History will not be kind in its memory of today’s Supreme Court ruling, a travesty of justice grounded in the same brutish sexism and classism that has always informed the most egregious and shameful rulings of the highest court in our land.
In my post of January 23, 12 Reasons the Hobby Lobby Case Should be Dismissed, I wrote:
If based upon its moral convictions Hobby Lobby is allowed to pick and choose the medical benefits it covers, why in the world wouldn’t any other company be allowed to do the same? And how could the criteria for such selections possibly be established or codified? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to refuse medical coverage for an employee who chokes on a ham sandwich? Should vegetarian Hindu employers be allowed to refuse coverage for meat-borne diseases? Should Amish-owned companies be allowed to offer only medical care that is not “of the world”? Christian Scientists believe all sickness is spiritual “error”; should they be allowed to offer their employees no medical benefits at all? Should New-Age employers be protected from having to extend medical benefits to employees who allowed their chakras to misalign? Can employers who are sun worshippers refuse coverage for frostbite? Can Jehovah’s Witnesses deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions, which they are against? Can vampire lovers mandate blood transfusions for their employees?
In her brilliantly piercing dissent from today’s Supreme Court decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the same argument (though without chakra and vampire jokes—not sure what that’s about):
Would [this ruling] for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?
She also said:
There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims … or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodations could be perceived as favoring one religion over another. … The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.
I am so proud to have women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan sitting on the Supreme Court.
I am so ashamed and appalled beyond uttering at what that court, despite these women—despite all women—did today. From up on their bench those fools tossed us all into a cesspool the stench of which we’ll be washing off for years if not decades to come.
I’m the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question: