Hobby Lobby: Contraception and Corporations

Photo Credit: IaIvanova via Compfight cc

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring closely held corporations, in this case Hobby Lobby and Mennonite cabinet makers Conestoga Wood, to provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violates the companies owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs was not permitted under the Religion Freedom Restoration Act.

First, based on my own personal history, I have a passion for the specific methods of contraception being discussed in this case and the persistent myths surrounding them. After graduating from college, I spent a year running an emergency contraception (EC) hotline. At the time, EC was available only by prescription.  When a woman would call, I would collect her information, ask her several medical questions, and have a prescription called in. I dealt exclusively with the hormonal EC levonorgestrel.

I like to tell people I prevented more abortions in that year than most people do in their entire life.

Now, some people – including the family that owns Hobby Lobby – would disagree with me because some people believe that EC is an abortifacient. Why do they believe that? Well, some people believe that life begins at fertilization and any drug that could prevent implantation of fertilized egg into the uterus (which is when the medical community defines the beginning of life) is an abortifacient not a contraceptive.

Any EC package you pick up clearly states the drug could prevent implantation.

So, are these people right?

No. Here’s why. Scientists get REAL finicky about statements of fact. They also get REAL finicky about proving said facts. Think back. How often does your doctor use the term “never” or “always.” Probably not very often. They don’t talk like that because scientific evidence deals in probability.

You can’t prove “always” because who the hell knows. You also can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove that something will NEVER happen. You can’t prove that EC will NEVER disrupt implantation because you can’t plant camera in every uterus that takes the drug (although give them time!) and make sure that never happens.

But guess what? I’m not scientist! I don’t have to follow their rules so listen up.

EC NEVER DISRUPTS IMPLANTATION. Period

It just doesn’t.

Here’s the best explanation I’ve found from the team at Science Friday (and if you can’t trust Ira Flatow who can you trust?!?)

“In addition to the available biological evidence, clinical research provides important insights about how EC works. The newest and most reliable evidence comes from two recent studies (published in 2007 and 2011) in which women who came to clinics for EC were monitored to assess each woman’s menstrual cycle day. Among women who took EC before ovulation, none became pregnant. The women who took EC on the day of ovulation or after became pregnant at the rate that would be expected if they hadn’t used any contraception. This provides compelling evidence that levonorgestrel EC works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation, but is ineffective after ovulation has already occurred (and therefore would not be effective in preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg).”

— Emergency Contraception: How It Works (How It Doesn’t)

Did you catch that? If you take EC after ovulation when you be mostly likely be disrupting implantation and not fertilization, your chance of pregnancy is the same as if you took nothing at all. You know why? Because EC doesn’t disrupt implantation and if you’re putting all your eggs (pun intended) in the one basket of hoping that it does, you are shit out of luck.

Now, there is a second form of EC containing ulipristal acetate and mifepristone and there are no studies on that class of drug. However, the failure rate of this drug isn’t significantly lower than levonorgestrel EC and neither drug has a failure rate low enough to indicate they disrupt implantation.

Can we prove they NEVER disrupt implantation?

Nope, but they DON’T because if they did they’d work a hell of a lot better than they do at preventing pregnancy.

Now, Hobby Lobby has a problem with two of other forms of contraception that they define as an abortifacient – intrauterine devices (IUDs). IUDs can also be used as a form of emergency contraception if they are placed in the uterus within days after unprotected sex. Now, mind you, I have never known anyone to do this nor even HEARD about this approach during my time at Planned Parenthood. First of all, that is one dang expensive – not to mention invasive -  form of emergency contraception.

But, I’m willing to cede that someone somewhere has probably done it. I’m also willing to cede the point that IUDs could prevent implantation precisely because they are so much more effective than hormonal EC. Of course, in taking IUDs off the table as a covered contraception choice, these companies are removing the most cost-effective and efficient form of birth control out there.

When I worked at Planned Parenthood, it was the most used form of contraception among providers aka doctors. IUDs are a particularly good choice is you don’t plan on having children for a while and are sensitive to hormones as the copper IUD is one of the few long-term contraceptives available that is hormone free. Choosing which contraception is right for you is a complicated decision and one that is now made more difficult for thousands of women who will have to decide if they want to bare the financial burden of that choice all on their own.

