Why Women Aren't People (But Corporations Are)

they are complying with the law under your scenario.

You've never had any problem being a rank hypocrite, cj.

Worth the time to read...

Slut-shaming for the righteous
Posted on Tuesday, July 1 at 5:12pm | By Mark Morford

I suppose the good news is, more women are flocking to the Democratic party than ever before.

Which is precisely the intent behind the spread of hysterical claims and flat out lies.

I suppose the good news is, the vast majority of young people – who are, on the whole, always more progressive/less uptight than their elders – are completely repulsed, if not outright infuriated, by the fact that women’s rights are still under such antiquated duress, as exemplified by how any half-brained company that happens to be owned by fundamentalist zealots can now deny vital health benefits to women (and only to women, tellingly), simply because the owners have a pinched, regressive view of God.

Four contraceptives will not be paid for by Hobby Lobby and this constitutes all women's rights (not just those of female employees of Hobby Lobby) coming under antiquated duress. Notice the lack of respect for a completely reasonable religious belief: the killing of unborn children via abortion is immoral. For far too many people in this country, holding an opinion with which they disagree means not simply being misinformed or wrong, it means being prehistoric, defective and evil. I, of course contend that this is particularly true with liberals, but acknowledge that conservatives are not immune to it. In any case, with this liberal, it gets better:

Quote:

Did you know the owners of Hobby Lobby – which, by the way, is one of the most depressing, third-rate retail dystopias you’ll ever visit and you should avoid their stores at all costs, now more than ever – did you know the owners, being evangelical billionaires, have spent hundreds of millions trying to turn the nation into a cluster of regressive, Bible-thumping literalist simpletons? True.

What the hell is a retail dystopia, and what the hell is relevant about a smug blogger's assessment of these stores? Of course someone like this finds these stores depressing. Don't the millions of women who shop there know how bourgeois and banal arts & crafts are? Scrapbooks? How gauche!

Of course to the author, any evangelical activity is evil and so it's not surprising that he would demonize the activities of David Green, founder of Hobby Lobby. What is true, is that Green has donated approx $500 million of the fortune he has amassed by catering to the terribly unsophisticated tastes of millions of Americans; largely women and children, to evangelical ministries. He has also distributed approx 1.4 billion Bibles in 100 countries. Apparently, the author, is privy to information unavailable to the rest of us, and obtained from his loony leftist hotline that these ministries are engaged in brainwashing activities and the Bibles and associated literature dispensed contains subliminal messages guaranteed to turn unsuspecting readers into Christian automatons. It's true though. He says so.

Quote:

Did you know they have done this because, as history clearly shows, basing a nation’s core values on an childish reading of a tedious, violently outdated book written (and re-re-rewritten) by highly neurotic old men thousands of years ago has worked so well in the past? Also true.

The Bible is tedious. Now he's a literary critic. And of course its true that the authors of the Bible were "highly neurotic old men"

This guy has connections! Not only is he privy to the secrets of the Green Family Christian Zombie Conspiracy, he actually knows the identities (including gender and age - and probably that they were all white as well) and pyschological profiles of the authors of the Bible!

He's apparently even a theologian having arrived at the conclusion that basing one's morality on the teachings of Jesus and those nasty Old Testement commandments like "Thous shall not kill," requires a "childish" reading of the Bible.

But here's the topper:

Quote:

Found in the Hobby Lobby's craft kit (courtesy @themightylayman)

I'm providing the source of this image, along with a couple of others, at the end of this post so you can see that the Hobby Layman (aka themightylayman) is not providing something taken from any actual Hobby Lobby scrapbook kit. While some will no doubt argue that the inclusion of the image was intended, all along, to be farcial, based on the hyperbolic invective the author uses, I'm certainly not so sure of it was. Hey, if someone doesn't get the joke and believes this is actually part of Hobby Lobby Christian propoganda, so much the better.

Quote:

But never mind that now: The (potentially) good news is that sometimes, when a demoralizing shocker like the Hobby Lobby decision comes down the wire, the end result isn’t always what you think. Sometimes the end result can, in fact, turn toward a powerful positive, a potent boomerang counter-effect in exactly the right direction. You think?

Wait, how can that be? Didn't Justice Ginsberg warn us all that this decision was going to open the floodgates to the repression of women's reproductive rights?

Quote:

But wait, let’s not be too quick to whistle past the cultural graveyard. It’s downright appalling to learn that, in 2014, five out of the nine wisest legal minds in the land wouldn’t laugh off a fundamentalist challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate as blatantly offensive to the integrity of the modern era.

Not wanting to pay for 4 out of 20 mandated contraceptives is a fundamental challenge to Obamacare's birth control mandate? Considering that the constitutionality of the mandate itself was never in question, and Hobby Lobby never sought to have it tossed in it's entirety, nor did the Court do so, the exaggeration inherent in this statement is obvious. The claim that it is offensive to the integrity of the modern era is simply incoherent.

Quote:

The fact that we’re still stuck with this old, male SCOTUS majority telling us that extremist misreadings of the Bible trump modern science and basic women’s health (not to mention how birth control coverage is actually great for business), well, it makes every woman I know cringe in deep cervical pain.

Great writing heh? I think he's trying to say that believing in the sanctity of human life and considering fertilized eggs to be human life is an extremist view that is contrary to science and a threat to women's health. I'm sure that in his circles everyone including all the women whose cervices hurt when they contemplate the conservative Supreme Court justices, agree that it is an extremist view point. Gee, Morford, no kidding? I have to wonder though who the scientists in his network are; who agree that this belief has been debunked by science. Once again, keep in mind that the case is about not paying for four of twenty contraceptives...based on what rationale can these four contraceptives be essential or even mildly important to basic women's health? I also think he's trying to say that Hobby Lobby and, I guess, the 5 justices who are clearly in the pocket of Big Business, should appreciate that birth control is good for business because it keeps women from going off on maternity leave. Well, that may be, but Hobby Lobby has all along been willing to pay for 16 other means of birth control so once again:This case has never been, whether through the defendant's arguments or the Court's ultimate decision, about the virtues of birth control and whether or not women should be allowed to use it.

Quote:

But as Amanda Marcotte over at Slate smartly points out, the Hobby Lobby decision is likely a short-lived victory for the Christian Right. The extreme narrowness of the decision, which almost fetishistically focuses on sex (and which spawned a truly epic dissent from the awesome Ruth Bader Ginsberg), congeals the entirety of the Right’s ideology around a single, panicky obsession: sexually active females.

More great writing. On the one hand he acknowledges the very narrow focus of the decision (although in a perverse and inaccurate way), while on the other he fulsomely praises Ginsberg for a dissent that takes the entirely opposite position. In his desire to set up a rant about a right-wing puritanical obsession, predicated upon repressed sexual urges, he obviously doesn't realize that acknowledging the narrowness of the decision evicerates most, if not, all of his overblown charges.

Quote:

Oh, Christians. Still with the vagina obsession? Could you be more predictable?

And with this, could Morford be more predictable?

Quote:

Put another way, by expending so much effort attacking women WRT a very narrow slice of the Affordable Care Act, the entire fundamentalist movement becomes even more trite, shrill and historically irrelevant. You can bet on it.

He should have stuck with the "first way" this "other" way is no more coherent. Obviously I don't run with this guy's fellow travelers, because I don't know what he means by "WRT," but the logic of this argument is incredibly telling: By reasonable limiting it's focus on only four contraceptives (and winning the case by the way) the entire fundamentalist movement (because as we all know Hobby Lobby the company is only a front for this cabal) has not demonstrated reasonable restraint, it has become even more trite, shrill and irrelvant. You may want to bet on that ridiculous conclusion, but I'll save my money for a better wager, like the sun rising in the west tomorrow.

Quote:

Don’t believe me? Just observe how badly the Christian right lost the battle – and soon the war – over gay marriage, the defining cultural issue of the last 30 years, and perhaps the last core American civil liberty. The epic Prop 8 fight left the GOP’s extremist base tattered, fragmented, furious that their leaders failed to stomp out the evil “gay agenda” (AKA “love”).

Well of course Democrats and other liberals are going to conflate this attack on women with attacks on gay. All part of the intent.

Quote:

To make amends and shore up the “angry bigot” vote, the GOP quickly made the (very bizarre) decision to jump back on the warpath against their once-timid old nemesis, an enemy that has now become, much to their confusion, the most potent foe imaginable: women.

This is just too fatuous to comment upon beyond noting that it's filled with all the sort of lurid buzz words and tropes we've come to expect.

