For those of you interested in reading an Earthling Girl's Guide to a better Government, and a Greener world, check out the blog:
Contact Your Representatives and Senators Here!
To send letters to your representatives about any issue of interest, Click here
To send letters to your Senators about any issue of interest, Click here
Get involved - Write your letters today!
On The Issues
Don't be uninformed!
Click here to see how every political leader on every issue voted.
Don’t Believe The Lies – Get The Facts
FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. They monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
Pulitzer Prize Winner Politifact.com is another trusted site to get the facts. Click here to get the facts.
Who’s Paying Who?
On The Issues is a nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy.
Blog Rules of Conduct
Rule #1: "The aliens can not reveal anything about anyone’s life that would not be known without the use of our technology. The exception being that if a reader has a question about his or her health and the assistance of alien technology would be necessary to answer that question.”
Rule #2: "Aliens will not threaten humans and Humans will not threaten aliens."
Rule #3:
Posting Comments:
When posting a comment in regards to any past or archived article, please reference the title and date of the article and post your comment on the present day to keep the conversation contemporary.
NOTE: You do not need to add your e-mail address when posting a comment. Your real name, an alias, a moniker, initials...whatever ...even simply "anonymous" is all you need to add in the fields in order to post a comment.
I DO NOT CENSOR COMMENTS POSTED TO THIS BLOG: Therefore this blog is not for the faint hearted, thin skinned, easily offended or the appointed people's moralist. If you feel that you may fit in any of those categories, please DO NOT read my blog or its comments. There are plenty of blogs that will fit your needs, find one. This warning also applies to those who post comments who would find it unpleasant or mentally injurious to receive an opposing opinion via a raw to vulgar delivery. I DO NOT censor comments posted here. If you post a comment, you are on notice that you may receive a comment in language or opinion that you will not approve of or that you feel is offensive. If that would bother you, DO NOT post on my blog.
27Mar2011
Medical Disclaimer:
I am not a doctor nor am I medically trained in any field. No one on this website is claiming to be a medical physician or claiming to be medically trained in any field.
However, anyone can blog information about health articles, folk remedies, possible cures, possible treatments, etc that they have heard of on my blog. Please see your physician or a health care professional before heeding or using any medical information given on this blog. It is not intended to replace any medical advice given to you by your licensed medical professional. This blog is simply providing a medium for discussion on all matters concerning life. All opinions given are the sole responsibility of the person giving them. This blog does not make any claim to their truthfulness, honesty, or factuality because of their presence on my blog.
Again, Please consult a health care professional before heeding any health information given here.
27Mar2011
Legal Disclaimer:
Michelle Moquin's "A Day In The Life Of..." publishes the opinions of expert authorities in many fields. But the use of these opinions is no substitute for legal, accounting, investment, medical and other professional services to suit your specific personal needs. Always consult a competent professional for answers to your specific questions.
27Mar2011
Fair Use Notice Disclaimer
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information.
However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from me.
You can read more about "fair use' and US Copyright Law"at the"Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School." This notice was modified from a similar notice at "Common Dreams."
Archive for the 'Human Rights and Equality' Category
Considering the responses from two days ago, I’m happy I didn’t hold my breath. This one’s for you Lea and Holly.Lucy: Let’s see how the “creeps” comment on this one.
This write shows again how women are being raped by the very men who are supposed to be their colleagues and friends. Just like in the military, the greatest danger to American women are the American men who serve with them in whatever capacity they work with them in. Be it military, scientific, or humanitarian, it is the men who go to work with them, many their superiors, that American women have to be concerned about.
Young Scientists Say They’re Sexually Abused In The Field
Many young scientists dream of their first trip to a remote research site — who wouldn’t want to hang out with chimps like Jane Goodall, or sail to the Galapagos like Charles Darwin, exploring the world and advancing science?
But for many scientists, field research can endanger their health and safety.
In a survey of scientists engaged in field research, the majority — 64 percent — said they had personally experienced sexual harassment while at a field site, and 22 percent reported being the victim of sexual assault.
Most of the people reporting harassment or assault were women, and the vast majority were still students or postdocs.
