The Supreme Court Thinks That Corporations Are People but Women Aren’t
By Thom Hartmann A...
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, we’re still in the 19th century when it comes to women’s rights. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby can discriminate against their female employees by denying them birth control coverage as required under Obamacare as long as those corporations believe that doing so “violates” their religious beliefs.
According to the Court, “closely-held” corporations like Hobby Lobby are protected by a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - a law that protects people - let me repeat, PEOPLE, as in homo sapiens sapiens - from having “substantial burdens” placed on their religious beliefs.
There are a lot of things to talk about when it comes to the Hobby Lobby case - the fact that Hobby Lobby’s arguments weren’t based in scientific fact, the fact that Hobby Lobby actually invests in companies that make the very same birth control it says goes against its religious beliefs, the fact that it’s more than ready to pay for male birth control procedures like vasectomies, the fact that much of what they sell comes from China, the home of forced abortions - you name it.
All of these things are important and show just how insane and fundamentally hypocritical the Court’s decision really was. But in the end, the most damning thing of all about today’s ruling is that it shows that one branch of our government, the Supreme Court, believes that the "rights" of non-breathing, definitely-not-alive corporations trump the rights of the 51 percent of the population which has a uterus.
If you thought that American society had moved beyond the idea that women were property or even just second-class citizens, then think again. The Hobby Lobby decision is just more proof that while women can now vote, the most powerful people in our country are still stuck in the 19th century. They just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that women are - you know - real people who deserve the same rights as men.
Not much, apparently, has changed since 1873, the year that the Supreme Court ruled that despite the 14th Amendment giving all “persons” equal protection under the law, Illinois could prevent Myra Bradwell from joining the bar because she was a woman whose proper place was in the home, someone who had “no legal existence separate from her husband.”
Make no mistake about it: If the Hobby Lobby case was about the right of a Jehovah’s Witnesses-owned business to deny its male workers coverage for blood transfusions, it never would have gotten this far. It’s only because the American right and its handpicked cheerleaders in the Supreme Court don’t think women deserve the same rights as men that Hobby Lobby turned out the way it did.
If you can give me another reason, I’ll consider it. But as far as I’m concerned, the furor about the birth control mandate and the Hobby Lobby case was, for conservatives at least, always about the fact that the issue at stake was a woman’s right to control her own body.
Obviously, the court’s ruling on Hobby Lobby today could have been a whole lot worse. The justices did, after all, at least have the courtesy to say that their decision shouldn’t be seen as a go-ahead for other corporations to start doing whatever they want because their “religion” says so.
But I won’t mince words. The Hobby Lobby ruling was a loss for everyone who thinks women are actual people and a win for everyone who thinks that corporations and rich bosses should dominate society at the expense of everyone else.
Comments
#2
Conservative christians need to be reminded: Those who discrimante against others can themselves be discriminated against!
I will never do business with Hobby Lobby, and I will encourage all I know to not shop there.
BOYCOTT HOBBY LOBBY!!!!
#3
It's also a loss for all who understand that "freedom of religion" does NOT mean that you're free to impose your beliefs on me.
#4
Dunno why this goddamn website won't paragraph properly despite use of the correct codes. . Sorry -- I know the bad formatting makes my post impossible to read -- which is why I'm going to try once more to edit it to make it right, and if not, delete it. Mr. Hartmann and his nurds can cheer: they may have finally driven me permanently off this site.
#5
It's also a loss for all who understand that "freedom of religion" does NOT mean that you're free to impose your beliefs on me.Lack of religion, or secularism, is also a belief system, which the owners of Hobby Lobby believed was being imposed on them. It is not possible, in such a diverse nation, for someone's belief system to NOT get imposed on other people at some point.
Plus, they weren't imposing any beliefs on anyone. The women who work there can get all of the contraception they want. The owners just aren't going to be forced to pay for a few types of contraception. It's like saying that someone who works for a company owned by Hindus can still bring beef in their lunches, but don't expect it to be served in the company cafeteria.
I predict there will be a temporary surge in Hobby Lobby sales, as people try to make a statement of approval of their stand, just like there was a surge in Chik-Fil-A after that one owner said some anti-gay things. I also suspect there will be no mention of this surge in the media.
#6
The dire triple impact of the Hobby Lobby decision has seemingly been missed by Mr. Hartman and every other commentator thus far. But the hideous truth is that Hobby Lobby clears the way for de jure imposition of Christian theocracy on the United States. It provides a means of making birth control unobtainable throughout the nation even as it further reshapes the Affordable Care Act to maximize profit for the insurance barons.
It does so because of how two facts interface.
The first of these facts is that 63 percent of the U.S. population is, by definition, fanatically Christian (see http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm ). This means these people believe the Bible is literally the word of their god, and that to disobey his mandates (which include the genocidal elimination of non-believers) condemns one to eternal damnation. (Though intelligent humans consciously reject the notion of everlasting hell, subconsciously it remains our species' most terrifying concept.)
Element two in this equation of theocratic oppression is that at least 90 percent of all U.S. business comes under the "closely held" definition (see http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/closely-held-corporations.html ).
