Sandra Fluke, an attorney running for California State Senate, and a woman who has been speaking out for access to birth control for years, posted an article detailing the ruling and its' further implications. Her article is a lot more articulate and accurate than any I could compile; if you're interested, check it out. What I'm going to be dealing with is the response to this article and the dangerously far-reaching opinion that "religious freedom" should be placed above individual's rights to healthcare and the total inaccuracies that go hand-in-hand with this view.
Nearly every tweet or comment in reply to Fluke that I read is in agreement with this idea:
|Change is hopeless! Everyone, give up your convictions!|
While they don't deserve attention or response (a tweet won't change their personal ideology, unfortunately, something they should take note of) the only way any sort of change can be made on a macro scale is if a large public response occurs. Those with these sorts of views have made their voices exceptionally loud and that isn't getting us anywhere good. The only way to affect change is to speak out. I won't personally reply to rude comments online, but I have to say something. Attention must be drawn to this conversation.
It is already the law that employers must provide healthcare to their employees--whether or not they should is a different battle--the only argument relevant now is that these businesses with such strong "religious beliefs" are trying to find a way around having to fully comply with that law. Their opinion that some female birth control methods are "abortionaficants" is 100% scientifically and medically wrong. There is not a single fact to support the idea that the morning after pill does anything to a fertilized egg---in fact, there's proof that the pill does NOTHING to an egg that has been fertilized! Hence the title "morning after pill" it only works if you take it a certain amount of time post-unprotected-sex because all it does it merely guard against egg fertilization. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Seriously, Fox News, Hobby Lobby: does NO ONE know how to google?! It is a preventative pill--Not an abortion pill. I'll break it down for you, according to WedMD:
"Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways: It may prevent or delay ovulation. It may interfere with fertilization of an egg. It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining."
The idea that birth control affects any sort of fetus whatsoever has always been looming beneath the surface as a crazy, far-fetched, and terrifying opinion some have--but now it's having a direct effect on whether or not some women are able to get the healthcare they need.
Comedian and Writer, Shelby Faro makes good points:
Yet...No one at Hobby Lobby seems to be fussed about covering Erectile Dysfunction pills and Vasectomies. Birth control is a prescription because it affects hormone balances and deals with a myriad of health issues. Viagra is the pill that directly works to make a man able to have sex---but female birth control is referred to as "slut pills"? I'm sure many people screaming "Pay for your own pills! I don't want to pay for you to have sex!" are both totally unaware of all the positive ways these hormonal pills help women's lives and are congruent with that opinion on whether or not Viagra should be covered. However, only one of these things is on the political chopping block right now and I can't see that as anything other than a direct attack on women.
In conclusion, Fluke posted a link to a petition available to allow voices displeased with the court's decision to be heard.
Also, I recently got to meet Ms. Fluke when she spoke at my school (which is cool and important to me):