So, IUDs mostly likely prevent or disrupt implantation. The question then becomes should Hobby Lobby be required to cover a contraception they believe to be abortifacient based on the owners’ religious belief that life begins at fertilization?

For the Supreme Court, that question hinges in large part on whether these closely held corporations are legal “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which prohibits the “government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

Now, the idea of corporations as legal persons is not new. Justice Alito has a lovely little paragraph about how this legal fiction is meant “to provide protection for human beings.”

“A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”

— BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.,

Doesn’t that sound nice?

Here’s the problem. Corporate culture in its current form places a strong duty on directors and management to maximize profits for the corporation's shareholders. People make complicated decisions based on many factors. However, the management of a corporation makes decisions that keep shareholders happy so they don’t get fired.

Could the shareholders of a company come together and decide that they want to prioritize environmental sustainability over profits? I guess so. Does that happen very often? No.

That’s why you don’t hear much from Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy about gay marriage anymore. Chick-fil-A’s current profits maximization is built on expanding into college campuses, where a younger and less conservative demographic didn’t have the stomach for the Cathy family’s Christian politics. That’s why Hobby Lobby still buys products from China where there is state-mandated abortion because selling only American made products would eat into their products. It’s also why the company invested companies that manufactured emergency contraception. There was money to be made.

Look I'm not saying Hobby Lobby is some money-grubbing monster. They pay their employees far above the minimum wage. They work hard to assure the quality of workplace conditions for the workers who make their products in China. But still. Profit plays a role and it plays a big role and to act otherwise is foolish.

For example, limiting an employee’s contraceptive choice doesn’t affect profits so the calculus becomes a bit different.

So, “sincerely held” religious beliefs? I’m not so sure. Why I would never question the Green family’s individual faith? I do believe that ascribing a faith to a corporation whose motivations are much less complicated is problematic.

But let's not pretend Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't say it than I ever could.

“The Court, I fear has ventured into a minefield, by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed ‘for a religious purpose,’ ‘engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,’ and not ‘engaged. . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.’”

— BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.,

My Most Popular Political Posts of the Year

I had a plan to post my favorite or most popular post of the year but I was having trouble choosing just one. THEN, I realized it's my blog and I don't have to! So, here are several of my most popular political posts of the year. 

I love politics. When I first started bluegrass redhead, I thought maybe I would spend most of my time writing about the simplicity of small town life. HA! Turns out y'all enjoy it way more when I'm passionate and riled up. The best part is y'all get riled up too but in the most intelligent and civil way! 

Click any photo to be taken to the post.

Daniel Murphy and what's wrong with American priorities

Last week, Boomer Esiason, former quarterback and current sports commentator, made some very incendiary comments about Major League Baseball player Patrick Murphy, who had recently taken three days paternity leave for the birth of his son. Because babies don’t care what sport you play, Murphy’s son was born on opening day and as a result Murphy missed two games.

Esiason argued that Murphy should have forced his wife to schedule a c-section before the season started. Esiason’s comments immediately went viral and he apologized for his criticism of Murphy several days later. I’m not here to attack Boomer Esiason for a few comments he made on a talk radio show (not usually the mecca for rationality). By all accounts, Esiason is a dedicated family man himself. In fact, he was named Father of the Year in 2009 after starting a foundation to fund cystic fibrosis research after his own son Gunnar was diagnosed with the disease. 

The truth is that while Esiason’s comments were extreme they represent an idea that has been part of the American philosophy for decades, especially among American men. 

Work comes first. Family comes second. 

Now, no one openly espouses this philosophy anymore. In doing so, you risk being called all the terrible things Boomer Esiason has been called over the last few days - a neanderthal, a misogynistic, an idiot. In the modern age, more and more people are looking for the ever elusive balance between work and family and saying your family comes first has become the accepted societal norm.

However, it is often in extreme situations that our true values become apparent. Boomer Esiason was openly attacked in the media and yet, in my personal conversations, I heard a little more doubt that what he had said was really that wrong. “He is a professional baseball player…” “He makes A LOT of money to do what he does…” People would say before quickly agreeing Esiason stepped over the line. 

I’ve heard the same subtle undercurrent during past discussions of work/life choices in the media. When Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, returned to work only two weeks after giving birth to her first child, she was roundly criticized. However, there was also a begrudging admiration of her work ethic and several discussions of how the decision-making changes when there is that much money on the line. (Interesting update to the Mayer situation here.)