The convergence of these two realities means the vast majority of U.S. business how has the ability to abolish the reproductive freedom of its employees. This in turn gives business the power to impose a de facto state religion on these employees, who given economic reality are its de facto subjects -- scarcely different from slaves or serfs.
(Imposition of theocracy via the private sector is already a standard Christian tactic. Note for example how the takeover of the nation's health care facilities by the Roman Catholic Church imposes a de facto ban on abortion -- and indeed on all forms of contraception -- wherever it occurs.)
Meanwhile the insurance barons are allowed to continue collecting the obscene windfall profits imposed by mandatory insurance even as they set prohibitively expensive co-pays and deductibles to radically limit the public's ability to obtain health care. The Hobby Lobby decision furthers this same process: it gives the insurance barons another means of maximizing profit and minimizing cost, in this instance by following the Christian employers' no-birth-control mandates. And since ACA required birth control be provided at no cost to the workers, there is no mandate for the insurors to lower their premiums in response to the birth-control bans. The decision therefore actually increases the insurance barons' profits.
(No doubt this economic sleight-of-hand is intentional, carefully scripted by Obama and his corporate henchmen from the very onset of the Obamacare scheming.)
Those who doubt the Hobby Lobby is the beginning of the end of all birth-control availability in the United States need only look at how private-sector and state-level initiatives already deny abortions in 87 percent of the nation's counties. (See https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/access_abortion.html )
Meanwhile the claim that redress can be obtained through Congress is wishful thinking so absurd it borders on delusional. The House has been gerrymandered to ensure its Republican majority -- which is also a fanatical Christian majority -- is permanent. And given the electorate's (deliberately induced?) rage at the Democrats for their deceptions and betrayals, it's likely the Senate will become permanently Republican too.
Thus we are herded far down the slippery slope toward theocracy, the course upon which we were forcibly set in 1954 when the phrase "under God" -- the ultimate coda for theocratic subjugation -- was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
At least though there is a tiny chance the brazen egregiousness of the Hobby Lobby decision will awaken more USians to the savage, core-doctrine misogyny that defines Abrahamic religion -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism -- as the most relentless enemy of women and womanhood anywhere on this dying planet.
#7
Finally after FOUR attempts: whaddya bet the site software has been changed and is no longer compatible with Open Office Writer. Only way I can get correct paragraphing -- and this was an hour-long effort -- was to write everything again, then run it all together with no spacing and hope the <p> symbols hadn't somehow disappeared. WAY too much frustration and clerical detail work -- precisely the sort of thing I utterly despise -- which is precisely why (sorry Alice et al), I most likely won't be back.
#8
I'm just so angry I don't think I can write anything worth reading. The K-RATS are just so openly stupid--can't they see the future ramifications? Alito's comments were that others should not use this decison to deny coverage for other things like vaccinations and blood transfusions, but they will, everyone knows it. I thought SMART people were supposed to be on the Supreme Court not greedy corporate hacks and mindless lapdogs.
Read Ruth Bader Ginzberg's desent--it takes away a little sting.
Thanks OrgDevGuy--that's my gripe too.
I am a quilter and an artist and I haven't shopped in HobbyLobby since the case came up and will not so do and encourage others to do so. There are other more worthy shops in my town who will receive my devil dollars.
#9
Chi Matt -- No belief is a belief system. Some astute group needs to work on the English language. I thought no means no.
This case has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby's belief system. Before the ACA, they were quite willing to provide contraceptive services to their employees. When the 99% said that they were required, they responded like all the other 1% fascists. No one is going to tell them what they can do to their employees.
#10
Hobby Lobby? Seriously! A nonvital retail service has the nerve to push the buttons of an already taxed market and risk losing customers over such a petty issue? You've got to be kidding me? SCOTUS and its reich wing backers dares to PO 51% of the voting public; and, the men who love them? Really? These people are incredibly out of touch with reality. Well, lets just see how their behavior and policies pay off for them at the ballot box and the cash register.
As far as these vindictive hypocritical corporate sexist fascist are concerned I agree with stecoop01 above, it is our constitutional duty as Americans in solidarity with women's rights to BOYCOTT 'HOBBY LOBBY'.
#11
Loren Bliss ~ I'm not sure what problem you are having; however, I am not having it. What I do is to compose everything right here in the comment box of Thom's blog. Then, before I post it, I copy and paste it into my email to run it through the spell checker. After I do my edits I cut it and paste it back into the comment box--replacing the original text. Then I do a second brief proofread, make any bold, or italicised additions. (Underlying doesn't seem to work for some reason.) Add any hyperlinks--with the hyperlink tool.
The only problem I've encountered is sometimes there will be an extra space between one of the paragraphs that I didn't want. When I re edit I remove the extra spaces with my backspace button. Very simple. I think this is probably because the font and font size used on this site is fixed and not completely compatible with that of my email service. That is probably what is happening with you. I'd suggest starting with the site's text. Then copy and paste back and forth to edit. You might also want to play around with the program you are using to edit. Also, make sure your software is up to date. Sometimes different programs--and operating systems--just aren't completely compatible with some sites.
Don't get too frustrated. I know how that feels after you spent time composing. However, I'm sure whatever the problem is there is a simple solution.
