Although the reproductive rights movement and the broader feminist movement have become increasingly intersectional, there is still much work to be done in centering the issues faced by women who are not white, economically advantaged, heterosexual, and cisgender.
Amid the anguish over the Hobby Lobby ruling Monday was a note of optimism among some liberals, suggesting that the ruling was constructed with a narrowness that specifically prohibits use of its legal reasoning to protect religiously inspired discrimination against LGBT people. If only that was in fact the case.
The Hobby Lobby decision is an affront to all women and yet another barrier to Asian American and Pacific Islander women who already face significant health disparities and barriers to insurance access.
Reading the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Massachusetts buffer zone case, you might get the idea that free speech in the form of protests and handing out literature about social and political issues is practiced without restriction in the United States. But that is not the case.
Black women already have low and inconsistent use of birth control due to access barriers, and Monday’s Hobby Lobby decision is one more that puts effective care out of financial reach for many in need.
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.
A spokesperson for Femcare told the Asheville Citizen-Times that the clinic would be closing on Saturday, but declined any further comment.
For Black women, the decision echoes a history of employers imposing their religious beliefs on our reproductive freedom.