Tag Archives: supreme court decision

Private Parts are Private for a Reason

STOP putting chastity belts onI believe every one is entitled to his/her opinion, moral stances, religious beliefs, the works, but I also believe every one (man and woman) should have full authority of their body and being.

My body has no room for government, employers, or anyone else for that matter putting their nose (or anything else) where it doesn’t belong. After all…my privates — my privacy.

As Roe v. Wade marks its 42nd Anniversary today with hundreds of wonderful activists celebrating at the Supreme court this afternoon, these women and men of the feminism movement are standing strong as the House of Representatives votes on the HR7 bill, or the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”—a bill that would make it nearly impossible for women to access insurance coverage that includes abortion. I’m proud to be apart of this movement and the steadfast approach to protecting what is rightfully mine, which includes, but is not limited to, whether or not I want to birth and raise a child.
Objections to Roe v. Wade are nothing new. Even 42 years later, states have been putting figurative chastity belts on laws allowing a woman’s right to choose. Some of these overly complex mandates include a mandatory “waiting period” that force women to make regular clinic visits (and spend more money), unnecessary regulations on the facilities that often force those clinics to close their doors, and bans on insurance coverage which increase the out-of-pocket cost of the procedure—many of them, an average women cannot fulfill (because of the ever-present wage gap, another conversation for another day.)

Take action to protect our private parts, they’re private for a reason!  

Now, I know this is a rather radical post here on the Shattered Slipper, but an important one nonetheless. Let’s continue this conversation in the comments.


Just when you think we’re moving two steps forward…this happens

from feministing.com

from feministing.com

I’m sure most of you are aware, that today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that private companies can refuse to provide contraception medication to their employees based on the company’s religious beliefs. Seriously.  First, I didn’t know companies could have religious beliefs, thought only people could. You know, like women, they’re people. Next, do these religious companies only hire people that mirror those beliefs? If so, isn’t that called employment discrimination? Problemo, numero dos, señor.

To be clear it’s not just about the refusal of the medication, it’s that the government and bosses (which, ew) have rummaged their way into how a woman is going to protect her body, again, HER body. Frankly, it’s none of their damn business to know why a woman takes certain medication, just like it’s none of an employers business to know that a man over 60 requires Viagra to, ahem, keep his wife happy. IT’S AN INVASION OF PRIVACY, hellur.

Also, I don’t think on a job interview a woman should have to ask a health benefit question like, “Do you provide birth control because it’s a medical necessity for my Endometriosis.” Many forget that women don’t just take the pill to protect themselves from becoming pregnant or subsiding a heavy flow, but also for medical necessity. (Dysmenorrhea, Endometriosis, etc.). Through this ruling, women are being punished for being women and that sex has been framed as a crime punishable with pregnancy.

The red lining gets thicker, those Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood’s mandate were all men. Which you know, infuriates me because just when you think women are taking two steps forward in society, five men wearing robes move us 10 steps back. It’s another example of how our cultural history of having a lack of female representation still creates further shockwaves of inequality.

This one ruling will send a spiral of random “religious beliefs” leaching out of the woodwork of greedy corporations like, “I (because companies are now people, remember) don’t believe in paying people money for their work, I’d rather pay them in banana chips.” But on a more serious note, could corporations stop providing healthcare coverage for LGBTQ people, women who have children out of wedlock, people who have STDs? This one ruling could open up a slew of issues where people’s health and wellness are jeopardized in favor a companies keeping more money in their pockets. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, can’t say she didn’t warn us in her dissent statement today, “the court I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” They better come up with a Plan B.