Personally, I experienced this same “work comes first, family second” ethic when my husband and I decided to give up our high-paying high-intensity careers in Washington, DC, to move back to Paducah. SO many people could not (and still cannot) understand  why we would take huge pay cuts or give up careers all together so that we would be able to spend more time with our children. The fact that we were uprooting and rearranging our entire existences to put our families - not our jobs - first on the list is something I still have trouble explaining to people. Lots of people move for jobs but very few move for family. 

What we are really saying is that family comes first … to an extent. What we are really saying when we talk about Daniel Murphy or Marissa Mayer is that time with our families is only worth so much. If there is enough money on the table, then it is acceptable to put your work first.

Now, for many families, this type of math is a matter of survival. As the gap between rich and poor grows wider and wider, many (too many) families have to make decisions about work that make affect whether or not their children will eat - not how much time they will spend with them. That is not the situation I’m talking about.

I’m talking about our attitudes about the very rich, the very elite, the people at the top. If we don’t hold those people to a higher standard when it comes to work and family, how will there ever be space for those of us at the bottom to make similar decisions? If we don't allow the decision-makers to put family first, how will they make decisions that allow ALL of us to put family first? 

We all know how bad the statistics are for the United States. As much as we claim family comes first, we have no real societal structure in place to make that reality for families across the country. No paid parental leave. No real, affordable day care. No support for single parents, adoptive parents, working parents. 

We have to start somewhere to change our work-first culture and the elites - be they in business or baseball - need to be examples. Not examples of the traditional “Work harder. Make sacrifices.” ethic that has been a part of our society for too long, but examples of how living a well-rounded life with time for work AND family makes you a happier - and more successful - person. 

Examples like Daniel Murphy. 

Guest Post: A response to #BanBossy

I am a huge Sheryl Sandberg fan.  I’ve watched her TED Talks multiple times.  In certain settings, I have quoted Lean In like the Bible.  I follow Lean In groups on social media, and I think Sandberg is provoking some of the healthiest discussion taking place about women and work.  

So, I was surprised by my viscerally negative reaction to the “Ban Bossy” campaign.  I have liked (and probably pinned somewhere) the quote about telling little girls they have leadership characteristics, but the idea of banning the word “bossy” didn’t resonate with me.

Perhaps that’s because I’ve recently realized that I am bossy.  There’s no denying it.  I make decisions quickly, and I like being a decision-maker.  I’m unhappiest when I’m stuck following a prescription that makes no sense to me, and I will do my best to find a way to get unstuck in those situations.  My husband jokes that I “don’t take direction well.”  He’s mostly right.  I’m just bossy, and understanding that about myself has led me to make better choices about my career.

Sure, “bossy” has a negative connotation, and it is arguably disproportionately applied to women (I don’t know about you; I’ve certainly labeled men “bossy”), but every trait is a two-sided coin.  Being a leader often means having tendencies toward narcissism.  Being entrepreneurial requires a capacity for risk that is reckless.  Being influential can also mean being manipulative.  

And being a “follower” is no connotative picnic, either.  That word is fraught with negativity, yet we must have followers.  The ability to observe, understand, and execute is the foundation of a workplace that functions effectively.  Followers are successful in almost every industry at many levels, and leaders have to be exceptional followers to find a forum for leadership. 

If it’s so important to ban “bossy,” are we not tempted to assign unearned positive status to other words? Lean In makes a compelling argument that the word “mentor” has become loaded with unrealistic expectations.  “Flexibility” and “balance” sound like qualities every woman who interviews in a professional setting is seeking, but they can mask some very ugly assumptions about women with small children and some very harsh limitations on growth.  

I don’t think banning a word changes the workplace.  Sandberg is doing that, instead, by telling her stories.  Through story, we come to understand the challenges others face at work.  Stories help men understand why their male colleagues would choose to take a full paternity leave.  Stories break through barriers around diversity and inclusion issues.  I can tell a female candidate that our firm offers a flexible environment, but it’s far more powerful for me to talk to her about part-time attorneys holding meaningful positions of leadership and working on our most significant engagements.  

If the “Ban Bossy” campaign is really designed to promote storytelling, that’s great.  My fear is that the individuals who need to hear those stories will roll their eyes and walk away.  To be a leader in any environment, you must be willing to accept all of the things that make you a leader—good and bad.  You have to accept everything in context.  You can call me “bossy” every day of the week as long as you’re willing to hear my stories and share your own with me. 