#12
Loren Bliss ~ I think you hit the nail on the head...again! Now that the ACA mandates services, and premiums and copays have risen as a result, the only way to increase profits are by finding another way to restrict services. This is a tremendous windfall for the insurance industry. Most young women seek birth control--at least most of the time. It is the one health service that is popularly needed by completely healthy people. In fact, the more physically fit, the more it is needed. It is the one major expense of the insurance industry. Now, thanks to SCOTUS, companies can help the insurance industry save a fortune; and, at the same time rip off the masses even more so.
The idea that this decision actually favors an establishment of religion over individual human rights just infuriates me to no end. SCOTUS, the highest court of the country, is predominantly ran by a bunch of mindless corporate shills. That scares the hell out of me and does nothing to inspire my confidence in our system. This is one of the big prices we are being made to pay because Barack the Betrayer didn't follow through with his campaign promise to establish single-payer health care for all. How much more is it going to cost us citizens in the long run? I can only imagine. This is just the beginning.
With single payer both the employer and the insurer would have been removed from the equation. Now there are two entities standing in between you and your Doctor; and, both of them are more interested in their profits and other agenda than your health, rights, well being, or wishes.
#13
OMG!!!
Please go take the time to READ the Ruling in its entirety and stop listening to the LEFT and RIGHT PRESS. They are all IDOTS.
The ONLY thing that Hobby Lobby case decides is that of the 20 Birth Control medications, they only wanted to NOT pay for 4! The four that are "embryo killing"......GEEZ you all are so friggin brain washed. Ease up and get educated. HOBBY LOBBY should not have to comprimise their religiaous beliefs any more than I should fund a womans right to SCREW with out getting pregnant if I choose not to. Truly, we have the best government money can buy and we still re-elect the LEFT and RIGHT. We need a third party of moderate libertarians. But I will be dead, (Thank God), by the time you youngin's wake up and try to take the country back to 1969 values. Good luck....for me, its been a great ride!
THIS COUNTRY IS QUICKLY LOOKING MORE LIKE A CORRUPT BANNANA REPUBLIC
FG
#14
American exceptionalism!
The working people of industrialized nations around the world laugh and shake their heads once again hearing the news how Americans freely and without a whimper resign their plight to the whims of giant corporations and their robed jesters. The Reagan revolution has after thirty years of dirty fighting, corrupted elections (Bush v Gore, Bush v Kerry), illegal and unjustified war in Iraq, the near collapse of the United States and possibly the world economy - has opened the door for corporations to assert their rights of personhood.
wonder if hobby lobby objects to the use of Viagra?
I was brought up in a Lutheran home. I was taught that god was a loving god - and Jesus would answer my prayers. I believed to take care of the sick, give food to those who are hungry, ones the golden rule.We have crossed into a new paradigm of theocracy - the Christian Taliban.
first they came for our right to vote and made it more difficult.they came for our jobs and made it difficult to care for our families. They (facebok) came for our privacy and played with fears and emotions like a rat in a cage. They came for our phone numbers and listened to our calls. They came in the name of god to tell us who we can and cannot love. They came to take away our health insurance. Today, though I have complied with the terms of the contract - working for you at low wages without a union, now you take away what you feel are legally available medications because some unseen demon speaks to you?
American exceptionalism!
rich in Folsom
#15
Well said Thom., Although women will only have a real say in the issues that concern them when we achieve Equal Gender Governments. With a world wide count of one woman to four men at the moment the balance seems far away, unless people like you get behind it.
#16
Quote hartmann:Hobby Lobby actually invests in companies that make the very same birth control it says goes against its religious beliefs, the fact that it’s more than ready to pay for male birth control procedures like vasectomies.Very interesting that they profit off of birth control and they profit off of not paying for birth control for their own employees and use the religious excuse for the later.
As for vasectomies...I think that is a wonderful idea! And the doctors don't even hurl the testicles against the barn door like I've seen hog farmers do. Human males get to keep their nuts... just get them disconnected from letting the sperm get to those eggs in the first place. And sperm is basically invisible anyway...the semen still functions just fine.
Women wouldn't have to go through all of that trouble, wouldn't have to worry about all the complications that birth control often causes, and it really is not a big deal for a man to have a vasectomy. Just a little snip, snip and a few stitches and it is done. Some men have even gone home and tried it out the same day they left the clinic. And I won't tell you how I know. You gotta be easy though...nothing wild and crazy.
And now, the process is even reversible in the event the man and woman change their mind and want kids/more kids. It makes way more sense for a man to get a vasectomy than for the burden to be put on women. More men need to quit being such sissies! It doesn't even change your voice to a higher pitch...really it doesn't!
#17
Flyguy says "HOBBY LOBBY should not have to compromise their religious beliefs any more than I should fund a woman's right to SCREW with out getting pregnant if I choose not to." By that same logic, I shouldn't have to fund Viagra either, since a man's "right" to a fake hard-on is of no consequence to me. I happen to think a woman's right to prevent or terminate a pregnancy is way more important, with much farther-reaching consequences.
You guys are always putting 100% of the blame for unwanted pregnancies on women. Never mind that such a pregnancy could never occur without a man's active participation! Which makes you, and guys like you, hypocrites.
