Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia
Posted In Politics

The Republican War Against Women

ContraceptionIf you don’t think that Catholic and evangelical leaders are waging a new war against contraception, then you aren’t paying close attention.  Even two years ago, I would have scoffed at the notion that any group would think it was feasible or advisable to take a public stand against contraception.  With very large majorities of Americans in favor of contraception, and the Women’s Rights Movement—which arose in part to obtain women’s right to use contraception, so that women would not have their lives dictated by biology—in the rearview mirror, it seemed to me to be just the sort of misogynist position that was beyond the pale in the 21st century.  I was wrong.

Catholic and evangelical leaders are even now feverishly lobbying and funding public relations experts and lawyers in an attempt to avoid having for-profit corporations include women’s contraception in their health plans.  Apparently, these religious organizations’ war chests are so deep that poverty, education, and care for the homeless are well-covered, freeing them to try to turn the clock back to when women, in their eyes, were just as women ought to be.  This is only the newest attack on women’s rights to obtain contraception, however, as the same forces had already been propounding so-called “conscience clauses” in the various states and the federal government in order to permit health care professionals (e.g., pharmacists) to refuse to hand over contraception.

These forces’ latest move is to urge Republicans to sneak into the proposals that were flying back and forth between the House and Senate to avoid a government shutdown, an amendment to Obamacare, delaying its effect, and including permission to employers to refuse to pay for contraception “based on religious or moral objections.”  Few noted the proposed amendment, except CNN, in the heat of the impending government shutdown, which did indeed happen.

This is not simply a move to ensure that contraception isn’t paid for; it is an all-out war on women.  This is the pushback to the feminist revolution, and it is being fostered by the religious organizations that believe that women should be subservient to men, because that is God’s plan, and should never hold positions of power.  In the dictionary, it’s easy to find such views: Just look under misogyny.

Make no mistake.  Every believer has the right to believe such beliefs and to propound them in the public sphere.  I have no brief against their right to such beliefs.  They have no right, however, to my respect for the belief itself, and I have none.  My religious beliefs do not include opposition to contraception, or the subjugation of women.  To the contrary, my religious beliefs dictate women’s equality, equal dignity, and the right to choose when to have a family.  Thus, the views I express in this column are not “secular,” but rather deeply religious, though in direct opposition to other religious views.

Let us return to those halcyon days when contraception was illegal in the states.  Women could not choose when or whether to have their children, and, therefore, their fertility dictated their choices, their careers, and their contributions to the society.  Women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and to please the “breadwinner” in the house.  At the time, being a mother was the worthiest goal to which the most gifted Ivy League female grad could aspire, while law and medical school classes were predominantly male.

The current generation of female college students would laugh if they read it now, but in the 1970s, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, in all seriousness, advised women that, “[i]f marriage is to be a successful institution, it must…have an ultimate decision maker, and that is the husband.”  These relations, Schlafly claimed, are dictated by God, as “[i]t is self-evident…that the female body with its baby-producing organs was not designed by a conspiracy of men but by the Divine Architect of the human race.”  Schafly was laughable in the 70s, but the essentially misogynist views that she proselytized then are now getting fresh air with the Republicans’ continuing pandering to the religious far right.

I could have sworn that women (and therefore the broader society) won those battles and that we were done debating contraception.  Under Griswold v. Connecticut, decided in 1965, it is your right to use it, without government interference.  And your employer (if there are more than 15 employees in the workplace in which you work) may not discriminate against you based on your religious beliefs, which means that health care should be based on health policy, not on religious litmus tests.

The religious lobbyists and their public relations folks drape all of this misogyny in “religious liberty” rhetoric, but that is a misnomer.  This debate is much deeper and more troubling, because it involves those religious groups that historically have insisted, and even now still insist, on keeping women in their place, and who are trying to shape healthcare in their own religious image.  And what they oppose on this issue and others, frankly, is female autonomy.

Women, this latest move by the Republicans in the very midst of the fight over the budget and Obamacare, is a clarion call to pay attention.  Don’t whisper amongst yourselves, but speak loudly to your elected representatives.  The war for women’s equality and liberty is not over, as long as the Republican Party is still the party of the 1970s, of women’s oppression, and of a front for religious men who are intent on controlling women’s destiny and identity.

Marci A. HamiltonMarci A. Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, and the author of God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty and Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children. She also runs two active websites covering her areas of expertise, the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, www.RFRAperils.com, and statutes of limitations for child sex abuse, www.sol-reform.com. Professor Hamilton blogs at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights. Her email address is hamilton02@aol.com.
Print this page
  • Chika Dee

    This is the truth behind all of this War on Women – but conservatives are trying to avoid admitting it openly because they too cowardly to admit they fear women and our freedom.

  • thomaspainelives

    You scream about the “woman’s right to choose” yet won’t let religious organizations choose what they want to fund. Kind of bigoted there.

    • Greg Tingey

      Funding deliberat oppression, you mean?

    • Arlene Gysler

      thomaspayne – I agree with you – some people stand in the middle of the road and can only see one side of it. Why is this? They also pick up phrases like ‘war on women’. What???

  • johndowdle

    I am a humanist and secularist. I have studied levels of religiosity in the USA and the conclusion I come to is that extreme economic inequality and the absence of social welfare provision are what keep the US churches in business.
    In Europe – and, in particular, the Scandinavian countries – religious consumption is at lower levels than the USA. Increased levels of secularism in our European societies are due to much better state welfare provision than in the USA.
    In Britain, we have had a national health service since the late 1940s.
    The fact that the USA is only now – more than 50 years later – beginning to catch us up is little short of astonishing. If we understand social welfare provision as representing a threat to church power then it begins to become understandable.
    US religionists are determined to keep social welfare provision to a minimum.
    They would like to see it abolished entirely and replaced by a system in which ordinary people have to beg for handouts from church organisations.
    This situation reinforces their power and control over the mass of US citizens.
    Shutting down the federal government undermines many highly important science-based research activities, which suits tea party crackpots and church businesses alike. Falling academic standards within public education systems brings ordinary people back within the remit of religious businesses so that they can promote and purvey the ritual superstitions they have always relied upon to carry out their traditional role of social control on behalf of societal rulers.

  • Sam Webb

    The real issue is abortion. I’m not against devices or pills that prevent conception but abortion is the killing of a human being. If you don’t want children, take preventive measures. It’s not that difficult – there are many available ways to keep from getting pregnant. It’s a horror in our society

  • Andrew Kartchner

    I am deeply disappointed in Professor Hamilton’s irresponsible coverage of the issue here. Professor Hamilton makes offer no evidence, only bare conclusions, that religious employers’ opposition to the HHS Mandate is “misnomer,” designed to vale the deep, dark intentions of religious men to “control[] women’s destiny and identity.” To marginalize serious religious liberty arguments by demonizing their proponents is intellectually lazy, rhetorically unpersuasive, and obviously partisan. She sounds much more like a politician fighting over the government shutdown than a professor at a distinguished law school. There are reasonable arguments against the religious liberty claims made in the HHS Mandate cases, but this article does not even resemble them.

    • Arlene Gysler

      Andrew K. – thank you – you said it better.

  • Arlene Gysler

    I think she’s blown this totally out of context. The fact that employers don’t want to be forced to pay for their employees contraception does not make them a hater of, or a demeanor of women. I understand that in the Obama bill men who carry his medical insurance are also forced to pay for female type coverage. You don’t find this appalling? When I pay for insurance, I want insurance that covers me, period.
    I realize that Ms. Hamilton, as a professor of law and an author must see her name in print from time to time, but I think she has chosen a poor subject in which to air her legal expertise this time. And we were discussing CONTRACEPTION not
    ABORTION. And I see no war on women in the refusal to provide something to women who are gainfully employed and financially able to provide for themselves.

  • CamilleFilarsky

    My dear, your type of radical feminism has had young women running away from it for four decades. When will you and your ilk ever learn???

 

Access this column at http://j.st/Z59S