So very many things wrong with the Hobby Lobby decision

The Supreme Court decided last week that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely held corporations as well as to individual people, and that because of that, the ACA’s standards for insurance coverage that include contraception cannot be applied to companies with religious conflicts with contraception. The RFRA doesn’t explicitly apply to corporations, but as part of the growing trend that corporations are people, the Court ruled that they are in this case. (Citizens United wasn’t explicitly cited in the court’s opinion, but was brought up by the plaintiffs.)

There are so very many problems with this ruling that I don’t know where to begin.

The first giant problem with the ever-expanding “corporations are people” argument is that one of the primary reasons companies incorporate is to limit liability for the individuals involved. Giving more and more individual rights to corporations means we’re approaching the situation (if we’re not there already) where a corporation has all the rights of a person, but few to none of the responsibilities. In this case, Hobby Lobby’s owners get the benefits of being legally separated from their company, but none of the drawbacks. They get to apply their personal beliefs to the corporation, but the corporation’s liabilities aren’t applied to them as individuals. So, if an employee with severe fibroids and blood clotting issues (so no pill) can’t get an IUD and has severe anemia or ends up in the hospital getting massive blood transfusions, she can sue the company, but not the owners. They get to stand at a safe distance from the effects of their own decisions. If you want your company to be an extension of you, then maybe don’t incorporate.

Also, the case is based on the companies’ stated belief that the four contraception methods they object to (ella, Plan B, and both hormonal and copper IUDs) are abortifacents. That’s blatantly not true. First off, preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is not an abortion. It’s not. Period. Words mean things. Now, you can have a religious belief that a fertilized egg is a person and that it’s wrong to end its existence. (That creates all kinds of slippery slopes because so many fertilized eggs just don’t implant anyway—you could claim that almost *anything* might potentially prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.) But you don’t get to call it “abortion,” not if you’re being honest. In the same way, you’re free to believe that people shouldn’t kiss until they’re married, but you can’t redefine kissing as “premarital sex.” Secondly, Plan B *doesn’t* prevent implantation. (The FDA label says that it “may” while further studies have shown that it doesn’t.)

This is a huge issue, because you can have religious beliefs about absolutely anything, and if observable facts can be ignored, there’s really no limit to what you could claim religious protection for.

Another issue is that Hobby Lobby self-insures. People defending the decision point to that as a reason they should be exempt. Two problems with that. One, no law requires them to self-insure. That’s their choice. If it creates a moral conflict with them regarding birth control, they’re free to get insurance from an insurance company like most other employers do. But more than that, the fact that they self-insure means that they’re selling a product, insurance coverage, to their employees. Employees pay into a pool for self-insurance, just as they pay some or all of their insurance premiums when their employer uses an insurance company. The ACA sets standards for that product, which Hobby Lobby’s insurance doesn’t comply with.

So because of their religious beliefs, they get to sell a substandard product to a nearly captive audience. Despite the exchanges, employer health insurance is often the only affordable option for most people. Even worse, people with employer-provided insurance don’t qualify for subsidies for the exchanges, and Hobby Lobby gets tax benefits for providing insurance. So, to recap, they get to receive tax benefits for something they’re not actually doing, disqualify their employees for a government benefit that they should qualify for, and sell a substandard product.

Additionally, for all the people saying it’s totally not a problem because they cover 16 of the 20 methods, the *reason* that there are so many different methods of birth control is that not all of them work for everyone. (I’ve personally been on at least half a dozen pills and a couple other hormonal methods.) There are different benefits and side-effects, there are different medical conditions that interact with birth control methods in different ways. IUDs are excluded, for example, despite being one of the most reliable methods. Additionally, IUDs are used for many of the same non-pregnancy reasons that pills are (PCOS, endometriosis, fibroids, etc.) and don’t have the same risks with blood clotting.

