• I (pseudo)feminist Woo a ‘girl thing?’

      When Harris was babbling about reason/argument as ‘guy things,’ Greta Christina and others were pretty quick pointing out that Pew survey showing atheism to be distributed gender-neutrally worldwide.

      Has anyone tested the assumption that New Age horseshit really IS more successfully targeted at women? Which ‘test beliefs’ would one survey FOR?

    • The thing about Kanye West reminds me of this dude on Facebook. We have a mutual friend. The problem is, he’s quick to whitesplain that Christianity has never done anything in violation of human rights in order to propagate itself.

      Anyway, the time in question was, we had this video of a woman who supported IS, including IS pimping Christian and Kurdish women. He was quick to point out how much she had internalized her male oppressors…but then he made a comment about her genitalia.

    • Oh, I’m going to have to take issue with SEVERAL parts of the Forced Apology stance at Grounded Parents. First off, her original take was very acceptable, that a parent forcing their child to apologize, even if the child doesn’t mean it sincerely, is probably no different from teaching the child please, thank you, shitting in a toilet, shaking hands, using utensils, sharing, etc. If you hurt someone, or hurt their feelings, on purpose or by accident, say you’re sorry. So the mother’s determination to harangue the school’s administration and teachers into not asking kids say they’re sorry is a bit solipsistic: “sure, I can ask my son to be insincere, but you can’t.” Schools act in loco parentis in many ways, and teaching kids to be polite when they wrong someone is one of those ways.

      Secondly, her example of a misplaced apology when her kid’s transmission ended prematurely was borderline dumb. There’s nothing wrong with a sympathy apology. She may not have cared about seeing the final ten minutes, but expressing sympathy for his being upset is completely acceptable. I had a girlfriend who used to call this the difference between a Male Apology and a Female Apology: the man apologizes (or should) when he’s done something wrong, the female apologies if the other person feels bad. Teaching men to add the second sort to their emotional repertoire is a POSITVE thing.

      Finally, the author completely sidesteps the whole issue of Non-Apology, so common among Libertarian/Misogynist pundits and politicians: “I’m sorry you got upset at the outrageous thing I said or did”. A friend of mine who did a dick-ish thing to another friend showed up at my place, and as he passed the other friend, he said “hey, I hear I owe you an apology”, and kept walking into the house. The other friend looked around at the rest of us sitting on the lawn chairs and asked: “does that count?” We showered him with shaking heads, nooooooooo.

      • I, on the other hand, see the harm of the forced apology. I have apologized to smooth things over and to be polite. For me and countless others I know, this has been used against us. I apologize, even though I was wronged, and it is thrown back in my face for months or longer. Someone close to me was nearly fired from his job over an apology his supervisor ordered. The company was downsizing and wanted excuses to fire union employees. The union rep had a meeting going over the employees who had been fired after writing apology letters and the letters (they were ordered to write) were used as evidence of wrongdoing. Apology letters are used as evidence against people in court. If you think someone might sue you one day, never apologize for anything. Needless to say, if a cop asks you to apologize to someone NEVER, EVER do it.

        Sure, some people appreciate the polite apology. If I know someone does, then I will politely apologize. However, I find these are the exact people that never need polite apologies. They understand that sometimes people get on each others nerves. Vindictive people often demand apologies. My family, a few close friends and certain bosses get polite apologies if I think it will smooth things over. Nobody else gets them. I have been burned by this “be polite” BS too many times.

    • I have absolutely no problem with the “forced apology”, I also have no problem with a “forced apology acceptance”.

      Good manners are taught, and (especially when you are a child and not used to concerning yourself with the feelings of others) are often going to be insincere when spoken by a child.

      Learning when to say you are sorry and learning to accept an apology when given give children cues on when to put yourself in the shoes of others, and even if they don’t get that right away, as they get older they will.

      What’s next? Maybe this kid won’t need to say “thank you” when someone goes out of their way to do something nice for him if he’s not sincerely “thankful”.

  • Sunday Funny: Cure for Pants (via SMBC)

    Teen Skepchick

    The Physics Philes, lesson 113: Don’t Interfere (Or Do)
    Mindy explains wave interference.

    Cryptophile: Griffins
    Eddy starts his series on the plausibility – or implausibility – of the biology mythical creatures.

    The Not So Beautiful Game Step 4: In Which our Narrator Talks about Himself
    Elizabeth is even less impressed with this section than the others. That has to be some sort of achievement.

    Mad Art Lab

    Sunflowers, Suffragists, and Artistic Development in Children
    Julianne noticed how kids in her class drew sunflowers and discovered a century of child development research.

    So You Want to Scan Some Artwork…
    Celia guides you through digitizing your pencil drawings.