And for female victims, the perpetrator was more likely to be a superior, not a peer. “This is happening to them when they are trainees, when they are most vulnerable within the academic hierarchy,” says evolutionary biologist Katie Hinde, an author on the study published Wednesday in PLOS ONE. Hinde and her colleagues say this could be a factor in the large number of women who enter scientific fields but don’t continue.
A total of 666 scientists, primarily in the fields of anthropology and archaeology, completed the voluntary Internet survey. And while the results do not reflect the true prevalence of sexual abuse in field research — this type of survey is not designed to measure that — the numbers are still alarming.
While sexual violence can occur in all workplaces — roughly 50 percent of women report experiencing sexual harassment at some point in their careers — Hinde says the particular nature of field sites, where researchers are far from home, and the lines between work life and personal life are blurred, may make them more prone to this type of wrongdoing.
But in the survey, fewer than half of respondents recalled ever having encountered a code of conduct or sexual harassment policy at their field sites.
“People are being told ‘what happens in the field stays in the field,’ ” says biological anthropologist Kathryn Clancy, who led the survey team.
Many academic sciences have a problem retaining women. Though they enter the disciplines in high numbers, many leave before they reach the postdoctorate or professor level. The lack of role models and mentors and professional demands that leave little time for family life have been cited as reasons.
“One of the things that is not discussed out loud very much is how sexual harassment and sexual assault play into this problem,” says Hinde.
Psychologist Rebecca Campbell, who studies the effect of sexual harassment on communities, says that while all workplace harassment is harmful, it can be particularly damaging when coming from a superior.
She also says these findings should be incorporated into the broader discussion about campus sexual harassment and violence.
“The cultural narrative is that this is two drunk college kids in a dorm room, and we are seeing now that sexual assault is occurring as part of the core curriculum,” says Campbell.
While both Hinde and Clancy say that it was difficult to parse so many stories of wrongdoing perpetrated by and against their colleagues, they hope the results spur scientific communities to come together in search of a solution.
“As horrifying as this data is, I’m really excited to have it out there,” says Clancy. “Every person who has had this experience will be validated and know there are others out there who have their back. If this keeps just one more woman in science, it is absolutely worth it.”
Editor’s note:
July 21, 2014 A previous version of this story was illustrated with a file picture of an archaeological site in the United Kingdom. NPR did not intend to suggest that there are links between the content of this story and this archaeological site or the institution that organizes it.
*****
Readers: I don’t know if I would choose the word “excited” when referring to having this data out there, but I certainly do think it is good that the writer is illuminating this subject, because this is the first time I have heard about abuse in this type of field.
Am I surprised? I wish I could say that I was. But unfortunately, life is filled with low-life degenerate men that are so disgusting, they will use any available opportunity to take advantage of females.
And in the same vein, it is certainly a sick way for men to keep the competition down if you can keep the women from even entering into your field for fear of having to endure the abuse.
My suggestion: Make that pick tool you’ve been digging with your best friend and keep it close by. It just might come in handy.
Thoughts? Have any of you girls out there experienced rape or harassment in this field? Blog me.
Peace & Love: “Live it, Give it.”
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog.If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
I HOPE I didn’t already post this. It has been in my queue for quite some time, so my guess is, I have been seeing it so much that I feel like I already posted it. I searched but couldn’t find it, so if I did…oops, here it is again.
That doesn’t play out evenly, though. The team of University of Miami researchers found that a one-point increase in GPA means a 12 percent boost in earnings for men and a 14 percent boost for women. Even so, there’s a big gender gap in total earnings. A woman who got a 4.0 GPA in high school will only be worth about as much, income-wise, as a man who got a 2.0. A woman with a 2.0 average will make about as much as a man with a 0 GPA.
The data also show that average high school GPAs are significantly higher for women, but men will still end up having significantly higher income later on.
It also found that high school grades can indicate the likelihood of going to college, and that a one-point increase doubles the chances of completing a degree for both genders.
The finding that even the highest achieving female students can’t close the gender wage gap is true for higher education as well. A woman who is one credential ahead of a man will always be worth less in terms of income: a woman with an associate’s degree makes less than a man with a vocational degree, a woman with a bachelor’s makes less than a man with an associate’s, and a woman with an advanced degree makes less than a man with a bachelor’s. Even among recent college graduates with the same grades, majors, and career fields, men will make more in their first jobs.