Aside from that, Flyguy, you apparently have forgotten one aspect of this issue concerning employers' religious beliefs, and whether they should be able to force those beliefs on their employees. Last I heard, this country was not a theocracy. Therefore the ONLY religion that should be involved in a woman's personal choices should be her religion… if she even has one. If she is secular, religion should have no influence on the choices she makes for herself.
It infuriates me no end that people who can't get pregnant, who've never been and will never be pregnant, think they have any business telling those who can get pregnant what they are allowed to do about it.
Beyond that, we need a third party of SOCIALISTS, not "moderate libertarians". Libertarianism only translates to "conservative lite" or "fascist lite". It could be argued that Clinton is a libertarian. Enough of that already. - Aliceinwonderland
#18
Marc -- this is a new problem. No idea the cause, but after nearly two hours of screwing around with it, it's obvious the only solution is as I described. Write the post, paragraph it normally, then eliminate the spaces between the paragraphs and hope for the best. (I always write on this site as its software allows no other option: try to write your post elsewhere then past it in [as I do on every other site on which I post], and this site will reject it. Probably it's an anti-spam thing. Hence I write here, copy it into my WP system to discover typos, type the corrections into the text that's already here, then hit the save button. In the past that always worked. Now though I gotta diddle around trying to make the paragraphs come out right. A HUGE pain, both infuriating and frustrating, enough vexing to keep me from posting here again. Sorry.) This isn't final, but after tonight's struggle, it's sure the direction in which I'm leaning.
I should also explain my bad attidude: my Nurd accquaintences tell me some sites can indeed be programmed to obstruct specific posters without actually banishing them. Since these problems are (A) new and (B) turn a 10-minute posting into a discouragingly extended fight, I strongly suspect that's whats happening here.
#19
I wrote the following article, Womb For Rent, a couple years back and posted it on this forum months ago. Seems just as relevant today, and it certainly relates to the topic! So I will post it here once more:
WOMB FOR RENT (Published in the March 2012 issue of The Advocate): Do you recall Sigmund Freud’s famous theory, that girls suffer from so-called “penis envy”? As I observe the shenanigans going on in Congress nowadays, it seems the opposite is true. If there’s one thing old-school patriarchs can never get a grip on, it’s an ability women have that none of them will ever possess, despite all the advantages to being male in a “man’s world”. Only females have access to this unique form of power. It sets us apart, for we are the gateway to life itself. Whether a blessing or a curse, it is our exclusive domain, the power to open or close that gate. It is something we’ve inherited as females and it is our birthright. Can you imagine any reality more basic to the laws of the natural world? Which begs the question: what could be more sharply at odds with a patriarch’s worldview than this simple fact of life?
Through the ages, patriarchs have compensated for this by keeping us marginalized, disempowered, handicapped via artificial means. They accomplish this through a variety of methods, ranging from religious custom and repressive legislation to plain old brute force. This battle over the womb has dragged on, literally, for millennia. We women now find ourselves pitted against the current generation of misogynist bigots who are determined to roll back the proverbial clock. This could condemn women and girls to second-class citizenship status, at a level few of us, of either gender, are old enough to recall. Regardless of what motivates these womb-obsessed woman haters, their efforts to keep us down, at the mercy of our own biology, are relentless and never-ending. Womb envy? Perhaps. The latest episode of this ancient power struggle has erupted in the halls of Congress. We’ve just witnessed a drama so archaic, I’ve had moments when I’ve found myself wondering which century I’m living in. Imagine the implications of an all-male group of legislators, monopolizing a discussion about birth control! These men get to decide on policies that determine who has access to birth control and who doesn’t. It is a dialogue where no woman is allowed to participate, from which we’ve been brazenly and willfully excluded. Never mind that it is our reproductive health on the line, not theirs!
With this planet in such peril, its life support systems collapsing while the fate of humanity hangs by a thread, you’d think our elected officials would have better things to do than attack women’s hard-won rights. As the next presidential election looms near, corporate media’s pundit shills busy themselves filling the airwaves with their loud, toxic drivel. It is so transparent, so predictable, I’d find it laughable if only the stakes weren’t so high. Armed with their latest wedge issue, these guardians of the status quo have picked their target; not abortion, mind you, but birth control! Neo-con legislators not only want to re-criminalize abortion, they aim to take away all means of prevention as well. Yet when it comes to having babies, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, especially if we’re poor.
Like all wedge issues, this one was manufactured to keep us collectively distracted from real problems we face: global warming, overpopulation, the nuclear threat, decaying infrastructure, monopoly crony capitalism, economic injustice, privatization of the commons with its ugly consequences, the erosion of democracy and so on. But for patriarchs and oligarchs, this tired old debate serves a duel purpose. As a wedge issue, it divides and conquers us - the “masses” - while simultaneously, keeping women “in their place”. Double bonus, for them! So here we are at the dawn of the 21st Century, having to fight for access to birth control yet again, while at the same time, a man’s access to gender-specific healthcare services is never scrutinized.
Just blows my mind, this ongoing obsession over the womb. Seems bizarre to me, how a mere body part can provoke so much controversy. Our wombs are fought over nonstop, coveted as if mere territory to be conquered. This uniquely female organ has been the object of male envy throughout recorded history; something highly valued, despite all the negative ways its value might manifest in patriarchal cultures.