    Escéptica

    Bios: Maria Gaetana Agnesi (en español)
    Daniela writes about the amazing work and childhood of this great mathematician.

    Gods: Bastet (en español)
    Silvia tells us about an ancient deity who should rule the internet: Bastet, the Egyptian cat goddess of protection.

    Queereka

    Queerview Mirror: Annie on my Mind
    Ser reviews the novel Annie on My Mind.

    The Problem of LGBTQ Youth Homelessness Does Not Start or End with Daniel Pierce
    Jac discusses how a viral video can help bring more attention to the problem of LGBTQ youth homelessness.

    Skeptability

    My Derp Cat
    Yessenia writes a touching piece on a special needs cat she cares for.

    School of Doubt

    Scottish Independence Part 2: Interview With a Pro-Independence Teacher
    Alasdair continues his multi-part series on Scottish independence.

    Back to School Night
    Back to School Night can be a stressful ordeal for those of us who don’t easily make conversation with strangers.

    First Impressions
    Do you know right away if a student will strive or struggle? Apostrophobia has a gut instinct for these things.

    Featured image credit: Rachel Kramer via Flickr

    • As loathsome as ‘The Game’ is (and I couldn’t carry on even to the half-way point) it isn’t actually a sample of PUA Lit. Throughout, Strauss maintains the claim of being an outside observer, an infiltrator. Actual PUA literature is much, much worse.

      In the introduction of the book, Strauss writes something about sharing with an editor the contents of this website:
      http://www.pickupguide.com/

      Anyone who makes ANY excuses for these pigs needs to spend a few minutes seeing how revolting the mindset is. The secondary horror is that we seem to have raised a generation of young men dumb and angry enough to buy this crap.

  • Mindy posted a new activity comment 5 years, 11 months ago

    Credit where credit’s due, only some of the blurbs are mine. You can thank the other admins for most of them.

    • Your blurbs always make my pieces sound so good! Thanks!

    • Fifty Shades of consumerist, greedy, manipulative, rape-fantasizing…

      From Gone With the Wind, through horrible Ayn Rand rapist-as-hero tropes, via Harlequin bodice-rippers, to 50 sades, Ooops; SHADES. There is something revolting about the way this tripe is written and consumed by women.

    • I know it’s wrong, but the headline “Poorly written, abusive erotica” made me laugh. Possibly because I imagined it as the actual title of a book.

    • Sorry, I finally got to writing about the Salaita incident. Since Salaita claims to represent me, the least I could do is write about it. It should be mentioned that one of the tweets could be interpreted as a death threat: “I wish all these fucking settlers would just go missing.”

      To put in some context, a few months ago, three American tourists, all Jews, were abducted and murdered, and the Israeli government simply said they were missing. The usual right-wingers retaliated, murdering a fourth American tourist, this one a Palestinian.

      Had Salaita been approved, he would’ve been working with Joy Harjo, who has endured harassment from BDS before.

  • Teen Skepchick

    The Physics Philes, lesson 111: The Legend of Kundt’s Tube
    Mindy applies nodes and anti-notes to longitudinal waves.

    The Not So Beautiful Game Step 3: In Which Our Narrator Gets Close to Thinking of Women as People, but Veers Off Very Expectedly into Rapiness
    In which women are things and men are predators.

    Escéptica

    Weirdness of the Human Mind (en español)
    Lulú had a frustrating argument with a believer that led her to tell us all about Godel’s ontological proof.

    Grounded Parents

    I Want YOU! (and Your Kids’ DNA): On Precision Medicine & Fear
    Kavin talks about the future of genetic medicine and why you shouldn’t be afraid about what the government will do with your genetic data.

    Kari, Grant, Tori… and Mike Brown
    Lance discusses how people tend to make assumptions when they don’t have access to all of the facts, whether it’s speculation about why Kari, Grant, and Tori are leaving Mythbusters or what is happening in Ferguson.

    And Our Hearts Break with You
    Em talks about white privilege and how it relates to how she views the police.

    Skeptability

    23andMe Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study
    Sarah is participating in the 23andMe IBD study.

    School of Doubt

    Office Supply Shopping Time!!!!! OH, YEAH!!!!

    Jodee loves her some office supplies.

    E-Readers vs Paper Books

    Jennifer still prefers e-readers to paper books, despite the findings of a recent study.

    Ramping up

    It’s that time again. Apostrophobia asks: what’s the hardest part of beginning a new semester?

    Featured image credit: ynse via Flickr

  • Sunday Funny: The Science Channel (via SMBC)

    Teen Skepchick

    The Physics Philes, lesson 110: Ring My Decibel
    Mindy is all about wave intensity.