While many factors go into the gender wage gap that means women who work full-time, year-round make 77 percent of what their male peers make, educational attainment clearly can’t explain it. In fact, when all factors are taken into account, about40 percent of it remains unexplained. It’s likely discrimination is playing at least some role in that remaining portion.
****
Readers: What do you want to say today? Blog me.
Iraina: Thanks for speaking up on what you know. Between you and what Howie inquired about from your comments, it certainly answers many questions.
If you don’t mind me saying, your mafioso boyfriend and his clan are misogynistic dogs. But I know you know that. With a comment like that to you, and those kind of actions from him and his friends toward women, his words of “I love you” don’t mean shit. I suggest you start dipping into those millions if you can, get out, and save yourself before you become one of those forced prostitutes, if not worse off. I HOPE for your safety.
Howie: I HOPE Israel heeds your warnings this time, and your information will inspire positive action, warding off doomsday.
Carol: This was in my queue to post, and you beat me to it. No pun intended. Just another sick example of tiny penis thugs with badges, on the loose. What I don’t understand is why no one ran out and stopped the thug from beating on her. If you have time to film it, you have time to do something. Perhaps if she only got punched 10 times or less instead of 15 she might be in less critical condition. At what point do you stop filming or watching and get out to help? After she’s pronounced brain dead? I am livid that no one came to her defense sooner. Especially because these days a cop caught on film beating up on someone doesn’t necessarily mean he is going to go to jail or even getting fired. So why not intervene and save the woman before the cop has the chance to do real damage.
Prism Princess: Thanks for posting. Sweet voice. I HOPE some day her wishes will some true. How are you?
Sonja: Nicely stated. I agree with so much of what you brought up which is why I posted the write. You just clarified what I didn’t think needed to be said, but evidently did, considering some of the comments posted.
Casey: I am so sorry you had to go through that at such a young age with no support to help you through. Hell, women are raped all over the world at all ages with no support. It is horrific. But I can’t imagine what you went through, and how much courage you needed to do what you did. Thank for sharing what no doubt other women have had to endure too. My best to you.
Mina: Happy to hear that our resident Hero Anonz has been helping the girls of Mexico. I’m sorry for what you and the other girls have been through, and relieved that you are getting some training. Obviously it has served you well. Sending you and the girls my best, and wishing Anonz continued strength and safety.
Happy Monday!
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog.If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
I hate to ruin anyone’s day but it is a story that I feel should be told, because these women will never live another day. Men are getting away with murdering women and labeling them prostitutes. And, even if they were prostitutes, no one has the right to murder them.
The slaughter of 29 women and two men in an alleged house of prostitution shows the danger of the Iraqi government’s reliance on Shia militias for its defense.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — If the gunmen who carried out a mass killing Saturday night escape punishment it will be not only because the victims were prostitutes, all too often friendless and forgotten, but also because the government needs to keep the murderers on its side.Officially, Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior is still investigating the crime, but many Iraqis believe it’s clear who is responsible. They say the killing was carried out by members of a local Shia militia, religious extremists whose armed members both cooperate and compete with the government for control of the area where the killing occurred.WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOBELOW
Twenty-nine women, reported to be prostitutes, were executed inside the apartment where they worked in the Zayouna neighborhood on Baghdad’s east side. Two men also were found dead inside, one of them the reported pimp. Many of those killed had gunshot wounds to the head. Police found one woman’s body inside a cupboard where she had tried to hide. Photographs of the gruesome spectacle have circulated widely on the Internet.
Written on the door of the building was the warning: “This is the fate of any prostitution.” The carnage and the inscription are read by Iraqis as a militia’s show of power, declaring authority in the area, and warning locals that what the militia deem moral crimes can be punished with summary execution.
No one will name the group responsible for the slaughter but privately Iraqis say that it was likely carried out by Asaib Ahl al-Haq, an Iranian-backed Shia militia group that operates openly in Zayouna. There is no proof that it is responsible for the killing Saturday, but few Iraqis doubt that it is capable of such violence.
Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which means “League of the Righteous,” began as an arm of the Mahdi Army, Iraq’s largest Shia militia led by the militant religious leader Muqtada al-Sadr, but it split from the group in 2008. Since the U.S. military’s withdrawal in 2011, Asaib Ahl al-Haq has become a powerful force in Iraq, with a small but dangerous army of devoted fighters and influence inside the national government. In neighborhoods like Zayouna, Iraqis live under the authority and at the whim of such men. And few are more vulnerable than women sex workers.
“Everyone knew it was prostitutes there; the militia killed them,” said one Iraqi vendor selling water on the street only a block from where the massacre took place. He could or would not say what militia was responsible for the crime and asked not to be identified out of fear for his safety. “The same ones who killed them used to visit,” the vendor said. How he would know this is unclear, but it’s a common view of what happened.
A picture taken with a mobile phone on July 12, 2014 shows the bodies of alleged prostitutes lying on the floor of an apartment in Baghdad’s Zayouna district after they were slaughtered by gunmen. (AFP/Getty)
Qain Zuhair, a teacher who has worked with many young Iraqis, also believes that a militia was responsible for the killing and that the group’s morality police take a selective approach to enforcement. “They are conflicted,” he said. “The same men who killed the prostitutes also went to visit them. They love the prostitutes, then they kill them.”
Similar murders have taken place in Zayouna in the past. Two separate shootings killed 15 people, among them several prostitutes, in May 2013. Stores selling alcohol, which is legal in Iraq but forbidden under Islamic law, also have been targets of violence in the area.
Hanaa Edwar, head of the Iraqi Al-Amal Association, an NGO in Baghdad, suggests this was not only a heinous crime but also a challenge to the government’s already weak ability to set and uphold the law. “The militias try to replace the rule of the law,” she said. “The armed groups are trying to replace the security forces. This is a horrible thing for the country.”
Across Baghdad, militias operate as local authorities both alongside official forces and independent of the government’s reach. On the city’s streets and highways, bearded militia members in irregular uniforms and black SUVs travel in convoys mixed in with Iraqi soldiers driving Humvees. They move throughout the city.
Historically, militias have had a contentious and sometimes hostile relationship with the Baghdad government—battling against it in some areas while sharing power in others. But in Iraq’s latest war against the ferocious Sunni jihadists known by the acronym ISIS, or Islamic State, hostilities among Shia gunmen and the government have given way to alliances of necessity.
The government has promised to investigate, but Hanaa Edwar doesn’t believe it. This is a country at war. Atrocities have become common, and the government’s ability and willingness to bring justice in the courts is rare. The police are investigating? “They always say this,” she says. “It’s just: blah blah blah. After they say this, it’s forgotten.”
*****
Readers: This is a horrible, sick and sad story. I wouldn’t go as far to say the men “love them.” If they did they wouldn’t have killed them. It’s more like they used them, and when they were done, they killed them, tossing them aside like trash to be forgotten.
What is the solution? Blog me.
The next few days are very full so I HOPE you don’t mind that I will not be commenting much. As always, your comments are appreciated. Thanks for being here.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog.If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
President Obama Just Announced The Single Largest Expansion Of LGBT Workplace Protections In Our Country’s History
As many as 9 out of 10 voters believe federal law already protects LGBT workers from discrimination. But it doesn’t. And while the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was passed by the Senate this year, it has stalled in the House; Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has made it clear that there is “no way” ENDA will pass this year.
Enter the latest chapter of the Obama Administration’s “year of action.” The White House announced today that President Obama will issue an executive order requiring that all companies who contract with the federal government must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The order, expected to be finalized in the coming weeks, is an extension oforders previously issued by past presidents — most recently Johnson — similarly banning employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin among all contractors and subcontractors who do over $10,000 in business with the government in any one year.
The protections will reach over one million LGBT workers across the country, making it the single largest expansion of LGBT workplace protections in our country’s history. There continue to be 29 states that offer no employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation and 32 with no protections based on gender identity, but many LGBT workers in those states will now have workplace protections for the first time ever. As many as 43 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and 90 percent of transgender people have experienced some form of harassment or discrimination in the workplace.
As with Obama’s executive order raising the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors to $10.10, this order will cover an enormous number of people but still relies on Congress to pass a law making sure that millions more LGBT Americans have the freedom to work.