Not to mention that emergency contraception is a different medical need entirely, one that other hormonal methods don’t really meet. If the condom breaks, making an appointment with your doctor to start on Ortho-Tricyclene or Depo-Provera isn’t going to help the immediate issue. Covering contraception but not emergency contraception is like saying, “We’re already covering your SSRI, why should we pay for Xanax too?” or “We’re covering your maintenance asthma meds; you don’t need an inhaler.”

If a woman has a strong medical need to not be pregnant (and let’s say she’s married to avoid the “keep your legs shut” bs), her doctor might recommend an IUD as the best option. She may well have tried other hormonal methods, or may have specific contraindications for those methods. But Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court apparently know better than her and her doctor what’s medically necessary.

Also, if Hobby Lobby’s opposition to these forms of contraception is so sincere, how is it that they covered them previously? Not to mention investing in companies that produce them, and buying everything from China, land of mandatory abortions (real abortions, not “abortions” that happen when a fertilized egg maybe doesn’t implant).

The other issue is the giant door this opens up. If Hobby Lobby can opt out of covering 4 methods, certainly a Catholic business owner can opt out of all 20. (In fact, the Supreme Court later stated that their ruling did apply to all methods.) And despite the opinion stating that it’s not relevant to other exemptions from other treatments (e.g., blood transfusions, anything based on stem cells, mental health), the logic is exactly the same. Not to mention the rather terrifying precedent that a company can have a religious objection to any generally applicable law, and that a belief that you only hold when it costs you money and not when it makes you money still counts as “sincerely held.”

Freedom and Vaccination

So, recently on the Unfundamentalist Christians page, the discussion came up about a recent ruling that people who choose not to vaccinate their kids for religious reasons don’t get to send them to school during an outbreak. One person was arguing that this is a slippery slope to letting the government decide what you do with your body if you can’t afford to homeschool, and that it’s not really a serious public health concern anyway because it doesn’t affect the majority. (To be fair, he was fine with keeping unvaccinated kids home during an outbreak, but was concerned the decision could lead to not letting them attend public school at all.)

That’s obviously a fairly weak argument, especially the bit about the majority. The majority of people will never get cancer, either (one in two men and one in three women, according to the American Cancer Society). So, let’s just not worry about that, because natural selection will sort it out, right?

The other thing that people don’t get is that vaccines, while really really useful, are not perfect. Adults end up with a much less effective vaccine over time if they don’t get regular boosters. Not to mention that if you get enough of a virus in your system, it can overwhelm your immune system, even with the “extra training” it got from a vaccine. So, yes, choosing not to vaccinate, if enough people do it, does have risks for the vaccinated population.

I thought that whole “the government telling me what I have to put into my body” line of argument was interesting, because it seems to be a common trend in discussions of religious freedom. It’s the idea that not only are your religious beliefs and practices protected, but that the consequences of those beliefs should be applied to other people, rather than to you. It’s the idea that if you choose to make your child a health risk to the kids around him, that figuring out how to deal with that is the school’s problem, not yours. There are examples of this all over. It’s the expectation that if you’re a pharmacist who gets fired for refusing to provide birth control, you’re a victim of persecution rather than someone who chose a poor career fit and then refused to do their job. It’s not up to you to find a job that fits your beliefs. Rather, it’s up to your employer to work around it or your customers to put up with crappy treatment. Or if you work at the courthouse and don’t want to sign same-sex marriage licenses, you shouldn’t have to, even if that screws over taxpayers who came in expecting you to do the job you’re being paid for.

Or, recently, if you’re a secular business owner who chooses to be willfully misinformed about the nature of contraceptives, you can get all the tax benefits of providing insurance without actually meeting the minimum legal standards for that coverage.

I’m a big believer in religious freedom. But I don’t think it should be a Get Out of Jail Free card for any rule you feel shouldn’t apply to you. Particularly not when you’re asking other people—whether those are your employees, the taxpayers, or your kid’s classmates—to shoulder the burden of your beliefs.

Redditors hit rock-bottom, then break out the dynamite

I’m pretty much past being shocked by the hateful things people say to and about fat people for daring to exist in the world, but every once in a while, the trolls still manage to surprise me. In this case, it’s a bunch of redditors making fun of a woman with a spinal injury who’s trying to raise the three grand she needs for a scooter on GoFundMe. Because, you know, she’s fat, and obviously spinal injuries magically fix themselves if you lose weight.

