The Hobby Lobby case was about birth control coverage, but to see and hear the anti-choice protesters gathered in front of the Supreme Court steps Monday, you might have thought the Court was reconsidering Roe v. Wade.
Once hailed as a lifesaver and necessity for everyone thinking about having sex, condoms are now frequently maligned—young people are surrounded by messages suggesting they don’t work, they break, and they take all the fun out of sex.
I’m struggling to come to terms with the thought that the Supreme Court would invite discrimination and interference from bosses into the personal health decisions of women.
For Black women, the decision echoes a history of employers imposing their religious beliefs on our reproductive freedom.
The decision did not strike the contraceptive benefit in the Affordable Care Act entirely, but it did leave it hobbled.
I have seen countless women reduced to tears and shaking, just for trying to access the health care to which they are constitutionally entitled. That isn’t peaceful assembly. That is harassment, hiding behind the First Amendment.
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.
I don’t remember ever seeing the word “gentle” used to describe queer activism in the ’90s, anti-war marches in the 2000s, or the Occupy movement in 2011, even though those activists have a much more “gentle” record than anti-choice protesters do.
In striking a Massachusetts buffer zone law, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically reframed the debate over balancing the rights of patients and providers with the rights of abortion protesters.
According to the Roberts Court, Massachusetts had not shown that it tried to address clinic protests in a less restrictive means than enacting a fixed 35-foot buffer zone.