Recently, some LGBT advocates have been giving second thoughts to the current ENDA bill in Congress, based on a religious liberty exemption that could have the potential interpreted too broadly. Here’s Zack Ford again:
The LGBT movement has also become increasingly divided over whether ENDA in its current form is worth pursuing. After two decades of failed consideration in Congress, the bill has been weakened by an exemption that would grant religious organizations unprecedented privilege to continue discriminating against LGBT people. A number of state groups and legal organizations have recently dropped their support for ENDA because they believe that the exemption goes too far and codifies into law the idea that LGBT identities are incompatible with faith. The executive order is thus an important step even if ENDA eventually passes.
BOTTOM LINE: Americans of any sexual orientation and gender identity should have the freedom to work and the right to equal treatment in the workplace. President Obama’s latest executive action is the biggest expansion of those rights in American history. There is more left to be done when it comes to giving all Americans equal protection, and Congress should follow the President’s lead by passing a federal law that ends unfair and discriminatory workplace practices that hurt LGBT workers and their families.
*****
Readers: Our president makes history again. Thank you president Obama.
Al: Thank you. Apology accepted. And of course you may stay and comment here as often as you like.
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog.If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Like many of you the Hobby Lobby ruling and its repercussions are still heavy on my mind. How could it not be? This is such a huge step backwards for women. It reeks of misogyny and sexism from Hobby Lobby and the five BAPF S.T.A.R.K.raving mad et al (meaning the republicans). And it’s getting worse.
From Slate.com:
Quick Change Justice
While you were sleeping, Hobby Lobby just got so much worse.
The architecture of the U.S. Supreme Court Building is rife with turtles. There are turtles holding up the lampposts in the courtyard and turtles engraved in the stone decor. You can buy turtle coffee mugs at the gift shop. The turtle is said to represent the slow and deliberate pace of justice. This is an institution, the turtle tells us, that moves slowly, deliberately, and removed from the knee-jerk pace of the political branches.
Yet moments before they adjourned for their summer recess, the justices proved they can act quite quickly and recklessly when it comes to violating the terms of a controversial opinion they handed down only days earlier. It’s as if the loaner car the court gave us in the Hobby Lobby ruling broke down mere blocks from the shop.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a “substantial burden” on the religious freedoms of closely-held corporations for the government to require them to provide contraception as part of their employee health care plans. The court didn’t say that the government could never require a company to do something that violated its religious beliefs, but rather that the government had to use the “least restrictive alternative.” That means that if there is a slightly less burdensome way to implement the law, it needs to be used. To prove that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate was not the “least restrictive alternative,” the court pointed to a workaround in the law for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.
Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word, then skipped town for the summer.
This new case involves Wheaton College, an evangelical Protestant liberal arts college in Illinois. A majority of the court granted Wheaton a temporary injunction allowing it to refuse to comply with the workaround, or “accommodation,” the court had just held up as the answer in Hobby Lobby. Under the ACA, churches have always been categorically exempt from the mandate. The law further allows religious nonprofits that don’t want to offer contraception to submit a short form, known as Form 700, which affirms their religious objection to providing contraception. Form 700 enables the company’s insurers or third-party administrators to cover the birth control instead of the employer. Easy peasy, right? Sign the form and you don’t have to provide the coverage that violates your religious beliefs. In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito wrote that this solution “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.”
Wheaton, however, along with many other religious not-for-profits, have long objected to this very workaround. They filed lawsuits claiming that the mere fact of signing a form noting their religious objection to contraception coverage triggered third parties to provide the contraception, which triggered women to have access to morning-after pills and IUDs, which in their view were akin to abortions, and thus violated their religious consciences. Signing the form, they said, was the same as actually providing the contraceptives themselves. It’s the butterfly effect of contraception. Any time Wheaton flaps its religious-conscience wings, a woman somewhere ends up with an IUD, and Wheaton’s religious liberties are violated.
And Thursday night a majority of the court agreed. The order is a preliminary injunction. The court will need to decide this and dozens of similar cases in the future. The justices caution that this in no way reflects their views of the future cases. But for our purposes, let it be known that the very workaround the court gave to religious objectors only four days earlier now likely violates their religious liberty as well.