    5 Inappropriate Responses to Robin Williams’ Suicide
    Olivia gives advice on how not to respond to someone’s suicide.

    Mad Art Lab

    The Curve Who Became a Witch: The Mathematics of Maria Agnesi
    She wrote the first comprehensive calculus textbook in Italian, but this mathematical genius spent the last years of her life devoted to the less fortunate.

    Quilling: Infused with Sexism and Religiosity
    This paper craft has a sexist history.

    Make a Thing Wednesday
    Make things with MAL!

    Escéptica

    Introduction to Pseudoscience: The Influence of the Moon (en español)
    Elara explain how the moon affects us, and how it doesn’t.

    Queereka

    Responses to Your Search Terms — Gay Men Edition!
    Benny dissects some common search terms entered into Google to reach Queereka.

    Male Circumcision and HIV
    Vincent examines some of the claims about research involving penile circumcision and HIV transmission.

    The Queerview Mirror: Stay
    Ser reviews Jennifer Michael Hecht’s book Stay and talks a little about suicide.

    School of Doubt

    Student Expectations
    College students still expect to be lectured. Apostrophobia wonders how we can change that.

    Monday, August 11: I Wish I Would Have Cancelled Class!
    Jodee had a harrowing day at school thanks to Mother Nature’s wrath.

    August Anxiety
    Jennifer is feeling the pressure of the Back-to-School season.

    Grounded Parents

    No Such Thing as Safe Sex?
    Ginny responds to a post written by a dad who doesn’t want to teach his kids about how to have “safe sex.”

    Full Circle
    Topher talks about coparenting with his ex, who is a Seventh Day Adventist, and how he felt about being raised agnostic.

    Food Allergies: Don’t Panic. Make a Plan.
    Jenny talks about what it’s like to be the mother of a child with food allergies

    Skeptability

    Politics in the ER: Five ways Doctors Decide You Are a Drug Seeker
    Assumptions about drug-seeking behavior creates barriers between patients and doctors.

    • How can circumcision produce ‘herd immunity’ when its best result is 50-60% transmission reduction IN ONE DIRECTION ONLY?

      An operation that provides that small a protection, and only to men who are having sex with women, does not appear cost-effective at all. No wonder the idea is being promoted by the ‘death before condoms,’ and ‘preserve ignorance at all costs’ groups.

      • Even that 60% is, as I mentioned, questionable.

        A lot of these people seem to think they have a destiny. Nothing I fear more than a man (and it is usually a man who has such delusions of grandeur) with a destiny.

    • I kind of understand why conservatives were so worried about gay marriage destroying traditional marriage. If you actually follow all the rules traditional marriage is just as unpleasant for heterosexuals as it is for gays married to opposite-sex partners. They oppose everything that heterosexuals need to have healthy relationships and sex lives.

      It is irresponsible to wait until you get married to have sex. If you haven’t had sex you don’t actually know if you are sexually compatible.

    • Fifty shades of reinforcing the worst possible cultural memes. Crushing passivity, venality, incapacity to own one’s sexuality, ‘surrender’ to others as a supposed path to ‘liberation.’

      The worst of it is that WOMEN are buying this shit. Boys all around the world are being taught ‘what women want’ by this kind of dreck. I wish that ‘James’ might be isolated on desert island with one of the PUA/MRA creeps who are the other side of the same coin.

    • Pervocracy (NSFW mostly) has also been doing a hilarious takedown:

      http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/

    • I am NOT about to finish reading The Game. I would need a 55 gallon drum of bleach afterward. Something that Elizabeth might want to emphasize is that the book is supposedly an ‘inside’ report ABOUT the PUA subculture. Actual PUA literature is even more disturbing. Neal Strauss keeps up some pretense of distance from his subject, even though he was taking in money from suckers along the way…

      If you search some of the web resources that Strauss mentions in the beginning of the book, you’ll find that the actual source material is WORSE than Strauss indicates. This subculture seeks to train naive boys to act like sociopaths. And ‘normal’ dating culture actually encourages the same behavior.

    • I’ve been largely taking the thing at face value, but you’re right, that’s a great thing to bring up.

    • Regarding ‘health’ food, I remember years ago Neal Barnard made a claim that if you’re vegan and diabetic, you don’t need no portion control. (Double negative for caricature purposes.) That was…irresponsible to say the least. I’m thinking about it recently because of assertions about Navajos. But I just remembered Dr Hall’s takedown and directed everyone there.

      The problem is the One True Cause Of All Disease™ when…there isn’t one. Notice how real medicine doesn’t have one unifying cause of all disease?

    • Most of them don’t even realize how important it was to be cordial to guests in ancient times. If there’s nothing but desert for hundreds of miles and cars don’t exist, turning away guests is basically homicide by proxy. Which could explain…why Jacob was pissed at his sons for their treatment of their brother-in-law, the entirety of Sodom and Gomorrah, oh, and all that talk about entertaining angels.