Beth is a mom, wife, sister, friend, and HR executive. She's also on a journey to become a yoga teacher. She likes watermelon, reality television, and politics.  

PS If you're interested in my take on #banbossy, click here and here.

#BANBOSSY: Take 2!

Last night, I was interviewed for my local news program on the Ban Bossy campaign I wrote about last week. I shared my personal experience with being called bossy, as well as why I believe the campaign is about so much more than the word itself. 

#BANBOSSY

Bossyface.

That's what my cousins called me growing up. It's now family lore and my nickname - pulled out whenever I'm little too opinionated or assertive or dominant.

As I became an adult, bossy became abrasive or loud or just plain old bitchy but the underlying message was always the same.

“How you are is not ok. You need to change."

For a very long time, I internalized that message. My parents still recall my all-consuming insecurity throughout elementary school, middle school, and much of high school. I looked different with my red hair and glasses. I acted different with my “loud mouth” and opinions. And I felt different. I longed to be the pretty quiet girl who everyone described as “sweet” and “nice” but NEVER bossy.

Looking back, I know I backed away from leadership opportunities or moments to shine because I received enough criticism in my everyday life, why would I put myself out there for more? Why would I put myself out there to be called bossy again?

It wasn't until I got to college that I began to realize that I wasn't the only one being called bossy. Suddenly, I was surrounded my smart,assertive women who showed me we were all being called bossy but that our male counterparts weren't. The men weren't being told to sit down, shut up, and conform.

I wish I could adequately express what's it is like to realize that your personality isn't fundamentally flawed. I wish I could tell you the relief I felt when I realized I was not the problem.

Now, realizing that society has expectations for how women should behave and swift and strict consequences when they do not conform is crazy-making in its own way. However, it is still empowering to realize that who you are is valid and there are a huge army of women who know exactly how you feel.

Even better? Realizing there are woman who believe that we need to BAN BOSSY!

Today, on the one-year anniversary of Lean In, LeanIn.Org and the Girl Scouts are launching a public service campaign to Ban Bossy – and encourage all girls to lead.  

When little boys lead, we call them “leaders”.  But when little girls lead, they risk being labeled “bossy”.  These negative messages have a real impact; by middle school, girls are less interested in leadership roles than boys – a trend that continues into adulthood. - Sheryl Sandberg

So, join LeanIn.Org, the Girl Scouts, and ME to BAN BOSSY! Let's stop telling little girls, especially assertive ones, that they aren't ok just the way they are.

Tweet: I pledge to #banbossy. Join @LeanInOrg @GirlScouts & @bluegrassred to encourage girls to lead: http://ctt.ec/c7jub+

There are a million positive words to describe the little faces in our lives.

Bossy shouldn't be one of them.

12 Years A Slave and my family's history with slavery

12 Years A Slave is an amazing film. Well-acted, well-directed, well-written, it is a testament to the craft of film-making and worthy of the Academy Award for Best Picture. More than that, 12 Years A Slave is an important film. The true story of Solomon Northup – a free man who was kidnapped and forced into slavery over a hundred years ago – forces all of us to see the reality of American slavery stripped of the usual Hollywood tropes of happy slaves singing in the field (see Gone with the Wind) or the white savior (see Amistad, Lincoln).

This film has started a discussion – a discussion that for far too long we as a society have avoided.  This film has started a discussion about the brutality of the slave system and the repercussions of that system that we still feel to this day – in part because that system still exists in many parts of the world.

I am not an academic. I am not an expert. However, slavery is a part of my own story and it is a story I feel that I should share in an effort to continue the discussion that 12 Years A Slave began. 

Many of my ancestors were slave owners. If I proudly proclaim that I am an eighth generation Kentuckian and that my family has been on this land for hundreds of years, then I must also honestly and openly acknowledge the darker aspects of that heritage. 

Using the 1850 and 1860 United States Federal Census Slave Schedules, I have pieced together which of my relatives owned slaves and how many. This is what I found.

