Monday, June 30, 2014
Dissapointing Decision From SCOTUS...
Today marks an important day
in America’s history, as the Supreme Court ruled against protecting women’s
rights, and in favor of corporations. Today, decades of work toward equality in
the workforce was pushed aside. In two cases, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga
Wood Specialties v. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that closely-held
corporations could refrain from providing contraceptive coverage for their
female employees due to religious freedom under the RFRA.
There is a long history behind the debate of
religious freedom in both the Supreme Court and Congress. In 1990, the Supreme Court
ruled against recognizing religious exceptions under the First Amendment’s free
exercise clause, which outraged many Americans. Eventually, Congress reversed
the decision. In 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, became
federal law. In fact, it was passed by an almost unanimous Congress. Its goal
was to protect religious freedom under the law, and it is a major component of
the Hobby Lobby case. The RFRA has brought a great deal of conflict in the past
two decades. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was not applicable
to individual states. Many states have since enacted their own RFRA laws. In
fact, in February 2014, Arizona was embroiled in the RFRA conflict when its
conservative politicians hoped to pass a state RFRA. When it came out that this
law would legalize discrimination against the LGBTQ community within the state,
Governor Jan Brewer vetoed it. The Supreme Court decision made today, which
ruled in favor of the RFRA, may cause the greatest outbreak of anger yet.
There has been a continuous battle over birth control in past Supreme Court cases. One case that came to the court in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut, struck down state laws that prohibited the use of birth control by married couples. After that ruling, ten more states allowed for accessible birth control and family planning services. Roe v. Wade, an extremely well-known case, was decided in 1973 and the Supreme Court finally recognized women’s right to choose abortion as a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In 1976, the court struck down state laws that required the consent of parents and spouses in order for women to have an abortion. The successes did not continue, though: in 1989, the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services allowed states to have more freedom in restricting abortion. The Court continued to make more conservative rulings, such as the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey where the court mandated a 24-hour waiting period and a parental-consent provision for minors.
Clearly, the issues of religious freedom and birth control and abortion have been controversial issues leading up to the decision today. In this case, the two issues intersect and pose a constitutional, legal, and moral question in the United States.
In a 5-4 ruling today, Monday June 30th, the Supreme Court decided that for-profit companies that hold strong religious views can opt out of providing contraceptives for their employees. Under The Affordable Care Act, companies are required to cover contraceptives such as Plan B and birth control pills. Hobby Lobby, a furniture company run by Christians, fought against this provision, stating that it violates the first amendment and other laws protecting freedom of religion.
The Supreme Court specified that only closely held for-profit corporations could have religious rights, a description that perfectly fits Hobby Lobby. The Christian owners claim that their beliefs inform their whole company: they play Christian music in their stores and are closed on Sundays. In the owners' eyes, Plan B equates to abortion, and therefore goes against their strongly held morals. Paying for Plan B would be endorsing abortion, an act they could never endorse, given their faith. While Hobby Lobby sees this ruling as a victory for religious freedom, others see it as a defeat.
Those in dissent look at it from an employee’s perspective, and believe that it is unfair that an employer's religious beliefs could be forced on them. Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, stated in a CNN interview that she was disappointed the Supreme Court ruled that "it's absolutely OK for bosses to make personal decisions for women about our health care which we pay for with our labor...it's unacceptable” The court opted to protect the religious entitlement of employers over the religious freedom of employees, not to mention women's rights.
The Supreme Court's decision left many questions: which companies are considered "closely held"? How religious does a company need to be in order to be excused from covering contraceptives? What if religious owners refuse to cover vaccinations, an action that many people believe is against their faith? Furthermore, has anyone noticed that it was 5 male justices who just enacted a law that impacts the lives of millions of women?