      Modern privilege again: We have cars, and seven billion people to outsource this responsibility to.

    • What’s in Mom’s Purse?

      A second trinket, duh!

    • In re: Laptops

      My grandfather ran the 8th Air Force intelligence school in England in WWII. Training officers to inform aircrew of important information before missions, and to debrief them to pass along anything discovered during missions.

      He FORBADE note taking during lectures, as he learned that it only served to distract them. They were given short ‘precis’ of each lecture when it ended.

  • Teen Skepchick

    Science Sunday: With Liberty and Internet Access for All
    Elizabeth discusses the importance of the “open wireless” movement.

    DBT Skills: Mindfulness
    Olivia continues her series on DBT […]

    • In response to the Mad Art Lab piece on nature and nurture, I’d like to ask Elizabeth the following. Suppose you know an individual with Down Syndrome with cognitive and behavioral deficits secondary to Trisomy 21 ie. due to genetics. Regardless of that individual’s genetic make-up would you not treat him/her as an equal? I too am quite skeptical of the genetic claims in evolutionary psychology, twin studies, sociobiology, etc….but it is a fallacy to make the claim that just because we prove that a cognitive trait has a strong genetic basis that this will lead to discrimination and a slippery slope to the gas chambers.

  • Mindy posted a new activity comment 6 years, 1 month ago

    I guess I was surprised because I don’t see a difference between them, fundamentally. Both deal with rights exclusively reserved for natural persons…up until they weren’t anymore. Hobby Lobby seems intellectually consistent with Citizens United, so I assumed that Olson would have been on board. But you’re right; when it comes to this type of…[Read more]

  • Mindy posted a new activity comment 6 years, 1 month ago

    Bernie Sanders 2016 🙂

  • Mindy posted a new activity comment 6 years, 1 month ago

    Ha! I think Con Law is one of the few classes I remember fondly.

  • Mindy posted a new activity comment 6 years, 1 month ago

    That’s just about the best compliment you could have possibly given me 🙂

    • Agreed. I’m sad I didn’t see this earlier due to CONvergence, but this is really good. I haven’t read this type of analysis anywhere else.

  • Mindy posted a new activity comment 6 years, 1 month ago

    Haha I clearly don’t actually know what peyote is. Also, really good point about Smith!

    • It’s a cactus. The buds are steeped in water. Some people think it’s a mushroom because peyote buttons look like mushrooms. (And because of the infamy of Amanita muscaria.) Ironically, the only Indians north of the Rio Grande to use it…are all part of one particular Christian sect. Which explains why they’re reading the Apocalypse of John the Divine.

  • I’m trying desperately to purge my life of legal analysis, but the glob damn Supreme Court just keeps pulling me back in. Jamie wrote a very good summery of what happened, but I didn’t spend three years in law school for nothing! I’d like to try to explain exactly how, in my opinion, this case went off the rails.

    I read Burwell v. Hobby Lobby expecting (hoping?) to have my head filled with a lot of hogwash. Don’t get me wrong, this decision is bad. But it’s also not wrong, exactly, at least when you look at it in context of the larger legal landscape dealing with corporations. And that’s the real problem.

    The question here has to do with a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and one of its amendments, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). These laws grant quite broad protections to religious freedoms. You may be wondering why such acts are needed since we have the First Amendment. Eh, you know. The Supreme Court rules against a couple of Native Americans who smoked a little peyote and suddenly you need a law that grants more protections than the SCOTUS says the Constitution calls for. No big deal. The Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling.

    (Note: The distinction between an RFRA case and a free exercise of religion case is important because it implies a different line of precedent cases and a different applied standard. While it looks like Conestoga presented a First Amendment argument, the court did not get to it and decided the case on RFRA grounds.)

    I know that legal decisions look intimidating. If you’re not sure where to start it’s just a morass of legalese and perfect Bluebook citations. But there really is a method to the madness. Kind of. Court decisions can seem arbitrary, but, ideally, the justices apply some sort of test. In this case, the test that needs to be applied was specified in the RFRA, and it is three-pronged:

    Does the contraception mandate put a substantial burden on the practice of religion?
    Is the mandate “in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest?”
    Is the mandate “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest?”

    Each of these hurdles must be cleared in turn. If the court answers yes to number one, it can move on to number two, and so on. But before the court can even get to the test, it had to figure out if the law even applied to for-profit corporations. Specifically, the court had to decide if a corporation is a “person” for the purposes of the RFRA, and it’s on this determination that the entire decision hangs.