With living-wage jobs so scarce these days and the “fruit of the womb” in such high demand, I see a potential source of revenue here. This could be the opportunity of a lifetime! So ladies, if you are of childbearing age, why not transform burden into bounty, leasing womb space to the wombless among us? In hard times like these, you’ve got to think creatively to get ahead. Were I not past childbearing age myself, I’d post an ad in the classifieds: “WOMB FOR RENT”. Hey, I’m a 99er too! I could use some extra cash.
Cheers! - Aliceinwonderland
#20
Alice: yes, yes, yes and yes!!!
My only comment is most of the politicians I have encountered are way too venal -- and penil -- to envy a woman's womb. That also seems true of the vast majority of men I've met -- which is no doubt why even now at age 74 I find women not just generally more interesting than men, but better human beings as well. (Nor am I alone; Sartre and Camus, for example, are said to have held similar views.) What my gender really envies (and also fears) is woman's capability for multiple orgasms and -- more to the point -- its implicitly infinite sensuality. Hence I've always preferred the terms "vagina envy" or "clitoris envy" -- plus of course acknowledgement Freud was merely projecting his own feelings onto women.
#21
Loren, it is inconceivable to me that Thom would be inclined to block your posts here. It makes no sense that he or his staff would obstruct you, while allowing other bloggers through the gates whose political views diverge from his way more than yours. Why would Thom choose to obstruct your input, but not OU812's?
I am not a very tech-savvy person and never will be. I strongly empathize with your frustration. Were it not for my husband, with way more patience and aptitude for this stuff than I possess, I might never have had a computer or engaged in online activities in the first place. I can't count all the times I've wanted to stomp on my laptop and fling it out the window. And I know how bloody infuriating it can be to have written a long post, only to have it thwarted by some dumb-ass technical glitch.
Before I post one of my editorials, I first write it in "Text Edit" for safekeeping. It has eliminated a lot of the frustration for me. That way, if the system goes belly-up or the internet flakes (or whatever), I still have my message intact and can re-post it later if necessary. Palindromedary turned me onto this trick and it works like a charm.
That said, Loren, I for one would feel very sad if you gave up this forum. I've really enjoyed corresponding with you. I know that I'm not the only one who has appreciated your unique input here. I'll even go so far as to say that of the many people I've encountered on Thom's blog, you are among my favorites. Please, please don't allow these technical malfunctions to silence you! You would be sorely missed. - AIW
#22
Matt, how was anyone's "secular belief system" being "imposed" on the owners of Hobby Lobby? How can they substantiate such a claim? And why isn't anyone making such a big issue of Viagra and similar medications? By the logic you've just expressed, I might as well claim that anyone using Viagra is violating MY code of conduct and therefore, should be prohibited from doing so.
While you're at it, please explain why a man should be more entitled to THAT than a woman is to birth control. - AIW
#23
Loren, if a woman's superior capacity for orgasm is all your gender is obsessed over, then why are they going out of their way to control what we do or don't do with our fertility? As if it was any of their business in the first place.
I hate to come off sounding so ornery, but this has been a thorn in my side for decades.
"If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Chances are, you've heard that quote before. From my perspective, it's the most succinct assessment of the male mentality I've ever come across. This pretty much says it all! - AIW
#24
You needent apologize for being ornery as it is surely your right.
I think the key to the (pornographic) nature of the Rightist and/or Abrahamic male obsession with female fertility is to be found in the pronouncements of the patriarchs, for example Huckabee's pulpit-pounding remarks about women who "can't control their libido." In other words, the issue -- and I know this not only from reading Bible-thump propaganda but from the years I spent (involuntarily) in the South -- is not fertility per se. it is instead the notion, central to the Bible, the Qur'an and the Talumd, that all women since Eve are potential creatures of the Devil, not only soulless but infinitely lustful (and in their demonic lustfulness readily able to ensnare "godly" males). The ultimate patriarchal antidote to this misogynistic bigotry is of course the burka, but failing that, denying women the right to control their fertility (and thereby making them subject to the sort of slavery characterized by the phrase "barefoot and pregant on the outskirts of town") is considered the next most practical means of suppression.
There is also the fact, overlooked by misogynists and feminists alike, that when their survival is threatened, women are instinctively revolutionary. This is evident far back into history: Boudica's rebellion (the most destructive revolution in the 1600-year history of the Roman Empire, west and east); the bread riots by the women of Paris who sparked the French Revolution; the women of Petrograd's Lesnoy Textile Works whose wildcat strike on International Women's Day (8 March by our calendar) started the Russian Revolution; the women of the Petrograd Soviet who saw to it Soviet Russia was the first nation on the planet to grant all women the right to vote. A little research would yield dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of similar examples.
Thus the patriarchy, in this instance interchangable with the One Percent and knowing fully well the sort of anti-humanitarian savagery the future holds, is desperate to re-subjugate woman precisely so they cannot perform such (life-asserting) revolutionary functions.