For the court to issue an emergency temporary injunction is a truly extraordinary act. Even more extraordinary was that justices filed a 16-page barnstorming dissent. And those dissenters share a highly relevant personal characteristic: a uterus. That’s correct, the three dissenting justices last night were the court’s three women: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan. In the event that the religious and gender rift at the court was not already painful to behold, the dissent, penned by Sotomayor, is a forceful and unwavering rejection of both the majority’s reasoning and tactics. “I disagree strongly with what the court has done,” Sotomayor wrote. “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position.”
The dissenters take issue with several aspects of the majority’s act. First is the professed scope of the Hobby Lobby decision. Try to remember all the way back to Monday, when, writing for the majority, Justice Alito folded up the decision into something he characterized as nearly trivial. Look, it practically fits into his pocket! The decision only applied to family-owned, closely-held corporations, he assured us. The ruling was not going to unsettle a thing. “Our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate,” he soothed. Nothing about the holding would undermine an employer’s responsibility to provide vaccines to his employees, or to abide by existing employment and antidiscrimination laws. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” he wrote. But nowhere in his opinion did Alito tell us how or why there would be no such fallout. It was an assertion; or, in light of what happened next, a nice little act of judicial three-card monte.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his own concurrence to Hobby Lobby, cautioned us not to read too much into the precedent that he had just helped set, insisting that the majority opinion “does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent.” But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as she is so often reminded, was not born yesterday. In her Hobby Lobby dissent, she disputed the narrowness of the rule and charged that the court had just waded into a “minefield.” She was right.
In the hours after the Hobby Lobby ruling came down, the court was already kicking a host of cases back to various lower courts for reconsideration in light of the new rule. Three courts of appeals were told to revisit decisions, including at least one that involved an employer with religious objections to all 20 contraception methods guaranteed under the ACA, and not just the four ruled out in Hobby Lobby. Another is the appeal from an employer whose claims about burdens on his religious liberty started out as religious, but became a libertarian screed. “I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control,” Michael Potter, the head of Eden Foods confessed to MSNBC’s Irin Carmon last fall. “What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.” That “religious” objection will now be taken seriously in the courts, bearing in mind, as Justice Alito cautioned, that “[i]t is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.” These nearly instantaneous acts by the court quickly made the narrow little Hobby Lobby ruling seem like much, much more. (Meanwhile, at Guantánamo Bay, real-live detainees are now petitioning the court for the same personhood status as Hobby Lobby so that they too may exercise religious freedom.)
The second problem with the court’s emergency injunction in the Wheatoncase is about the viability of this workaround. You would be forgiven for having been misled. In his majority opinion in Hobby Lobby, applying the test required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Alito determined that the problem with the contraception mandate was that it was not the “least restrictive” means for the government to achieve its goals of allowing women access to contraceptive care. What the majority said in Hobby Lobby was: Given that the administration had already nipped in the mandate a little for religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, and charities, it was clearly able to nip it the same way for the for-profits who raise the same objections. “HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs,” Alito wrote. “HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.” In other words, since the government had already created a legal workaround—the form that affirms the objection—that workaround was the narrowest way to achieve the government goals. If the Little Sisters of the Poor could sign a form that kicked responsibility for insuring contraception to the third-party administrator, Hobby Lobby should be allowed to sign the form as well.
Although the opinion nowhere guaranteed that this compromise was not also going to prove to be a religious burden, Alito said it “achieves all of the government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty.” Again, you would be forgiven for reading that to mean, as we briefly did, that the form implicitly did not burden religious liberty, even though the court did not directly decide the question. Or for expecting that the array of challenges pending in the lower courts (122 at last count) by nonprofits claiming that signing the opt-out form violates their religious liberty, might now be resolved in favor of the government. Days later, the respect it afforded religious liberty is not enough. The new unsigned opinion in Wheaton suggests that the fix to Monday’s problem—signing a form—is now a religious burden. At this rate, by next Tuesday the court will have decided that religious objectors can more readily opt out by way of a Bat Signal to HHS. Which said workaround, in turn, will soon be found to offend religious freedom.