    Once upon a time, the primary tool that people could use to defend their legal right to worship as they choose was the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. By and large, the court used what is known as the Sherbert rule, taken from the 1963 case Sherbert v. Verner. This case enshrined the “substantial burden” and “compelling state interest” test in deciding free exercise cases. It was a test that attempted to balance the two competing interests and it worked reasonably well. Then, in 1990, the court took an unexpected turn with Employment Division v. Smith. This is the peyote case I referred to earlier. The decision in Smith said that, when dealing with criminal law, the government only has to prove an important interest. It may seem like splitting hairs, but in the law “important” is a much lower standard than “compelling.” From then on, outside of employment compensation cases and cases also involving due process, governments only had to prove a compelling interest when the law specifically targeted a religious activity.

    No one liked this decision. Right wing religious groups and left wing secular civil rights watchdogs were up in arms. It was felt by many that this did not afford enough protection to the free exercise of religion. Thus the RFRA was born.

    I’m telling you this because a.) it’s kind of interesting, but mostly because b.) Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, gets this wrong and IMHO dooms the case.

    Sometimes the Supreme Court does something that Congress doesn’t like, so Congress will pass a law to sort of undo the Supreme Courts actions. That’s what happened here. Justice Alito and the majority deny this. The majority is of the opinion that the RFRA grants broader protections than the protections provided pre-Smith. However, as Justice Ginsberg points out in her dissent, the legislative debate on the topic tends to indicate that the intent was to restore the pre-Smith test to religious freedom cases.

    In the courtroom, as in life, intent isn’t magic. In addition, it can sometimes be hard to determine. But it can be especially useful when there is ambiguity. However, when writing a decision a judge is not obliged to take that into consideration.

    Anyway, this is important because the pre-Smith free exercise cases applied to natural persons. You know, like you and me and not corporations. And the RFRA – of course! – didn’t define “person.” If you look at the act in the context of previous free exercise jurisprudence, it seems clear that person means natural person. But if you look at the act in a bubble, like the majority did, it’s not so clear.

    When there is no definition and no context clues, where do you turn? The Dictionary Act. I know. I can’t believe something like that exists either, but here we are. Under the Dictionary Act, a person is defined as natural people, companies, corporations, partnerships, blah blah blah. You get the idea. Since Justice Alito and the majority see no context clues (wrongly) from the RFRA, they define person to be consistent with the Dictionary Act.

    It didn’t have to be this way. As I stated earlier, Justice Ginsberg provided plenty of evidence to show that a corporate right to free exercise is not what was contemplated when the RFRA was passed. But once that decision was made, the rest came easy.

    This case is not directly in the line of cases that includes Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but it’s easy to see how consistent it is. Weirdly, Ted Olson, the lawyer who successfully argued Citizens United, isn’t so sure about the majority opinion in this case. According to The Atlantic, Olson said, “I’m sort of sympathetic to [Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s] dissent in this case.”

    O RLY? I fail to see how this case is different from a free speech case. Both involve cases in which corporations – legal fictions – want rights hitherto reserved for natural persons. Corporations can’t speak any more than they can practice a religion.

    The dominant narrative – at least in my Facebook feed – is that this is a defeat for women’s rights. I don’t disagree. But the far more concerning aspect of this case is the expansion of corporate rights under the fiction that corporations are people. In an impassioned defense of the entire concept, Justice Alito writes that

    When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation all those who have a stake in the corporations’ financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.

    Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., ___ U.S. ___ (2014).

    This way of looking at corporations is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but from a common sense one. The benefits of incorporating a business are financial. Corporations allow for limited liability so if your business runs out of money and can’t pay its debts, the creditors can’t come after you. Things like that. It’s true that a corporation does nothing without its people, but it does not follow that everything the people do must be the actions of the corporation.

    Nothing is stopping individuals from freely exercise their religion. As Justice Ginsberg pointed out, unlike religious nonprofits and churches that exist ostensibly to promote their religion in a community, for-profit companies exist to make money. That’s not a bad thing, but it’s not trivial, either. They exist off the work of people who do not necessarily subscribe to a particular religious view. So, in an attempt to preserve the rights of a nebulous legal concept, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for actual individuals to exercise theirs.

    In writing the opinion for the majority, Justice Alito hedges all over the place. He makes it clear that this case only concerns contraception:

    In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. 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. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

    ibid.

    However, this is what lawyer-types like to call dicta. Legal opinions are long and dense and horrible, but the only thing that is binding in a decision is the holding, and maybe the reasoning behind it. Everything else – like opining on cases not in front of you *ahem* – is dicta. Non-binding fluff. It’s important non-binding fluff, like legislative intent I talked about earlier, but more so. (If you doubt me, just Google footnote four.) But future judges and justices are under no obligation to follow it.

    This means that this case could conceivably go beyond the contraceptive mandate to include all manner of care that some religion, for one reason or another, deems immoral or sinful. We’re already seeing it expand past the four forms of contraception objected to in this case. It’s only been a few days since the decision and already Justice Ginsberg’s warning (“The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”) is already coming true. On Tuesday the Court ordered lower courts to hear cases of companies who don’t want to cover any type of birth control.

    The fact remains that companies probably won’t object to covering vaccinations or blood transfusions. But that doesn’t make this decision better. This case is a perfect storm of money, power, and privilege. It’s a case study in what happens when we combine economic power, patriarchal religions, and a misunderstanding of science and medicine. It’s positively breath-taking.

    I said at the beginning that I thought this decision was bad, but not wrong. It’s not wrong because it fits the expected M.O. of this court. Expanding the rights of corporations has been this court’s thing. It’s bad because, in doing so, they’ve thrown uterus-havers under the bus and gave themselves room to do it again to others.

    EDIT: I just wanted to pop in to add more mines to the minefield that came to my attention after publication. SCOTUS has given the OK for a Christian university to forgo covering birth control, and faith leaders are pushing for exemptions from LGBT hiring protections. Boom.

    Featured image credit: Phil Roeder via Flickr

    • I didn’t find this superfluous at all. I haven’t read another article that presented the legal reasoning so clearly. You did those of us without a formal legal education a huge service, so thank you.

    • An excellent dissertation that goes right to the heart of the problem.
      I only wish we could somehow build momentum for a constitutional amendment detailing once-and-for-all the limits of corporate personhood. I’m aware that some level of personhood is required for the purposes of legal representation, but this court has gone flying off the deep end on a flimsy thread of legal justification, all to suit a particularly mad agenda of extreme conservatism.
      It’s clear that this train isn’t stopping until a conservative justice croaks, or until we nail real protections into the founding document of this country.

    • Really great job, Mindy. Extremely well translated. If I had a criticism, it would only be that it brought back terrible memories of Con Law discussions during law school. 🙂

    • One does not ‘smoke’ peyote.

      Your knowledge of hallucinogenic substances aside, great job. What’s interesting is, in some ruling, Scalia said RFRA doesn’t apply to states, even though it was written specifically because of the Smith case. So it ended up protecting the rights of fictional people who don’t need their rights protected in this case, but not the real people it was written for.

      Is it weird that I’d actually welcome Barbara Loe Fischer attempting to exploit this weak point, just to show the Court what they hath wrought? Come on, anti-vaxxers, be the good guys, err, morally ambiguous guys, for once in your parasitic existence.

      • Haha I clearly don’t actually know what peyote is. Also, really good point about Smith!

        • It’s a cactus. The buds are steeped in water. Some people think it’s a mushroom because peyote buttons look like mushrooms. (And because of the infamy of Amanita muscaria.) Ironically, the only Indians north of the Rio Grande to use it…are all part of one particular Christian sect. Which explains why they’re reading the Apocalypse of John the Divine.

    • “Weirdly, Ted Olson, the lawyer who successfully argued Citizens United, isn’t so sure about the majority opinion in this case.”
      I’m actually not too surprised. Ted Olson has invested a lot of time in the Republican political machine, but he’s not entirely socially conservative. I suspect that he is much more comfortable with companies’ “right” to expend money to promote self-serving political views than their “right” to intervene in their employees’ personal affairs. (Also, I sincerely wonder if Olson himself could have anticipated how broadly SCOTUS would rule in Citizens United; the conservative majority really went beyond the question they were presented with in that case.)

      • I guess I was surprised because I don’t see a difference between them, fundamentally. Both deal with rights exclusively reserved for natural persons…up until they weren’t anymore. Hobby Lobby seems intellectually consistent with Citizens United, so I assumed that Olson would have been on board. But you’re right; when it comes to this type of meddling in personal affairs, he does seem to lean more left, so maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised.

    • And the SCOTUS horror show continues.

      Birth Control Order Deepens Divide Among Justices

    • “[Corporations] exist off the work of people who do not necessarily subscribe to a particular religious view. So, in an attempt to preserve the rights of a nebulous legal concept, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for actual individuals to exercise theirs.”

      The concept of “corporation” as “individual” is hardly nebulous. How many of us boycotted Chick-fil-A over its owners’ views on gay marriage? Why should we as individuals have the right to promote our values with our wallets, but not the individuals who own Hobby Lobby? As I said in a previous comment on this subject, I see this ruling as an affirmation that one person’s “freedom” cannot take precedent over another’s. The court was careful to note there are many less freedom-infringing ways oral contraceptives can be supplied. (My personal preference is that they be made available over-the-counter.) I can’t say I’m ever too terribly upset when the court rules in favor of NOT infringing someone’s freedom, even (especially?) if I don’t agree with the values protected.

      The court also stated this decision applies only to “closely held” corporations, which the IRS defines as having 50% or more of it’s stock owned by five or fewer individuals. Sure, Hobby Lobby is a “corporation,” but the court made it clear we’re really talking the family who owns it. Who were we sending a message to when we boycotted Chick-fil-A?

      Further, there is more to incorporation than simply “making money.” Corporations exist for all manner of purpose in this country, many of which are not-for-profit. (Incidentally, the court already ruled the mandates don’t apply to not-for-profit corporations; why should making a profit all of a sudden mean your rights are any less important?) Besides, the American regulatory, legal and tax systems incentivize incorporation such that it is all but impossible to compete on a national level, as does Hobby Lobby, unless you do. And don’t forget it’s not just the owners who benefit from incorporation; it’s also good for tax collectors and people who like businesses to be well regulated. When you incorporate you (usually) incur a higher tax burden than a partnership/proprietorship, and you open yourself up to all manner of increased bureaucratic scrutiny.

      So how is it reasonable that an individual who chooses to incorporate in today’s business environment should also be required to give up their personal convictions–no matter how twisted they are? What if the government decided lunch should be an employment benefit? Should a business owner aligned with the animal rights movement be required to give their employees pepperoni pizza and grilled ham & cheese sandwiches for lunch?

      Getting back to the point you made in your quote above: How does the court’s recognition of the rights and freedoms of the individual or small group of individuals who own closely-held corporations make it more difficult for others to exercise theirs? This ruling does not prohibit anyone from seeking employment with a different corporation (people) whose values more closely align with their own, or better yet, starting their own corporation and infusing it with the values they deem important. Nor does this ruling mandate anyone purchase goods and services from corporations (people) whose values they disagree with (see Chick-fil-A above).

      In short, I don’t agree this ruling takes away anyone’s rights. If it does anything, it highlights the absurdity of the health care system we’ve created for ourselves in America. Health care decisions should be between patient and doctor, not between patient, doctor, insurance provider and boss. The solution to this problem won’t be found in further government mandates and regulation of employers, the solution is to divorce individual health care choices from employment (and government too, but that’s a different discussion).

      • When an individual boycotts a business they are making a decision for themselves and no one else, when an ownervof a corporation makes that decision they make it on behalf of all their employees regardless of those employees rights.
        Your analogy has a fatal flaw, you do not get to decide things for other people except in limited circumstances. The SCOTUS has allowed the corporation owner’s right to hold a belief to trump the employees’ rights to determination. A single individual’s personal belief being given providence over several other individual beliefs is a loss of rights even if you personally have no problem with it.

        • So, in a nutshell, you’re saying the rights of the majority outweigh the rights of the minority. This is exactly the attitude that the Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from. The imposition of beliefs held by a group of people on a smaller group (or individual) simply because they are the majority has been the basis of many bloody disputes throughout history, and is generally considered evil by most people I know.

          Besides, the owners of Hobby Lobby aren’t making any decisions for their employees, they are making decisions for themselves. While it’s true those decisions affect their employees, so do ALL the decisions they make regarding their business. All of us get to decide things that affect others; and we do it all the time. I’m free to decide whether I’ll remain employed. That decision affects my wife, my family and my community, which loses the tax dollars I’ll no longer pay.

          The protection of individual rights and beliefs is the bedrock principle of American citizenship.

          • Wrong again boom boom, they are supposed to determine to constitutionality on laws passed by congress. They are not charged with protecting the individual unless the individual is being unfairly targeted by a law, they are also not charge with protecting the rights of the powerful over the individual sighted. But you wouldn’t know it by the way certain activist judges have been acting. The SCOTUS has allowed the incorrect ideas (abortafactants my ass) of the powerful to stand in the way of the health care that its employees have paid for because of ideology.
            It is a terrible decision,period.

      • “So how is it reasonable that an individual who chooses to incorporate in today’s business environment should also be required to give up their personal convictions–no matter how twisted they are?”

        Because the whole point of the corporation is to be a shield between the individual and their business actions. The corporation shields the corporate partners from having to face individual consequences for their actions within the corporation. You can’t hold yourself apart from the consequences of your decisions by claiming the corporation and yourself are separate entities one minute, then turn around and claim you can impose your individual beliefs through the corporation because you and the corporation are the same entity.

    • And of course, dear “Boomer” is missing the point that these supposed “alternatives” are a) either non-existent, b) won’t exist without government stepping it, or b) where they do exist, are provided by either the government, or some other source, which the same right wing twits that think this ruling was a good idea have been fighting, tooth and nail, to undermine, defund, render illegal, put out of business, or otherwise destroy, the whole time this case was being run through the system.