Thus too it truly is "a war against women," but it is actually about 5,000 years old, beginning with the desert tribes' first encounters with phenomenon like the biblical burning bush or Ezekial's fiery wheel and the allegedly divine voice from within mandating the imposition of patriarchy. (The original, pre-biblical Eve was in fact a goddess, considered the Mother of All Being, this by a people who are known to have been matrilinear and were in all probability matriarchal as well, an entirely logical construct given that woman is the bearer of life and that, under primitive conditions, life-bearing trumps all other human functions.)
As to the fiery wheel, your guess is as good as mine what it actually was. But I will say this: if it was indeed an extra-terrestial visitation, the introduction of patriarchy amongst the tribes of h. sapiens sapiens was no different from the introduction of smallpox-infested blankets amongst First Nations peoples.
By the way, thank you for the compliment; you are my favorite poster here also. Indeed it is dialogues like this make me dearly wish we could talk face-to-face (no doubt for hours at a time -- even until [to steal the phrase by which the Rolling Stones proved themselves to be true bohemians] "the morning sun is rising like a red rubber ball." Which is precisely how it looked as viewed from the domains of my youth, the boho zones of Lower Manhattan...)
#25
Interesting how after my complaints the paragraphing problems stopped. Hmmm...
#26
I have no problem with spell checking on this blog site. I either use NoScript (an addon to my Mozilla Firefox browser) so that the javascript script from this web site doesn't use the rich-text Comment box....or...if I do allow thomhartmann.com script then if I disable the rich-text then spell checking works fine. All you have to do is click inside of the Comments box and the spell check shows all your misspelled words with a wavy red underline. It doesn't work if you allow rich-text.
The characters for paragraphs from a word processor aren't the same as the ones from HTML. And HTML tags are what is used in this blog site. I have LibreOffice which is practically the same thing as Apache Open Office as they split off from the same project Libre split from Open and about the only difference is that Libre can continue to copy from Open any new changes that occur at Open. But not the other way around. Open can't copy from Libre. I think I have seen something about configuring something where you can format from these word processor format to HTML. But, it's too late for me to go any further on it tonight (this morning). This Drupal CMS may have a program that converts and may not always work correctly...I am just guessing. If the paragraphing problem stopped then there must be an intermittent problem. Maybe HollyIT caught it and fixed it????
#27
Hobby Lobby is not open on Sundays. (Bravo.) But, I have to wonder if Mr & Mrs Lobby and family ever shop or eat out on that holy day thus forcing others to work.
#28
how was anyone's "secular belief system" being "imposed" on the owners of Hobby Lobby?
The belief that a fertilized egg is not a human, and therefore killing it isn't murder, is a secular belief. Forcing someone to pay for that, if they think it is murder, is forcing a secular belief on them. They still pay for all other forms of contraception that stop the egg from being fertilized in the first place, because they don't consider a separate egg and sperm as humans yet. And they're not telling their employees that they can't use Plan B or any other abortion pill. The owners of the company just aren't going to pay for it.
By the way, aren't there religious exceptions for other laws as well? Can't you get out of the draft or jurt duty if you object on religious or moral grounds? Aren't the Amish granted exceptions for their views for things like cumpulsory education? There is a precident for people being exempted from certain laws for religious reasons.
And why isn't anyone making such a big issue of Viagra and similar medications?Because it's not similar. It doesn't stop a fertilized egg from implanting. You're just focusing on genitals. You'd have a better argument if you brought up vaccinations, which some people object to, but if they opt out, they could be endangering other people in the long run.
By the logic you've just expressed, I might as well claim that anyone using Viagra is violating MY code of conduct and therefore, should be prohibited from doing so.If Viagra is against your belief system, and you own a company that has enough employees (I think 50 is the minimum) that you are forced to provide insurance, then yes, you should be able to object to providing Viagra. I'd support that.
While you're at it, please explain why a man should be more entitled to THAT than a woman is to birth control.Both are equally entitled to both. It's a question of who is paying for it.
#29
Quote Aliceinwonderland:That said, Loren, I for one would feel very sad if you gave up this forum. I've really enjoyed corresponding with you. I know that I'm not the only one who has appreciated your unique input here. I'll even go so far as to say that of the many people I've encountered on Thom's blog, you are among my favorites. Please, please don't allow these technical malfunctions to silence you! You would be sorely missed. - AIW
Loren Bliss ~ Just for the record, my sentiments exactly. I'm also sure Alice and I are not alone. Please hang in there for the sake of all of our sanities.
#30
Quote ChicagoMatt:The belief that a fertilized egg is not a human, and therefore killing it isn't murder, is a secular belief. Forcing someone to pay for that, if they think it is murder, is forcing a secular belief on them.
ChicagoMatt ~ Ridiculous! The EMPLOYEE is paying for everything. Health benefits are part of the entire compensation package--not a bloody handout. You right wingers constantly presume that the employer owns their employees. They own their bodies--drug testing--and they own their health--for profit health care. What a bunch of hypocrites you are. You don't believe that government has any place in peoples lives and no place between people and their doctor; but, when it comes to fascist corporate powers you want everyone to bend over and take anything they want to dish our like we are all corporate slaves. Sorry buddy, but if that's the kind of horse manure you're trying to sell you're going to go bankrupt fast on this site.