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent noting that "the exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage." It is also important to understand that “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." Her comments reveal the sad implications that are sure to come as a result of this decision. She also poses questions about what this means for our future in terms of using religious freedom as an argument: "Would the exemption…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[?]” Ginsburg’s comments reveal that this decision was not unanimous by any means, and necessitates further conversations. There will certainly be an ongoing dialogue surrounding today’s decision.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Robin Thicke Normalizes Harassment and Violence Against Women...Once Again
Robin Thicke’s new song, “Get Her Back,” is extremely problematic, to say the least. Between the lyrics, the music video, and his controversial song “Blurred Lines,” there is a great deal to discuss. First of all, let’s examine the lyrics. While not as blatantly misogynistic and sexually violent as “Blurred Lines,” the lyrics of “Get Her Back” suggest that Thicke will go to all ends, including stalking and harassment, in order to win back the desired woman. He says, “All I wanna do / Is get you back tonight / I gotta get to go, get to go, get her back.” While this line may not explicitly state that he will stalk her, it promotes the idea of a man relentlessly trying to “get” a woman back who broke up with him. To put it simply, this is harassment. He will continue to go to her house (i.e. stalk her) until she agrees to be with him, even though she does not want to be with him. These lyrics promote the misogynistic myth that stalking, though it is never referred to as such, is romantic when a man does it. He literally says, “I'll wait for forever for you to love me again,” implying he will not stop harassing/stalking her until she agrees to love him. These are just samples of the problems with Thicke’s lyrics.
Unfortunately, the music video might be considered even more disturbing than the lyrics. In short, the video shows a sad Thicke singing, sometimes with blood on his face, while also showing a mostly nude woman, wearing lots of make-up, in the background. In some frames, the video only shows her body; in others, it shows her drowning. And, throughout the video, there are texts that appear on the screen that show Thicke explaining he will never back down while the woman repeatedly tells him that their relationship is over. Basically, every part of this music video is problematic. Generally, as common with many music videos, this one sexualizes the woman. She wears a lot of make-up and practically no clothes; in fact, in some shots the camera only shows her buttocks. Also, sometimes she is touching Thicke’s chest in a suggestive manner. Thicke, on the other hand, is shown mostly in close-ups of his face. As was the case with the video for “Blurred Lines,” this video emphasizes the sexuality of the woman.
This music video also focuses on violence against woman. Thicke has blood on his face, implying that there was some sort of fight between the couple. If that was not enough, the woman is shown drowning in a series of repeated shots nearing the end of the video. Is this implying that Thicke is fantasizing about her drowning? Or is it showing that she cannot live without him? Either way, it disempowers the woman and punishes her for her choice to break up with Thicke.
For me, one of the most scary and real parts of the video is the addition of the text messages that appear on screen throughout it. The first one reads, “I kept trying to warn you you were pushing me too far…” This text already sets up the music video to be extremely disturbing. If this text is directed at the woman, it reads as Thicke blaming her as an excuse for something. If read as the woman texting him, the more likely situation since she ended things with him, it shows that Thicke “pushed” her too far, which could mean there was a violence, or emotional abuse, in the relationship. The texts show that this woman clearly does not want to see him, yet the last text reads, “This is just the beginning,” and the video shows Thicke walking away from the camera. He implies that he will not relent until she takes him back, which is a scary thought.
Overall, this song is disturbing. It normalizes harassment and stalking while showing Thicke as a hopeless romantic who will not give up rather than a truly frightening ex. If I could say one thing to Thicke, it would be that he can make hit songs without the use of violent, sexist imagery and lyrics. Maybe eventually he will understand how his songs disempower women.
-Emily Schacter
Unfair Expectations of Hilary’s “Brand”
Since the start of Hillary Clinton’s new book tour, there has been a discussion regarding her new “brand,” or lack thereof, and how it could affect her chance at the 2016 presidency. On Wednesday, Martha Pease wrote an opinion piece, “Hillary Clinton's disappointing book rollout,” for CNN. She discusses how Clinton could have used this book tour as an opportunity to prove herself as a more likable, relatable candidate, who is less concentrated on herself and more focused on potential voters. While Pease brings up valid points, the need for a “brand” seems to be geared towards women as a way to show themselves as warm, approachable candidates. Yes, these traits are important, but women are typically scrutinized for them. Pease reveals interesting statistics for Hillary: “in a recent WSJ/NBC survey: 55% people rate her as competent, but 60% don't see her as likable.” Pease repeatedly notes that Clinton is “amazingly qualified,” yet she still lacks some sort of friendly component. This argument begs the question: if Clinton was a man, would there still be this kind of discussion? Pease also mentions that “leaders influence and persuade best when they connect to people first with warmth, followed with competency,” but this brings up a double standard. In order for women to show they are competent, they must show they can take a hard stance on certain topics. Women have to show voters that they are qualified and, sometimes, leave emotions out of it in order to gain legitimacy. While doing so, they are supposed to brand themselves as warm. Men are assumed to be qualified and therefore have an easier time showing compassion without the risk of being labeled as weak. So yes, perhaps Hillary could have used this tour as an opportunity to win over more voters, but it is absolutely necessary that this discussion leads to a broader conversation about the expectations of women candidates for office.