Quote:

Open threats to Planned Parenthood, forcing abortion clinics in numerous states to close, limiting access for the poor, forcing women in regressive (southern) states to go across state lines for abortion services, or resort to DIY abortions (already happening, in Texas)? The GOP has done it all. They’ve attacked Wendy Davis, savaged Hillary (eternally), mocked Sandra Fluke and openly hated upon, with all their might, Obama and his birth control mandate. Just for starters.

But here’s the bottom line: It’s a tactic, and a platform, that’s as hostile as it is doomed.

Whether or not there are nuggets of valid concerns contained in this, they are overwhelmed by the preceding hyperbolic ranting, and hypocritical charges of uncivil behavior: Mocking Sandra Fluke, savaging Hillary, and "hating upon" Obama. See, this is the sort of behavior that reveals the evil that festers in the hearts of conservatives. You never see this sort of behavior among liberals. Never! And if you do, it's not because of any master plan in a war they're waging, it's because of the evil nature of their conservative opponents. Righties deserve it, and they are forcing liberals to do it, although Lord knows it pains them so.

(Two paragraphs of this screed deleted because it's just more of the same)

Quote:

Let’s make one thing clear: It’s very likely the Hobby Lobby decision will cause an ugly rash of similar “privately held” companies to demand a bit of that ol’ Christian misogyny of their very own. Indeed, Mother Jones listed 71 companies who want similar birth control exceptions as Hobby Lobby. And it could get worse.

This after acknowledging that the decision was narrow. This after decrying the nasty "mocking," savaging," and "hating upon" of the conservatives.

And "indeed" good old reliable Mother Jones has confirmed what i heard on NPR and revealed that 71 companies want similar birth control exceptions! It really is a tidal wave of Christian, misogynist oppression of women!

Quote:

But imagine if a large private employer – IKEA or Walmart, say – were to declare a similar restriction on women’s health. My guess (hope?) is the public outcry would be deafening. I might be wrong, but I think most big-name companies would never risk the negative publicity, much less be dumb enough to declare that Jesus thinks women shouldn’t be having all that icky, irresponsible sex in the first place. In fact, most companies, if they value their future, are smart enough to go in the other direction, and more aggressively support women’s rights as a core business value.

More brilliance. Neither IKEA nor Walmart qualify as closely held companies. This decision could not be used in support of any such action by them.

And the terms and phrases he throws around. "Restriction on women's health" What does that mean? Forget that it's absurd to consider the inability of having your company pay for 4 of 20 contraceptive much of a restriction of any kind, how does it constitute a restriction on anyone's health?

Quote:

Hence, the birth control mandate might remain restricted to small, backwater companies you’ve never heard of, as meanwhile women continue to take over and shift the cultural discussion entirely. And if Hillary (or similar) takes the Big Chair in 2016? What a delight to watch all the crusty males of the Supreme Court – and much of the fundamentalist GOP – whimper and shrivel into oblivion.

I don't think "hence" means what this guy thinks it means.

I didn't realize just how poorly written this article is until I got past the first paragraph, and it just kept getting worse and worse. It would be easy to dismiss this dreck as the ranting of someone who is desperate to be seen as a major player in the war to defend women, but despite how amateurish it is, it has all of the hallmarks of a much better crafted, but equally intellectually dishonest criticism of this decision that can be found in sources like the NY Times, Salon, The Nation, whatever vehicle is made available to spokeswomen for NOW and any number of other left-wing feminist organizations and on the lips of Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

Hyperbole by the kilo
Fear-mongering (You know, that thing liberals always accuse Republicans of)
Buzz-words by the gross
Pretzel logic
Conflation of epic proportions
Lies and gross mischaracterization
Insults.

the mighty layman
Wiki-David Green
Seattle Times

Like what some people do about Islam, eh?

Hey everybody! Coldpuke is letting us know about her teeny weenie. Go ahead **** for brains, correct my spelling.

right wing Christians are in total agreement with extreme Muslims

Sandra Fluke was the first to expire. Before her death at New York Presbyterian, she hoarsely whispered: "I wanted only to continue having sex the same number of times I did in law school, while studying for the Law Boards - just 25-30 times a month. Was it too much to ask that my $8,000 a summer contraceptive Jones be taken care of by that lousy school I was slaving away at?"

Care to point out where I said such a thing?

Nothing is preventing them from using their birth control method of choice. They are just asking to not pay for some of them.

They are offering insurance that doesn't cover something but the covered person is free to pay for it themselves. That is exactly what you said.