This is the precise reason that healthcare needs to be run by the government. It is the only entity capable of defending the rights of the individual and protecting those rights form the individual whims of private interests. Taking us right back to the discussion we just had about healthcare. This SCOTUS decision is a first class example of the dangers to civil liberties presented by for profit heathcare.
#31
Thank you Loren, for sharing your perspective. As always, your knowledge of history sheds much light on the topic being discussed.
I wonder if there exists any religious literature that isn't full of misogynist pig propaganda. How convenient for patriarchs, to hold on to their belief that we are soulless, lustful, ad nauseam; especially when such labels could be applied to themselves with a lot more validity.
I love the parallel you draw between patriarchy and smallpox.
While women are the "bearer of life", patriarchs are the destroyers of life. I guess that would constitute a (AHEM) conflict of interests.
On a much lighter note, I would pay $$ to find a way to connect with you outside of this forum. Much as I appreciate the need for security, it sure creates a barrier when the potential for friendship emerges. There is so much I want to share with you! - AIW
P.S. I'm delighted to learn your paragraphing problems are over. Much as I understand the source of your paranoia (after being censored from all those other blogs!), I really don't believe you need to worry about that here.
#32
The belief that a fertilized egg is human, with rights equal to the person carrying it, is a patriarchal notion that needs to go bye-bye. I don't give a flip what the owners of Hobby Lobby believe; what matters to me is freedom; the freedom of all people to live their lives as they see fit, unencumbered by the belief systems of others and the rules & restrictions accompanying such belief systems, and regardless of where they happen to earn their paychecks. When it comes to matters of birth control, nothing could be more private in anyone's life and therefore, it is not for their employers (or the government) to restrict in any manner, shape or form.
As taxpayers, we are always forced to pay for things we don't believe in: imperial war mongering and subsidies to fossil fuel, to list just two examples. Gee wouldn't it be nice if we could pick and choose where our tax money went!
We really need to break this connection between healthcare and employment, for many more reasons than I'll elaborate on here. Single payer would eliminate this whole issue of what employers are willing or not willing to pay for, when it comes to women's healthcare.
An egg is no more a human than a seed is a tree. Get over it. - AIW
#33
Marc, I just read your latest post. BRAVO. You are my absolute favorite Christian!!! - AIW
#34
Yes, Alice...couldn't agree more. I still half hope for that 'tea & toke' next time I end up in CA. :) In the chat room, one can send a private chat. I've looked for you in there but never seen you. Though most hang out durring the show, one can drop in anytime. I would suggest using this forum to arange a time w/ Loren to drop in to the chat room and exchange emails via private message. In fact, if you ever feel so inclined, I'd be honored to do the same.
Sandle
#35
The door is open. Other companies are jumping in....Buckle up!
#36
So, it's a religious argument. And the recommended method prescribed by Catholics and most christians is the rhythm method, because they believe life begins at conception and the morning after pill and the birth control pill kill the zygote (fertilized egg) aka "fetus" according to pro-lifers.
But so does the rhythm method.
However ineffectual it is, when it works, the egg is almost always fertilized, but is unable to implant. It then dies and pregnancy does not occur.
Amazingly, the morning after pill and the birth control pill and the rhythm method are identical in what they do to the "fetus" (zygote/fertilized egg).
Read more http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563373/
The stupid, it hurts. Who are these idiots?
#37
DanneMarc. This recent Supreme Court decision is the precise reason health care SHOULDN'T be run by the government. no government or single payer health care monopoly will ever achieve 100% agreement on any decision. Under the present system those affected by the Hobby Lobby decision can get health care somewhere else, or go to work for a company that offers the type of health care they require. If the exact same decision happened under a single payer health care monopoly, where do you go? Don't say it couldn't happen, the Hobby Lobby decision was made by a branch of the government.
#38
All of the other Capitalists industrialized nations have a single pair type health care system, why do they not give it up. A for-profit health care system that we have in this country is designed to make the chief executive officer and his board members unbelievable rich by denying the less fortunate a stable lifestyle free from the fear of injury and illness. That is probably a very good reason the other capitalists industrialized nations keeps their non-for-profit health care system. Ou812 your statement is missed found.
#39
Under the present system, "OU", nearly fifty thousand Americans are dying each year because they can't afford a damn doctor. That's a half million people per decade, lost to for-profit, pay-or-die health extortion. Have a nice day. - AIW
P.S. Here's ten examples of countries with single-payer: France, Norway, Cuba, Mexico, Germany, England, Canada, China, Japan, Sweden... need more examples than that?
#40
:)
#41
P.P.S. By the way, health "insurance" extortionists are in the business of denying healthcare to maximize profits. Some of these casualties are (or were) "insured". Eat THAT, schoolteacher.
#42
Great idea, Sandles! Being a creature of habit, I seldom stray beyond the comfortably familiar. But you and Loren are two people I'd love to connect with offline. - AIW
#43
Give me your source for 50,000 deaths/year for those who can't afford health care.
see below...In Canada, the health care benifits received depend on the providence lived in. There is NO universal plan covering the entire country. Rather it is like HMO's here in the US. For example, if your residence is Ontario, and you are traveling in Manitoba when you become ill you can't simple go to a doctor. You are treated the same way a person in the US is treated when he goes to a physician outside his HMO.
Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United StatesHealth spending per capita, in $US PPP-adjusted] , with the US and Canada compared amongst other first world nations.
Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States is often made by government, public health and public policy analysts.[1][2][3][4] The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada changed its system in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take into account population differences.[6]
United KingdomMain article: Healthcare in the United Kingdom
Healthcare in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, meaning England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own systems of private and publicly funded healthcare, generally referred to as the National Health Service or NHS. Each country having different policies and priorities has resulted in a variety of differences existing between the systems.[17][18] That said, each country provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need, being paid for from general taxation. In addition, each also has a private healthcare sector which is considerably smaller than its public equivalent, with provision of private healthcare acquired by means of private health insurance, funded as part of an employer funded healthcare scheme or paid directly by the customer, though provision can be restricted for those with conditions such as AIDS/HIV.[19]
#44
I get your point, "jiminfantino". But it's only a religious argument because these are patriarchal religions we're talking about. And it's only because we women get pregnant that abortion is not a sacrament. - AIW
#45
I don't know any business that maximizes it's profits by NOT selling it's products. If that were the case, you would make more money not cleaning houses, than cleaning them...
#46
OU, regarding those nearly 50,000 preventable deaths a year in the U.S., I've gotten that information from multiple sources. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
Each country has its own approach to the healthcare issue. This happens to be the ONLY wealthy, developed country on the planet where people are bankrupted by medical bills and dying from lack of care. Yeah, we spend more on healthcare than anyone else; that's one point you've made that I've no dispute with. But while we spend a lot more, we're getting considerably less, for a system that fails to cover everyone. That is indefensible, morally as well as economically. So it comes as no surprise that off all these developed countries, our system rates the lowest in quality of care as well as outcomes.
In all other countries, healthcare is non-profit and everyone is covered. Only in the U.S. is it even legal for a for-profit insurance business to monopolize and dole out basic care. God bless America!! - AIW
#47
I don't want to argue with you Alice, but no one has answered my orginal post. What if the Hobby Lobby decision occurred under single payer, what options do we the receivers of medical care have? Don't change the subject give me the benefit of yor intellect.
#48
Another clueless argument from the wienie-sucking Bachmann: ""I don't know any business that maximizes it's profits by NOT selling it's products. If that were the case, you would make more money not cleaning houses, than cleaning them... "
WOW. When it comes to stupid arguments, this one really takes the cake. First of all dearie, these "insurance" hacks don't provide diddily squat. All they do is block access to care, making damn sure those with shallow pockets get nothing, regardless of how dire their medical problems are. All these no-count hacks are selling is access to something they don't provide themselves: the care they have hijacked. That's a far cry from selling a product or providing a viable, legitimate service.
The ugly truth is, this so-called "health insurance" industry contributes nothing of value to health care. We've no choice but to put up with these goddam money-grubbing, paper-pushing flunkies who are not doctors, who never went to med school or had any medical training, coming between us and our doctors and making medical decisions for us whether we like it or not. Decisions that protect their profits, not our health.
I recently learned that a woman in the U.S. is twice as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Canada. Even in third-world countries like El Salvador and Cuba, healthcare is a right of citizenship.
The harder you work at defending this travesty, OU, the more foolish and piggish you look. Why don't you quit while you're behind! - AIW
#49
If we were under a single payer, national health insurance program. Hobby Lobby incident would not be an issue, because it would not have happened.
#50
The Republicans sum of all fears has happened; a government bureaucrat (five of them dressed in robes, Republican Conservative them all) has just stepped in between a woman and her doctor. Is this the death panel that Sarah Palin was referring to?
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Mueller's favorite place to pray (written about in "Prophet's Way"), and the roof of the room where the Last Supper is reputed to have happened.
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"With the ever-growing influence of corporate CEOs and their right-wing allies in all aspects of American life, Hartmann’s work is more relevant than ever. Throughout his career, Hartmann has spoken compellingly about the value of people-centered democracy and the challenges that millions of ordinary Americans face today as a result of a dogma dedicated to putting profit above all else. This collection is a rousing call for Americans to work together and put people first again."
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
I was taught incorrectly, in 1975 7th grade history, that the Supreme court served 2 primary purposes; 1) to be the last court of appeal and 2) to hold the Congress and the POTUS to constitutional standards with regard to legislation. ALL these years, until today, I assumed that the latter to be true. Thanks Thom, for setting me straight! I was taught something along these lines;
“The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.
It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.” http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/role-supreme-court
Horrifyingly, from the scRotus’s own web site;
“The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations. While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.” http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
And as if that wasn’t bad enough, if I’m reading it right, Yale Law School’s Eugene V. Rostow wrote a paper in 1952 entitled, “The Democratic Character of Judicial Review” http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3158&cont... He seems to interpret Jefferson in an opposite frame as does Thom.
Noticing the obvious and deliberate misinformation being taught from grade school to law school in the US today regarding this issue, it would seem the same faction of fascists who tried to hire Gen. Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR, has seized upon judicial review with the intent to use the scRotus to accomplish what they could not then.