The 1850 Slave Schedule 

Peyton Randolph Jennings was my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. He was born in Kentucky in 1793 and lived there until his death in 1863. The 1850 Slave Schedule reports he owned a single slave – an 11-year-old “mulatto” girl. Ten years later, the 1860 Slave Schedule reports he now owned a 22-year-old “mulatto” woman, who I can only assume was the same person. None of his sons were ever recorded as owning slaves, so I have no idea what happened to this woman upon his death in 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation had been signed but did not apply to slave states not in rebellion, including Kentucky. 

Henry Babb Walters

This is my great-great-great grandfather Henry Babb Walters. He was born in Tennessee in 1826 and died there in 1892. The 1850 Slave Schedule shows that he owned a 12-year-old female slave. The histories I've read report that more whites owned a single slave than any other number and my own family history seems to reflect that. Although many often owned a male slave to help with farm work, female slaves were also chosen to help with housework. The female slave owned by Henry Babb Walters does not appear on the 1860 Slave Schedule, nor do any other slaves under his name. 

My great-great-great-great grandfather George Washington Hocker owned two female slaves, according to the 1850 Slave Schedule. One woman was thirty-five years old. The other was twenty years old. Since George Washington Hocker lived until 1895, I have no idea what happened to these two woman as there is no record of them in the 1860 Slave Schedule. 

Jesse Lunsford Tapp

My great-great-great-great grandfather Jesse Lunsford Tapp owned the most slaves of any of my ancestors, at least according to any evidence I could find among the slave schedules. According to the 1860 Slave Schedule, he owned seven slaves – a 63-year-old man, a 60-year-old woman, a 33-year-old man, a 30-year-old woman, a 16-year-old girl, and two young boys ages 8 and 2. I have no idea if these people were a family or what happened to them after the war. All I know is that Jesse Tapp lived until 1899 in Hopkins County, Kentucky, where he raised 12 children, including the mother of my great-great-grandmother Dessie Tapp.

What I do know is that slavery touches every branch of my family tree but has never been discussed with me. I grew up with a profound sense of family history. When I was born, three of my great-great grandparents were still alive and I had close relationships with six of my great-grandparents. Many of them had to know of our family's involvement with slavery but due to their own antiquated views on race I'm sure it was nothing they felt required to address. 

I do.

I stated on Facebook recently that watching a fake version of the horrific events of Solomon Northup's life was the least I could do, but it isn't. I can do more. I can share the specific details of my own family's history in an effort to make that history real. Knowing the abstract outlines of our country's history with slavery is not enough, especially when that narrative has been gussied up and dumbed down over time. Reading a history book cannot compare to knowing that a member of your own family owned a two-year-old child.

If the past were “the past” then I would not feel as obligated to share my family's story. However, the truth is I benefit to this day from wealth and resources built upon not only the institution of slavery, but the racist attitudes it perpetuated that still exist. My family had access to land and  education and to societal advancement that was off limits to many because of the color of their skin or – worse – was built upon the labor of those enslaved due to the color of their skin. 

That is the reality we all live with today, no matter what our family's story.

The other reason I wanted to discuss “the past” is because sadly this isn't a story that only exists in the history books of 1860. The United Nations estimates that anywhere between 27 to 30 million people are currently enslaved against their will, including an estimated 5.5 million children. Anyone forced to work against their will either through bonded labor or forced marriage or sex trafficking is enslaved and, despite the illegality of slavery across the world, slavery still exists.

It is not an easy reality to acknowledge, although I would never compare it to the pain of those whose own family members were enslaved. The history of my family is a painful part of my own story and the knowledge that slavery is the story for millions of people across the world is unbearable. It is a complicated and difficult subject about which to talk. However, we have to talk about it. We have to talk about what we can do about it.

We should all see 12 Years A Slave but that cannot be all we do. 

Emerge Kentucky and Pursuing Your Dreams

Today I'm on Her Kentucky sharing where my dreams of public office began.

I remember the first time I considered public office. I was in high school and I was obsessed with Barbra Streisand. I thought it was because I wanted to be an actress. Then, I realized what I really loved about her was her political activism. She seemed to care. People listened to her opinions on important issues.

Now, I realize that Barbra Streisand is a unique choice as a political role model but hey I was 15.

Read the rest on Her Kentucky!

I also wrote my first blog post on the blog for Emerge Kentucky on meeting awesome female legislators in Frankfort.

There is dreaming about leadership. There is planning for leadership. There is being trained for leadership.

Then, there is actually engaging with current women leaders.

Read the rest on Emerge Kentucky's website.