Search the Lounge

Categories

« Memoir, Fiction and the Vanishing Truth: A Complement to Steve Lubet’s Posts on the Peculiar Case of Alice Goffman | Main | Defaulting on Law Student Loans: Cautions and Strategies »

June 08, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Enrique Guerra-Pujol

This is really the worst form of anecdotal reasoning, not worthy of a serious blog ... To the extent Roe v Wade follows from cases like Griswold, one could just as well reach the opposite conclusions as the ones in this post

anon

Not sure I can agree with Enrique's comment: not sure I understand it.

But, I will say that the claim that access to contraception has been meaningfully restricted is, in reality, bogus. THis is a political claim, not a reality.

"The[re] are efforts to isolate contraception from other forms of health care and stigmatize it, much the way that abortion has wrongly been isolated and stigmatized over the years."

Nuff said. This is sort of ridiculous, especially in light of the ACA, and I would suggest reading the Burwell decision, rather than just waiving it around like a bloody shirt.

Proof? Burden is on you. Tell us how many employers have successfully asserted a RFRA exception ala Burwell? Then, tell us the actual cost to the employees of any such employer of being "deprived" of the "right" to the FOUR forms of contraception of the TWENTY PLUS FORMS that plans like Hobby Lobby's covers?

Of course, one who makes a living by dividing us and portraying these issues in hyperbolic and inaccurate terms ("This undermines all women’s autonomy and equality, but low-income women with the fewest resources face the greatest obstacles to reproductive health care, and they suffer the most when attacks are levied.") can't be expected to be objective. I don't expect that, nor fault an advocate for spinning and selectively arguing from exceptions to create the impression of a rule.

But, shouldn't a self-described attorney, holding out views in an academic forum, should either know and fairly portray what Hobby Lobby actually held, and what it didn't hold, and the likely consequences of that decision in the real world, or, should make clear that this is just an advocate's brief?

And, finally, to the rejoinder that this is just a personal piece on the happy occasion of a wedding, posted by a proud father, I would say blessings and happiness. But, if that is all this was, then please leave out the political posturing ... or, accept that some of it isn't really tenable in an objective, fact based debate.

anon

Btw, just in the interest of further truthful disclosures, the measure in DC in question, according to the Wash Post, would have enacted that "Employers also cannot act against an employee when they know she has used medical treatments to initiate or terminate a pregnancy. Some conservatives have interpreted the act to mean that employers in the District, including churches and antiabortion groups such as March for Life, could eventually be required to provide coverage for contraception and abortions."

Again, according to the Wash Post, "The D.C. Council passed a temporary fix to make it clear that religious organizations would not be responsible for such medical care, but Republicans said the fix was insufficient."

But, all this was just a show vote in the House, as, according to the Wash Post "Citing the strong convictions of many House Republicans about the D.C. measure, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) brought the issue to a vote on the floor even though Senate action on a companion measure would not come in time to stop the D.C. bill from becoming law next week."

In other words, "the gap between rights and real access for real women [didn't] widen." Not in the slightest bit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad