Corporations win over women: Hobby Lobby roundup

MjAxMy1hNTFlM2I0ZTUxNjFmODU2_514b5242bb02a

The Supreme Court struck a blow against reproductive rights yesterday in its ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that Katie McDonough sums up as “five male justices ruled that thousands of female employees should rightfully be subjected to the whims of their employers.” It’s infuriating that medical decisions that should be made between women and their doctors are subjected to religious beliefs grounded in junk science. Women need access to the full range of contraception options, and imbuing corporations with the religious rights of a person and inserting those beliefs into women’s health care decisions is unacceptable.  Continue reading “Corporations win over women: Hobby Lobby roundup”

Advertisements

Calling out candidates on choice works

graphic via womenarewatching.org
graphic via womenarewatching.org

Apparently last Thursday was opposite day in Colorado, as a Republican Senate candidate published an op-ed calling for increased contraception access:

Since “the pill” was first approved 44 years ago, it’s been one of the most proven and tested pharmaceuticals of our time. It is safe, reliable, effective, and presents very few risks or complications for the more than 10 million women who use it. When other drugs have that kind of track record, we approve them for purchase without a prescription; the Food and Drug Administration has already reclassified over 100 different treatments. Name-brand drugs like Advil, Pepcid, Claritin, Prilosec and many others were once sold by prescription only, but moved to over-the-counter sale (OTC) once they’d been proven safe and unlikely to be abused.

When treatments go over-the-counter, two things happen: they get dramatically cheaper and consumers save time and hassle by avoiding unnecessary doctors’ appointments just to get the pharmaceuticals they already know they need.

What caused Rep. Cory Gardner to see the light on this issue? Did he carefully weigh the facts and realize that birth control access is a fundamental right for women?  Continue reading “Calling out candidates on choice works”

The birth control coverage mandate: our work isn’t done

photo via webmd.com
photo via webmd.com

A few years ago, I went to the doctor about a pain in my leg that was so intense it would wake me in the middle of the night. Tests revealed that it was a blood clot, and with no other risk factors my doctor determined it was caused by birth control pills. I had to stop taking them immediately, and thankfully a combination of medicine and stopping the pills cleared it up. But it left me with very limited effective birth control options as any return to hormonal birth control methods could potentially be life-threatening. Despite a clear medical reason for switching to an IUD, I still had to wade through obstacles thrown up by my insurance company, and my doctor wouldn’t even give me an appointment until it was clear how much my insurance would cover. I was lucky to be able to get access to the care I needed eventually, but for a lot of women it can be even more challenging, time consuming and costly. Continue reading “The birth control coverage mandate: our work isn’t done”

It pays to have more women on the Supreme Court

photo via Talking Points Memo
photo via Talking Points Memo

The proponents of a colorblind, gender-blind, whatever else-blind outlook on the world don’t just undermine attempts to identify and rectify discrimination. They also ignore the valuable perspective one can bring from experiencing American culture as someone other than a straight white man.

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor was pilloried in some corners for her acknowledgement of this reality during her confirmation process. She pointed out that “ a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” and then had to listen to a bunch of white men tell her how racist she was.

 

Continue reading “It pays to have more women on the Supreme Court”