The Hobby Lobby case is not some odd outlier regarding “religious freedom.” It’s just one of the many ways the anti-choice movement is trying to chip away at women’s access to contraception and instill the idea in the public’s mind that contraception is controversial.
The high court hasn’t yet ruled on buffer zones or Hobby Lobby, but it did say a legal challenge to an Ohio elections law can proceed.
A conservative legal advocacy organization has asked the Roberts Court to review a federal appeals court decision reinstating portions of New York City’s truth-in-advertising law regulating crisis pregnancy centers.
Comments by Monte Shaw, a Republican primary frontrunner in Iowa’s contested 3rd Congressional district, evoked hate groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan to attack the idea of government saying “a religious institution has to provide a good or service that violates their beliefs because they’re Christian.”
There’s a good chance the Roberts Court will make it easier for anti-choice advocates to influence elections by misleading the public.
As an OB-GYN and a patient advocate, I want to move the discussion about the Hobby Lobby case out of the courts for a moment and into my clinic, to focus on the lives of women and their families.
The leaders of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation have invited themselves into their employees’ bedrooms and medicine cabinets under the guise of religious freedom, and these bosses are seriously out of line.
No one should be forced to choose between her job and her dignity, but that’s what I feel I’m being forced to do right now.
What conservatives really mean when they talk about “religious freedom” has been revealed already by their longstanding crusade against the birth control benefit afforded by the Affordable Care Act. For them, having religious freedom requires the right to discriminate—against specific people, and in a specific way.
The “boss bill” is designed to close a loophole that could make room for employer discrimination; it would prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of the employee’s (or a dependent’s) reproductive health decisions, including a decision to use or access a particular drug, device, or medical service.