I never bring politics into my fannish space, and I'm reluctant to do so today, the day before I leave on a long trip where I may or may not have internet access. But today's Supreme Court decision is a culmination of a long, disturbing national discussion on women's right to reproductive care in the United States. My freedom to do as I please with my body is too fundamental for me to remain quiet. First, we need to understand that this is not a decision about corporations, insurance, or religious freedom. It's about restricting what women are allowed to do with their bodies. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, politicians and corporations have been debating how reproductive services should be covered -- but none of that debate included men's medications or procedures, like Viagra or vasectomies. When women demand coverage for birth control, they get called sluts on national television. Social discourse accuses them of wanting their government and employers to pay for their promiscuity. Birth control treats a variety of medical issues beyond preventing pregnancy, but Viagra serves no purpose except to insure that a man can have all the sex he wants. Vasectomies serve no purpose except to enable men to have sex without making babies. Yet, the birth control women want is controversial; the birth control men want is unquestioned. Second, we need to understand that Hobby Lobby's entire stance against Plan B and IUD's is based on a faulty definition of pregnancy and abortion. According to science, pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. Science uses this definition because a lot of fertilized eggs -- up to fifty percent, in fact -- never implant in the uterus at all, even without medical interference. Plan B and IUD's work primarily by preventing eggs from being fertilized in the first place, and they may also prevent some fertilized eggs from implanting. Neither one can terminate an existing pregnancy, and medicine does not consider them abortifacients. Hobby Lobby has manufactured their own definition of pregnancy and abortion, and they use it to restrict what types of birth control their employees can access. Third, many women have good reason to favor IUD's. IUD's can benefit women who cannot tolerate the higher hormonal doses found in birth control pills. They're also great for women whose schedules don't permit them to take a pill at the same time every day -- for instance, ladies who work erratic shifts at two different jobs trying to make ends meet, or women who travel often for business. IUD's can also have medical benefits. For example, they are the only non-surgical way to shrink uterine fibroids, benign tumors that can wreak havoc on a woman's menstrual cycle, cause anemia, and inflict debilitating pain. These are just a few examples about why women might need IUDs instead of the birth control that Hobby Lobby covers, but the truth is, it shouldn't matter why women want them. Bogus definitions of pregnancy and abortion shouldn't limit the types of birth control a woman can access. Fourth, allowing an employer's religion to determine insurance coverage sets a bad precedent. Some religions believe that whole blood products, like blood transfusions, violate their faith. Few of us would accept that those employers should deny coverage for surgeries and blood transfusions because of it. Others may hold that any medical treatment is a violation of God's will, but we don't allow those employers to deny their employees insurance. If Hobby Lobby were a non-profit group devoted solely to promoting their interpretation of Christianity, the situation might be different. However, they're a for-profit institution that operates in the public sector and draws employees from a variety of different faiths. We can't allow them to use their religion to dictate insurance coverage unless we're prepared to allow all companies with religious owners to do the same. Finally, I'd like to address an argument I've seen several times on the internet today: that insurance shouldn't cover Plan B because women should take responsibility for their own mistakes. This argument is flawed on two fronts. One, Plan B covers women who, through no fault of their own, are at risk of becoming pregnant. Women who have been raped are an obvious example. Second, insurance covers all kinds of health mistakes. Having a car accident is certainly a mistake, but even if you're texting while driving, your insurance will cover your treatment. If you get drunk, fall down the stairs, and break your leg, insurance pays for that. Even though insurance pays for preventative care, you're still covered if you fail to take advantage of it, let your cholesterol skyrocket, and have a heart attack. The fact is, accidents happen even to people who are doing their absolute best to be responsible. Condoms break. Birth control pills get forgotten. Just because those "mistakes' happen in a sexual context doesn't mean they deserve less insurance coverage. The fact is, we aren't debating whether employers should be able to deny coverage for blood transfusions because men need blood transfusions too. We aren't debating whether insurance should cover mistakes like car accidents or heart attacks that arise from unhealthy lifestyles because men make those "mistakes" too. Only treatment that women need is being debated by our corporations and our government. That's not right.