      Your rights end at my nose, Boomer. That means that, where it effects **business decisions** a corporation has a true interest in deciding if it wants to keep me as an employee (and there are times where even that gets to be total BS, like people being fired for personal hobbies that some clown in the company doesn’t like), but not if I buy the wrong soap, or rent the wrong car, or get the wrong sort of surgery, or if a woman, I decided to use bloody birth control. Companies shouldn’t have any right to dictate choices made outside their own bloody doors, and the only recourse they should have, when/if they have such a right is to find legal grounds to terminate the employee, not deny them things, just because they don’t like what they are doing on the weekends, or which sorts of health care they choose,especially if what they are doing is the equivalent, in this case, of showing up at the employees weekend BBQ, and steeling their steaks, because the “company” doesn’t believe in meat eating, or some stupid BS like that.

      No, lets change that a bit. Its like having the corporation decide that it doesn’t want to *pay* employees, only to them have them turn around and buy meat, so they push for the government to create a purchase tracking system, so that if their employees merely *attempt to* use the money payed to them by the company to buy such a thing, it can be denied. Now, you *could* use money from some other source, but since the company is now paying you with a corporate debit card sort of thing, not allowing you to deposit the money, to use as you want, you can’t use **their** money to buy such things. That is what is going on here. And, its been illegal since the government decided that working for a company, while in company housing, and being told you **had to** buy your good from the company, and never any place else, was also illegal for companies to pull on people. How is this BS any different? Because its the company insurance that is denying it, and they haven’t yet (well, except for McDonalds, and a few others, tried to pull the, “We are going to pay you with company script (i.e., a debit, or worse, credit card)? Because they haven’t had the legal means, until now, to go, “OK, now that we can legally object to how you spend the funds/insurance/etc. we provide you as an employee, we also get to dictate what you can buy with them!”

      Do you really think this isn’t one of the steps, down the road, for this crap?

    • Hobby Lobby isn’t telling it’s employees whether or not they may use contraceptives (actually, it’s abortifacients), it’s simply saying it doesn’t want to supply the four types that they find objectionable based on their religious beliefs; it has no problem–and even makes available for their employees who want them–16 other types of contraceptives. Here’s what Hobby Lobby says, directly from FAQ section about the court case on their website:

      Is Hobby Lobby preventing its employees from buying contraceptives under its plan?

      Not at all. The Greens and their family businesses respect the individual liberties of all their employees. The Greens and their family businesses have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved contraceptives required by the law that do not interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. They provide coverage for such contraceptives under their health care plan. Additionally, the four objectionable drugs and devices are widely available and affordable, and employees are free to obtain them.

      But isn’t Hobby Lobby depriving its women employees of health care?

      Just the opposite: the Greens and their family businesses, including Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., offer their employees – nearly 70 percent of whom are women – a robust benefit plan that includes coverage for preventive care and almost all of the contraceptives required under the Affordable Care Act. That plan includes an on-site clinic with no co-pay at Hobby Lobby headquarters, and all full-time employees are eligible to enroll in a generous benefit plan: including medical, dental, prescription drugs, along with long-term disability and life insurance, and a 401(k) plan with a generous company match.

      I’ve yet to hear from an actual Hobby Lobby employee (even a former employee) complain about the health benefits they receive(d). If someone has links please share.

      • Okay, I just have to say that using Hobby Lobby’s own words, presumably crafted by their PR and legal team to protect their image, is kind of an absurd action in this context. They also have incorrect implications; calling an IUD “affordable” for someone working on a Hobby Lobby cashier’s salary is ridiculous.

        Hobby Lobby itself, and the people they employ, are such a small part of the issue at this point. I’m actually impressed and relieved that HL seems to have no problem with the government stepping in to ensure these women have affordable access to the contraceptive that works best for them. The decision is much more wide-reaching, though, and has already started to show its breadth due to the fact that other corporations are objecting to paying for *any* birth control, and Wheaton College in Illinois is refusing to even fill out the paperwork documenting their objections because they *don’t* want to allow the government to step in and help their faculty and students with access to contraceptives they find religiously objectionable.

        • Not to mention the real joke in Boomer’s assertion, that the people whining about coverage of contraceptives can ***even tell the F-ing difference between contraceptives and ‘abortifacients’***, comprehend that there is one, or won’t/haven’t, assuming they do know the difference, lied their asses off about what something covers, and what it does before.

      • “actually, it’s abortifacients” Are you just correcting mrmisconception’s spelling, or are you actually saying birth control is the same thing as abortifacients? If the former, that’s pedantic. If the latter, you’ve lost any credibility you may have had in this argument.

    • The fact that Alito’s decision limits it to only contraception just screams “special pleading” to me.
      And the fact the 5 justices voting for this decision are all men and all Catholics has me rolling my eyes.

  • Load More