-Emily Schacter
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Summit on Working Families
On Monday,
June 23rd, 2014, the White House Council on Women and Girls, The Department of
Labor, and the Center for American Progress hosted a Summit on Working
Families. The Summit convened policymakers, economists, advocates, business leaders,
and workers to discuss policy solutions which can strengthen the economy
through strengthening the stability of the working family. Though working
families were the topic of discussion, the focus unsurprisingly often came upon
working women, who would be disproportionately affected by the policy solutions
discussed.
Working
families are increasingly dependent on the income of women to make ends meet.
Reported at
the summit, women today make up 47% of the workforce with married women bringing
home 44% of their families’ income on average and 40% of mothers acting as the
sole or primary source of income for the household. However, policy fails to
guarantee that workers will experience equal pay or equal protection in the
workplace or will have the flexibility to maintain a healthy work/family life
balance. As stated in the description of the event, the special focus on women
is merited because while “all workers will directly benefit from better workplace
policy, the impact will be greatest for working women and their families.”
The White
House Council of Economic Advisors released three reports relevant to the discussions
of the Summit, “Nice Facts about American Families and Work”, “The Economics of
Paid and Unpaid Leave” and “Work-Life Balance and the Economics of Workplace Flexibility”,
which laid the foundation for a conversation of how policy can ensure that for American
workers. The Summit proposed “A Year of Action”, a collection of policy priorities
for the next year which would change the workplace to support the changing
demographics of working families. Goals include expanding workplace flexibility
and empowering workers, increasing access to affordable childcare, making
progress toward solutions for paid leave, closing the pay gap by increasing
access to non-traditional occupations, expanding tax credits that support
working families, and encouraging the private sector in efforts to bring
solutions to more workplaces. Policy solutions implied by these goals include
but are not limited to increasing access to paid parental leave and paid sick
leave, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit and
guaranteeing access to universal preschool programs.
If the Summit
were successful in achieving its goals, America’s workers, especially women, would
experience a dramatic shift in their economic stability and freedom. However,
the politics surrounding these policies may obstruct the path to success.
Despite the vast majority of Americans supporting policies like paid sick
leave, American Prospect author
Sharon Lerner points out these policy suggestions have faced decades of political
turmoil in “Get Sick, Get Fired: America’s Low-Wage Workers Push Back”. If this
deadlocked Congress fails to make progress in strengthening workplace policy in
the coming months, this midterm election cycle may be America’s chance to elect
a Congress who will.
Allysha Roth, MWPC Intern
Friday, June 20, 2014
Boston Idea Week- The Boston Brand Event Summary
As part of the
Innovation Districts’ Boston Idea Week, an interactive discussion was held on
Wednesday, June 18th at the Courthouse Station about how the Boston Brand has
been affected by the busing crisis of the 1970’s and the city’s history of
racism. Boston City Councilor Ayanna Pressley, a former MWPC Board Member and endorsed candidate, kicked off the event with a brief speech on the various ways she is
trying to make Boston more welcoming to communities of color through
legislation. She said that in order to really make progress on this issue
people have to come together and “be willing to have an uncomfortable
conversation” and be honest about the history of race in Boston. The discussion
that followed, moderated by the Boston Globe’s Meghan Irons who posed questions to
The Boston Busing/Desegregation Project’s Donna Bivens and President of the
Boston NAACP Michael Curry, repeatedly returned to the question of how to start
that conversation. There seems to be a universal acceptance that approaching
the controversial topic of race with frankness, openness and honesty is key
towards creating equal access to education and reducing the impact of racism.
However, the key to starting those conversations amongst great division remains
up in the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
