Monday, June 30, 2014

Insert Post Here

I was going to do a thoughtful post today about our weekend. But then I wasted all my internet energy on Facebook defending the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

(Can I please just say that I'm sick of people telling me I'm "waging a war on women" because I don't agree with them. I'm a woman. Why would I wage a war on myself? Maybe instead of "waging a war" I actually have a thoughtful and logical explanation for my beliefs -- and before you say it, no they are not based on religious dogma. I feel like people label me so they don't have to engage. They can dismiss me as being the "enemy" without having to consider my point of view and dwell on the fact that it does not "jive" with their world view and carefully guarded intellectual reality. If my opinions differ than yours, it must be because: (1) I'm actually evil, (2) no really, I'm evil and am trying to singlehandedly destroy the world and women, or (3) I've been brainwashed. It can't possibly be that there is a valid disagreement or counter to your position.)

I try not to engage because it's Facebook and stupid and full of drama (and adults acting like children). But I'm a lawyer. Arguing is what I do. I get paid to look for and craft opposing positions. And, I enjoy it. And sometimes I just can't turn it off, especially when I feel strongly about something and my news feed blows up with one-sided comments.

Anyway. This is why I don't have a real post today. Not that anyone is particularly disappointed.

To end on a happy note, I just won a huge summary judgment motion in federal court. Like huge. And it feels amazing. Oh and my knee is finally starting to feel better so I'm going to run my first pregnant 5K on the Fourth of July. My goal is to run an 8:00 mile pace, which isn't too shabby but still disappointing to me because before I got injured I was set to run a 7:00 mile pace.


  1. Cee, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the SCOTUS decision. I've been reading a lot about it. I'm very liberal/not in favor of the decision, but I can also see that it's not quite as bad as everyone is making it out to be (i.e. it only limits payment on 4 specific contraceptives, and allows women a way to get them anyway, just not through employer-paid healthcare). Since I live in a liberal bubble, I'd love to hear your thoughts! I really appreciate good debates across difference :) If you're not into posting, maybe you could post some links to thoughtful commentary?

  2. I appreciate your invite to dialogue. it basically comes down to: this decision is NOT going to allow companies to discriminate or impose sharia law. the employees of hobby lobby are free to take birth control and buy birth control. the company simply doesn't have to pay for it. the decision is limited to contraceptives that cause abortion. contrary to what ppl think IUDs can result in the termination of pregnancy at an early stage. the company still provides 16 contraception options.

    this is not a war on women. it isnot sexual inequality. abortion is illegal in some states and banned in certain stages of pregnancy. so it is NOT like a generally accepted idea that abortion is a right. although I respect that some ppl see it that way.

    this case is about closely held corporations opting out of a gov mandate. it is not about a comoany imposing on the right or freedom of an employee. it is about a gov imposing on the rights of a company made up of ppl with similarly held core beliefs. a company is made up of ppl. a company can be suedand must pay taxes. a company IS ppl.andand in the case of a closed help company rather than as corporation with manyshareholders, this ppl should benefit from gov protection, specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
    if you disagree with this case, you need to repeal that act, which, btw was enacted during Clinton's term and s widely supported by liberals.

    this cas is about balancinginterests and is limited to specific contraceptives and applies to specific companies who act more like people than large corporations. this is not a harmful precedent or a slippery slope. It does nor hinder or prevent any woman from taking or uying birth control, it just does not require this one company to provide a contraceptive which may result in the
    tstopping of a beating heart. woman can now find other non emplowr funded insurance through the ACA. there is no harm (just slight inconvenience) suffered bybthe woman compared to a HUGE burden on the core belief of the company's owners. we do this same balancing test for all civil right. it is a reasonable test and has been affective so far (nothing is perfect).

    I'm a libertarian. I feel that personal liberty should be protected. an employee should have a right to buy and use birth control. an emplyer should have a right to refuse to provide medical services that violate a core religious belief.

    1. Sorry for typos. my phone sucks.

    2. If ppl disagree, that is fine. just don't label me a sexist, bigot, religious zealot, or tell me I'm waging a war on women.

    3. CP, I think you posted before that you had to pay a large amount out of pocket for your births? I see having to pay out of pocket for an IUD (which for medical reasons could be the best form of birth control for some women) as similar to that and equally sad.

    4. Thanks to Obamacare, you can shop around for your health insurance and aren't limited to what your employer provides. So find a plan that funds IUDs. Also a $30K birth is not anywhere near the same as an IUD. Also, I looked into getting an IUD and was expressly warned that they can lead to miscarriages.

  3. I have so many broader questions because I simply don't understand. You don't have to engage if you don't feel like it, but here they are:

    Where does this Christian objection to contraception and abortion come from? As far as I know, the Bible doesn't say much about it.

    Do some Christian or other religious employers now have a right to discriminate against the LGBT community? Should Arizona have passed that bill allowing businesses to deny services to gay people? How is this similar or different to the case with Hobby Lobby? Where do we draw the line?

    Why are human lives considered more valuable than other forms of life when our pollution, butchery, and overpopulation makes us responsible for the sixth mass extinction on Earth? How is that pro-life?

    1. To address your first question, not all people who are religious get all their teachings from the BIble. Catholics, for example, get most of their teachings from what is called Divine Tradition as well as through the Pope. But it IS in the Bible. Thou Shall Not Kill is there plain as day. Abortion stops a beating heart. To anyone who considers a "fetus" a baby, then abortion kills. The contraceptives at issue in Hobby Lobby were only the types of contraceptives that have an abortive affect. I think I have already said that.

      No, this ruling will not allow employers to discriminate. This is an EXEMPTION from a new government mandate. The employer wants to be exempted from providing something that can cause abortions. The employees are still free to get abortions and take contraceptives. The employer just doesn't have to pay for it or provide it.

      This is not the same as an employer refusing to hire gay people or discriminating. In the Hobby Lobby case, the employees are free to do what they want. The employer just isn't funding it. This is a far cry from telling employers that they can discriminate. The employer was only challenging one section of the ACA, not any civil right statutes. Exempting an employer from paying for something (but not preventing employees from engaging in the behavior on their own) is NOT equivalent to allowing employers to restrict the behavior or their employees or forcing their employees to go to church or pray (i.e. imposing their beliefs on employees).