abortion protestors being able to harass women entering clinics that give abortions (it never occurs to anyone that women go to those clinics for other reasons) and companies being able to deny medical insurance coverage for birth control to women based on the owner’s religious values (even if the business itself had nothing to do with religion) have not sent me through the stratosphere.
It’s because after three years of the conservative Right’s War on Women, it comes as absolutely no surprise.
Now, I do not like subscribing to blanket labels like this. It was years and several incidents before I accepted that there was an element of racism in the Far Right’s objection to the sitting president. But ever since 2011, women’s reproductive rights, their rights over their own bodies, have been attacked dozens of times at the state and federal levels. And not only in the case of right to have an abortion, but the right to get access to affordable birth control. (And I would like to point out that the committee that refused to hear Fluke’s testimony, that was making the decision on whether Obamacare should mandate employer-insurance covering birth control, was comprised entirely of *men.*) Which is yet another piece of evidence that proves this has nothing to do with protecting babies. Especially since the conservative Right does not give a damn about what happens to babies after they are born. (I live in a state that cut ALL natal food support to poor mothers.)
This has entirely to do enforcing an evangelical right “christian” morality on women.
That they never consider that women take birth control pills for reasons other than birth control is not surprising. For them to accept that, they would have to conceptualize women as something other than walking wombs.
But what amazes me is that they *never* consider that married women use birth control as well in order to not have more children than the family can support. After all, aren’t they always complaining about poor parents “irresponsibly” having too many children? I guess they must think that women have sex for procreation only. Or at least women should have sex for procreation only. Men can sow their wild oats wherever they want, but the women they sow with, well those women are just sluts and get what they deserve.
And then there’s how the Republican Party looks at rape.
Which is just vile.
This is not some fringe group or odd nutcases, these are the people making policy!
Of course, the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling opens up an entire can of worms. What happens is someone works for a company owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not believe in blood transfusions? According to this ruling, they can argue it’s against their religious values to cover the insurance for your kid’s major surgery. Basically, our employer is now a factor in our medical decisions. Joy.
Though I can’t wait for the shitstorm when Christians are told by the Jewish or Muslim employers that they will not cover the their heart valve transplants that use pig valves. Or a Jehovah’s Witness employer saying they will not cover the transfusion for an employee’s child’s lifesaving surgery. Or a Hindu boss telling an employee that they will not cover their bovine derived insulin.
This “corporate person-hood” nonsense is killing our individual liberties.