Atchka’s post at Fierce Freethinking Fatties has a really good explanation of the situation, as well as what it illustrates about fat hatred. Casey is literally the poster child for “doing everything right.” She has a medical issue that’s responsible for her weight, and she was extremely active until she had a freaking spinal fracture. And yet, none of that counts for anything in the minds of the haters. If you’re fat, you literally cannot be active enough to prove to these people that you aren’t spending 23 and a half hours a day on the couch eating donuts. They can see pictures of you dancing, running, whatever, and they will make up weird justifications for why that isn’t real exercise, deliberately misunderstand things you say, or otherwise stick their fingers in their ears and go “LALALA, can’t hear you! LOL UR FAT.” You could literally lap them on the track, running backwards and blindfolded, and they’d find some way to claim that they’re more active—and therefore a more worthwhile person–than you.

This comes only a few days after one of Ragen Chastain’s obsessed trolls sent out a phony fact-checking email about her dance championships, trying to “prove” that she hasn’t really won competitions.

I do understand where it comes from. Cognitive dissonance is not a fun feeling, so it’s easy to twist reality to suit your biases. And everybody does that to some extent. But the extent of willful denial of reality these people show, not to mention the level of obsession required to spend hours of your life trashing someone on a forum or sending fraudulent emails to try to screw over their speaking engagements, it just boggles the mind.

In light of this kind of pervasive harassment, it really bothers me that people treat internet bullying as a minor inconvenience, or something that’s completely apart from “the real world,” when that’s not true at all. The trolls don’t live on their own little island somewhere—they’re right here in the real world with the rest of us. They could be your coworker, your neighbor, your cousin. And I sincerely doubt that anyone who’s that full of hate is limiting their nastiness to online interactions. Not to mention that cyberbullying *frequently* crosses into the victim’s “real life.” Often, that’s the whole point—find out and distribute their personal information, lie about them to their boss or their friends. It’s not something you can walk away from by turning off the computer.

Romantic Love and Double Standards

Out of all the arguments I see against same-sex marriage, the “kids need a mother and a father” argument seems to me to be one of the most specious, because it’s grounded in a massive double standard. We don’t force divorcees, or widows to marry again “for the sake of the children.” We don’t require it of single parents. There are plenty more examples—people in long-distance relationships with no specific plans to move in together, people with dangerous jobs or serious illnesses that make it more likely that any kids they have will lose a parent. Those people are absolutely allowed to get married. For that matter, people who are serving life sentences in jail are allowed to get married and could conceivably have children. Conjugal visits are only permitted in about six states, but if you live in one of those states, no one is going to prevent you from marrying and having a child with someone who’s extremely unlikely to be in that child’s life. (And in the other 44, prison doesn’t necessarily rule out artificial insemination.)

To my knowledge, there aren’t any campaigns to require single parents to marry or remarry, or to prevent people who can’t be around for their kids from having any. If they do exist, they certainly don’t have the same fervor, or the same financial backing, as campaigns working against same-sex marriage. That’s the double standard I’m talking about. If one of you has an M on your driver’s license and the other has an F, and you’re legal adults, not married to anyone else or related to each other, your freedom to marry is largely unrestricted. But if you’re a same-sex couple, suddenly we have to ask more questions. Suddenly we’re so worried about the children not being raised in “ideal” families.

Today, I read an Examiner article that took the “kids need a mother and a father” argument a little further. (The article was written by someone I’ve known online for more than a decade, and a good guy, so I’m going to shoot for very respectful criticism. Not that that isn’t *always* a good goal—I think “pretend the person you’re arguing with online is someone you actually like” would cut down the amount of vitriol on the internet substantially.)