Justice Sotomayor, in Thursday’s dissent, identified the fatal flaw of the majority opinion in Hobby Lobby. “Let me be absolutely clear,” she wrote, “I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs. But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened—no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be—does not make it so.” She also pointed out, in case anyone seeks to argue that the extension of the Hobby Lobbyarguments to the not-for-profit claims was as “narrow” as the decision inHobby Lobby was purported to be: “Today’s injunction thus risks depriving hundreds of Wheaton’s employees and students of their legal entitlement to contraceptive coverage. In addition, because Wheaton is materially indistinguishable from other nonprofits that object to the Government’s accommodation,” she goes on to add, “the issuance of an injunction in this case will presumably entitle hundreds or thousands of other objectors to the same remedy.”
Not everyone was fooled by the majority’s promise that the decision in Hobby Lobbywas narrow. But the speed with which the court has loosened the dam on this is stunning. While the court has told us that we are not allowed to question the sincerity of corporations’ professed religious beliefs, we remain free to question the sincerity of the court’s pinky promise that the Hobby Lobbydecision would have a limited scope. At the end of this term, many people sighed a breath of relief that the outcome of Hobby Lobby was not as bad as we’d feared. It will be. The only thing turtlelike about the court’s behavior inHobby Lobby was that an impenetrable shell protects it from the consequences of what it has just done.
*****
Readers: What no one is addressing with these religious freaks is, if you don’t believe in sex before marriage then why wouldn’t Cialis and Viagra be disallowed…i.e. not available to the single and widowed men of Hobby Lobby? Yet even though their religion is against premarital sex, men still get access to their pills through their health care coverage, and women are denied protection. Wha’at?! This is screwed up.
Do you think Hobby Lobby cares? Nope. If they did, their case would have included Cialis and Viagra too, at least for those single and widowed men.
Do you think S.T.A.R.K cares? Nope. If they did, their ruling would have included Cialis and Viagra too, at least for those single and widowed men.
(Remember religious freaks…no premarital sex is allowed!)
But wait…how could I forget?…Women’s health is not important. And men’s needs are. Men need to have their pills to get it up and get laid – veerryy important. So of course, taking away men’s Cialis and Viagra is not even going to be up for discussion, and certainly not part of the case or the ruling.
They will always use their religion as an excuse against the needs of women, yet they won’t address those same religious beliefs when it comes to the needs of men. Sexism at its best. And yes, throw in a big dose of misogyny too.
Have you ever thought about the influence Cialis and Viagra have on divorce? Divorce of those over 50 is so big that they have a name for them: “Gray Divorces.”
From the NY Times:
For the first time, more Americans 50 and older are divorced than widowed, and the numbers are growing as baby boomers live longer.
“A lot of marriages died a long time ago, but because of the shame involved, in a family people often stuck together for the children. Now the children are grown up. Viagra is another reason — men are able to satisfy younger women. And people are living longer and they can get out and still have a life.”
Ahh…yes, man leaves wife for a younger model. Nothing new here except nowhe’s got Viagra and Whoo hoo!! He now knows he can satisfy a younger woman. “I’m outta here – see ya wifey…I’m trading you in for a newer younger model.”
No wonder divorce rates are now higher amongst older couples, thanks to Viagra.
And what about STD’s now that “Gray Divorces” are common and we have a bunch of old men running around with hard dicks looking for younger women?
Online dating and medications like Viagra have been a boon to the 50+ community over the past several years. People over 50 are more social than ever and more are having sex! That’s the good news. But with this change come issues. People over 50 are getting STDs more than ever before. Incidences of syphilis and chlamydia in adults aged 45 to 64 tripled between 2000 and 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In areas heavily populated by retirees, the STD rates are even more dramatic.
Not great news especially for women. If you think your man is done with his cheating years, think again. Viagra is around and available. And unless your man puts a rubber on it, you are at risk. How would you like to wake up in your older years with an STD because your husband, whom you never thought you would have to worry about now, decides to cheat on you without a rubber and then has sex with you, and you end up with an STD?
More from the Huff Po article:
Just because we’re older and our bodies aren’t in the phase of getting pregnant doesn’t excuse Boomers from the need to protect our sexual health. We’re not immune to STDs, nor are we resistant to them. In fact, post-menopausal women are more vulnerable to STDs than younger women.
This case ruling goes so much deeper than what has been addressed. But since it doesn’t affect the men, do you think S.T.A.R.K and the Hobby Lobbys of the world care about this at all? Nope.
Thoughts? Blog me.
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog.If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