Anyway, the central premise is that girls need a father figure to form a romantic attachment to a man. There’s a study mentioned (though not cited or described in enough detail to make it easy to find):

A recent study of women has made a connection between romantic love and the relationships they had with their fathers. There is a tendency for women to have this attractive reaction to men who exhibit personality traits consistent with those of their fathers, whether or not they had good relationships with those fathers, and in fact for women with bad father relationships to fall into bad relationships of a very similar sort.

The argument from this is that, without a father as a template for the kind of man she’s supposed to be attracted to, a woman won’t be able to form romantic attachments, or at least will have that ability somewhat hampered. The exact phrasing is “It suggests that for women to have a romantic attraction of that sort toward a man, she has to have had a male father figure in her life.”

But that’s not what the study actually says. For a study to show something of that nature, the logical thing to do would be to compare the romantic relationships of women who grew up with a father in their life and those who didn’t and see if the women who didn’t had weaker attractions or were less likely to have romantic relationships. If I were designing that study, I’d want to try for a good sample of children of divorce, children of single parents, women whose fathers had passed away, and children of lesbians to try to eliminate any confounding variables related to family upheaval. I’d also want to track whether the women whose fathers were absent had any other paternal figures, like an uncle or grandfather, they were close to. There’s no indication that the study even looked at women without a father or father figure, so it’s really stretching to attribute the idea that women need a father figure to form romantic attachments to it.

What it does say is that we get our ideas of what makes a good partner—and what’s normal in relationships—from our parents’ relationships. As the summary puts it:

“There is a tendency for women to have this attractive reaction to men who exhibit personality traits consistent with those of their fathers, whether or not they had good relationships with those fathers, and in fact for women with bad father relationships to fall into bad relationships of a very similar sort.”

To me, this absolutely does not say that any male-female relationship is automatically a better place to raise children than a same-sex relationship. How could it, when it doesn’t even address same sex relationships? What it does say is that women are frequently attracted to men with similar personality traits to their fathers. To me, this suggests that if a woman marries a jerk and has kids with him, her daughter is likely to view “jerk” as the male default and (if she’s straight) probably end up with a jerk herself.

As another issue, if we’re assuming male-female relationships are the ideal, we’re hoping, as our ideal, that gay people will marry members of the opposite sex. Since reparative therapy hasn’t shown any indication of being able to change people’s orientation, this means that a marriage where one partner has no attraction to the other and the relationship is based on a lie is viewed as a good thing, because no matter how dysfunctional or dishonest it might be, it fits the ideal family structure. (I know people who’ve been in mixed orientation marriages, and it’s not anything like an ideal. In one woman’s case, it shredded her self-confidence horribly, which is about what you’d expect for anyone who found out their partner had never been attracted to them.)

But I get the impression that the anti-gay-marriage argument isn’t terribly concerned with whether any of these individual relationships are happy. After all, if it’s for the good of the children, that outweighs any concerns like whether their parents love each other. However, the study itself suggests potential fallout for the children of those relationships. It would indicate that women whose parents were in a mixed orientation marriage will pick partners with traits like “lies to me about really important things” or “isn’t attracted to me at all, but wants me to fix him.” The one thing the study does indicate is that girls whose parents have bad relationships are likely to have relationships that go off the rails in a similar way themselves. So in light of this study, the absolute *last* thing to encourage is that any male-female pair, regardless of the quality of the relationship, is inherently a better place to raise children than a same-sex one.

Since I made a pretty strong statement about “don’t marry a jerk” a few paragraphs back, I don’t want to imply that I think a gay person who marries someone of the opposite sex, even dishonestly, is automatically a bad person. It’s a harmful decision, I don’t think there’s any question about that, but it’s also a decision with a huge amount of social pressure behind it. That’s not to let someone who lies, cheats, or emotionally abuses their partner off the hook for their own actions either—just to say that there are multiple victims and plenty of blame to go around.

But all of that is just assuming that the study was well designed, well controlled, and that it’s findings were significant. Depending on which personality traits you use and how you’re measuring them, you might get very different results. Since I don’t have the study itself, I have no idea if they did a good job of that or not.

There’s also a huge amount of gender essentialism in the article (no surprise, since the “traditional marriage” argument is all about gender roles):

We might suppose that such a girl attaches to one of her two female parents and identifies that one as the putative “father”. That would mean that her romantic baseline would be looking for a man who had the qualities which attracted her to a female parent. It is not even clear at this point that a young girl could make such an identification of a female parent as the surrogate father. Nor is it clear what kind of man might have those qualities.

The implication is that men and women are such completely different sorts of people that marrying a guy with a similar personality to your mom is about as likely as getting a dog with a similar personality to your first cat. And yet, while trying to find the referenced study (with no success), I found several articles about the idea that women are attracted to men like their fathers (or vice versa with men and their mothers). (One from CNN, one from the Daily Mail, and one from The Telegraph.)

These studies talked about either facial similarities or about pretty general aspects of personality that apply to both men and women. The CNN article, for example, describes one woman whose husband shared her father’s “emotional distance” and his angry temper, another whose husband and father are both interested in politics and the stock market, and a third who has a very similar sense of humor to her mother-in-law. None of these are sex-specific traits, so not having a parent of the opposite sex doesn’t necessarily prevent looking for a parent’s traits in an opposite-sex partner. If the study had actually included same-sex families, there might have been some data to see how or if that happens.

For that matter, I don’t know if the study controlled for the *mother’s* personality at all, and people do often marry similar people. You would need to demonstrate that women are attracted to men who have characteristics of their fathers that are *not* shared by their mothers to demonstrate that women go for men who are like their dads, rather than women choose partners who remind them in some way of one or both parents.

Another quibble I have with this article is the way it talks about same-sex families with a lot of “We might suppose” language, as though there aren’t actual same-sex families on which sociological research could be (and has been) done, rather than making assumptions based on opposite-sex parents. That level of supposition implies that there isn’t any research out there on children of same-sex couples, and we have no idea whatsoever how they might be affected. That ties right into the conclusion, which has some pretty dramatic rhetoric: “We do not know what kind of impact a different model will have on children. Is it worth the price to our children to change to another model without examining it more carefully first?”

First off, the default for child-raising is still very likely to be opposite sex couples, both because straight people outnumber gay people by 9 to 1 or more, and because having a child “the old-fashioned way” is a lot easier and less expensive than anything involving artificial insemination. If Wikipedia is accurate, same-sex marriages make up about 4% of the total marriages in Massachusetts, a pretty tiny minority. The idea of “changing to another model” totally ignores those demographics. At 4%, same-sex couples are likely even a minority of couples without a parent of each sex in the home, once you take divorce, death, and single parenthood into account.

Secondly, there’s again the implication that same-sex couples aren’t already raising children, that this is some new thing that has never been done, something with completely unknown consequences. Vermont has had civil unions since 2000, and Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage for more than a decade, and it was the sixth jurisdiction to allow it, not the first. (That distinction goes to the Netherlands, in 2001.) Not to mention that raising children and being legally married aren’t the same thing. The first gay couples who petitioned for the right to marry in the US did so in the *1970s*, and I seriously doubt that none of them raised kids. There are a number of studies on children of same-sex couples, and the only one that found anything negative, the Regnerus study, was dodgy to say the least.

And again, even if outcomes *were* better for children in opposite-sex families than in same-sex ones, those couples are still the only ones expected to “prove” that their relationship is “ideal” before they’re allowed to get married. The chance of divorce is higher for young couples and lower for college graduates, but that doesn’t mean the legal marriage age should be 25, or that people should be required to finish college before getting married. No one is pushing to ban any less-than-ideal opposite-sex marriages. In a free country, individuals should be able to make personal decisions based on what they want for their own lives, even if it doesn’t meet someone else’s ideal.

Flying While Fat

Today, Ragen Chastain posted a really excellent take-down of an Etiquette Hell piece arguing that if you don’t fit in a standard airplane seat, it’s your obligation to pay for a first-class seat or two seats to, as Ms. E-Hell puts it, “never presume I am entitled to more seat than I paid for and if any body part of mine has the potential to spill over into someone else’s purchased space, I need to make sure I pay for enough room to contain my body within the zone I “own”.”

Ragen covered the idea that it’s not any oppressed group’s job to be extra-special nice and accommodating to avoid perpetuating stereotypes. She also pointed out that it’s a pretty unreasonable expectation for someone to pay twice as much, or more, or just not travel, to avoid mildly inconveniencing someone else.

There are a couple other things I’d like to tack onto that. First off, the Etiquette Hell argument is based on the idea that you pay for a seat of a certain size. But seat size isn’t actually advertised when you order a ticket, at least not anywhere that I’ve seen. (I’ve flown Southwest, AirTran before it became part of Southwest, and Air Canada.) I checked Southwest just now, and there’s nothing in the flight info about seat size. If you look up flight info, you can get the plane type and then plug that info into SeatGuru to get a reasonable idea.

So, let’s say I try to be a super accommodating “good fatty” on my next trip. I determine that I need a 17.5 inch seat to fit without (oh horrors) touching the person next to me. Not wanting to pay double for first class, I make it a point to pick a flight that uses a plane with that seat width, even though that flight has a three-hour layover in Albequerque and requires me to leave the house at 4 AM. Except when I show up for the flight, it turns out that that particular plane is stuck in bad weather in Chicago, so my flight is on a different plane, with 17 inch seats. Oops. I already got up early and planned to sit around the airport for hours longer than I needed to. Do I owe it to my hypothetical seatmate to spring for an upgrade to first-class (if there are even seats available)?

Also, even if you were paying for space, it seems a little ridiculous to pay for 34 inches of space if you’re only using 18. And if you’re a thin adult, or a small child, you certainly don’t get a discount for all that space you’re not using. It’s not like there’s an option for people of size to pay twenty bucks extra to sit next to someone who’s a size 6 or less, and have that thin person pay twenty bucks less.

It’s even more apparent that you’re not really paying for a seat of a certain size when you realize that as the average person gets bigger, plane seats keep getting smaller. If airlines actually based their seat sizes on average body size, you might have an argument that people who are above that should pay more. But they don’t.

The other thing I think this piece misses is that there’s no consideration of who’s inconvenienced more in this scenario. Asking one person to undergo a major hardship to potentially save someone else some minor irritation just seems really unbalanced to me. Ms. E-Hell doesn’t say you should buy an extra seat if you encroach so much on the seat next to you that the other person is squished, or that you and them just plain will not fit. (That would be a much more reasonable position.) The standard is that if *any* part of your body is in the other seat by even a tiny bit, you should fly first-class or buy two seats. So, I’m supposed to pay double for a flight to spare someone else the horror of maybe brushing against my thigh? How about no. I get that some people are very touchy about their personal space, but maybe those folks should be the ones to pay for the extra space.

The Puppy Post

If you’re wondering why the cute dogs and cat picture was deleted, it’s because I meant to post it to my other blog. I keep this one for fat acceptance, feminism, and religious posts, while Puppy Goes Zoom is primarily for cute pictures and thoughts about dogs, including training, rescue, and breed advocacy.

Fat-Positive Filmmaker Being Bullied

Ragen Chastain posted this morning about Lindsey Averill. Lindsey is making a really cool fat acceptance documentary called Fattitude. She still needs about 20,000 to make her goal, and has a little over a month to do it.

And of course, some jackass (or group of jackasses) decided that the best and most mature thing they could do in response would be to steal her trailer and post it on YouTube, interspersed with 9/11-related hate speech. When she reported them, they tracked down her phone number, as well as her husband’s business phone and her family’s phone numbers. They’ve also been posting backer info online, but I think that’s been taken down.

The ringleader of this little crew of scumbags uses the handle GODBLESSADOLFHITLER on YouTube and Twitter. He also likes to steal people’s photographs from the I STAND campaign. Because nothing says, “I don’t have a life” like hanging out on YouTube and Twitter all day harassing and mocking people.

So, I’m working on publicizing the project as much as I can, trying to get positive comments, money, and suggestions for dealing with the asshole brigade sent her way.