SF Supv. David Chiu, Dr. Ellen Shaffer, Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign; Shivana Jorawar, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; Jenny Lam, Chinese for Affirmative Action; Preeti Shekar, Alliance of South Asians Taking Action; Dr. Pratima Gupta, Physicians for Reproductive Health; Chelsea Gelbart, NARAL CA

Since 2011, far-right politicians have been deceptively and stealthily passing abortion bans on the backs of Asian American women. Such laws were the second most-proposed abortion ban in 2013. They have been proposed in 21 states and are the law in 8 states, and the ban was recently introduced in California.These politicians are saying that Asians Americans do not value girl children and that, because of us, the country needs to pass “sex-selective abortion bans.” This is a strategic ruse; they do not care about women’s equality. In fact, these are the same politicians who vote time and time again against things like equal pay and anti-domestic violence laws. The bans are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

In addition to attacking women’s health, these bans promote negative racial stereotypes. Worse, Asian American women may be turned away at their doctor’s office because doctors are afraid to provide abortion care to us, lest they be sent to jail.

On September 9, President of the Board of Supervisors David Chiu introduced a resolution condemning these abortion bans. At a press conference on Sept. 9, 2014, Board President Chiu announced that Supervisors Breed, Cohen, Kim and Tang are co-sponsoring the measure. It states:

Opposing “Sex-Selective Abortion Bans”

Resolution affirming San Francisco’s opposition to “Sex-Selective Abortion Bans” that perpetuate racial stereotypes.

WHEREAS, In 2014, sex-selective abortion bans have become the second-most proposed abortion ban in the United States, introduced in 21 states and passed in 8 states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Arizona, and South Dakota.

WHEREAS, A sex-selective abortion ban prohibits abortions performed on the basis of sex; doctors who perform such a procedure could face jail time, fines or lawsuits from a patient or her spouse, parent, sibling or guardian; a doctor or nurse who suspects a patient is seeking a sex-selective abortion is required to report her to authorities;

WHEREAS, Lawmakers across the country have successfully advocated for sex-selective abortion bans by perpetuating false and harmful racial stereotypes that such laws are necessary to stop an influx of Asian immigrants from spreading this practice and that Asian American communities do not value the lives of women;

WHEREAS, Sex-selective abortion bans encourage racial profiling of women by some medical providers, can lead to the denial of reproductive health care services to women by some medical providers, and lead to further stigmatization of women, particularly Asian American women;

WHEREAS, In 2012, a sex-selective abortion ban was proposed in the U.S. Congress, benignly named the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, and in February 2014, a similar measure was proposed by California State Assembly, AB 2336 by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove;

           WHEREAS, Some versions of sex-selective abortion bans have also included a race-selective ban, that would ban abortions performed on the basis of race and are based on suggestions that African American women are not capable of responsible reproductive health decisions and that abortion providers have a racist agenda;

WHEREAS, The State of Arizona is currently facing a lawsuit brought against its race-and sex-selective ban by the American Civil Liberties Union, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, for being unconstitutionally discriminatory against African American and Asian American women;

WHEREAS, A coalition of Asian American and reproductive rights, health and justice organizations has formed to educate the public about the stereotyping inherent in sex-selective abortion bans, to condemn the rhetoric of ban advocates as deeply offensive, and to organize to defeat such discriminatory policies;

WHEREAS, No city or state in the country has yet taken a position to publicly oppose sex-selective abortion bans; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urges the California State Legislature to reject any future attempts to pass a state sex-selective abortion ban; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, The San Francisco Board of Supervisors calls upon other cities, states and the federal government to likewise reject these discriminatory measures.

The Supreme Court’s majority decision in the case of Hobby Lobby et al. presents serious threats to women’s rights, to the public’s health and the public order. Efforts to override the decision at the state and federal levels require energetic support.

As the dissent by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, supported by dissenting Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, notes, “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations…can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The troubling ruling specifically grants a wide range of for-profit corporations the right to opt out of the federally mandated requirement to provide all FDA-approved contraceptives to employees through their health insurance plans, without co-payments and deductibles. If tolerated and uncontested, the ruling will:

• Re-instate financial barriers to the most expensive forms of contraception, which are also the most effective;
• Stigmatize contraception, which will depress effective use;
• Eliminate discussion of the negative impact on the health and interests of the people most affected, employees and women, by assigning human characteristics and religious beliefs and rights to corporations, which are by design a legal fiction.

Cost and stigma are barriers to health

Contraception is widely used and recognized as “a fundamental health care service and a basic public health measure.  The ability to plan, start, space, and discontinue bearing children has transformed everyday life for women, families, and communities. Along with other improvements in medical care and public health, it has vastly enhanced women’s autonomy, professional and educational achievement, and emotional satisfaction and helped extend their life span… Mandates requiring wider insurance coverage for birth control are associated with more consistent use of contraception.”[1]

The major U.S. medical and health care professional associations recommend access to all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices to safeguard the health of women, to reduce unintended pregnancy, as well as to protect the health of women for whom pregnancy may be hazardous, even life threatening.[2]

From 2008-2011, the rates of pregnancy, births and abortions all declined steeply in the U.S.  “Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD.” [3]

However, many women report that cost is a barrier to obtaining and using birth control consistently. Insertion of an IUD, the most reliable reversible form of birth control for women who tolerate it physically, and who choose it, can cost $1,000.

Sharp inequalities in the rate of unintended pregnancy persist, remaining 5 times higher for low-income women and women of color compared with higher-income and white women. Almost half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended – an exceptionally high rate.[4]  The ACA requirement waiving cost-sharing is essential.

In its 2011 final report of recommendations for women’s preventive health services to be included under the Affordable Care Act, ‘Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps‘, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), found that stigmatizing access and coverage would increase even further the high rate of unintended pregnancies, and discriminate against women.

The Hobby Lobby owners believe that 4 selected methods of contraception are abortifacients.  This is scientifically wrong in 3 cases, and questionable in a fourth.   Nevertheless, Justice Alito says for the Court, on pp. 37-8:  “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,” as long as they reflect “an honest conviction.”

Granting for-profit corporations protection as religious minorities

The Hobby Lobby decision is startling in the absence of analysis of its likely negative impact on the health of the women employees for whom four effective and expensive contraceptives will no longer be available through their employer’s health insurance plans.  Worse, the argument that won the day for the corporation would apply even if the corporation were opposed to providing any and all contraceptives to employees.

The Supreme Court decision fundamentally redefines corporations in a manner that privileges the views of business owners over those of other citizens.

A corporation is in essence a legal fiction, created to facilitate the business activities and purposes of groups of people by shielding them as individuals from the risk of liability that is the inevitable consequence of a business enterprise.  The majority decision in Hobby Lobby, however, confounds this definition.  It claims that a for-profit corporation can in fact have religious beliefs, because it is no more than an “association of a group of people.”

The legal standard developed by an earlier Supreme Court to protect “discrete and insular” religious minorities requires that the “least restrictive” course of action be taken to comply with a law.

The current decision analyzes the potential harm to Hobby Lobby from complying with the ACA’s contraception mandate strictly in terms of whether or not its religious objection to that law is sufficiently accommodated.  The equation essentially asks, is the mandate to move corporate funds from one corporate bank account to an insurance company’s bank account more or less burdensome to the corporation’s preferred religious belief about contraception, compared with, for example, moving some of the corporation’s funds into its payment of taxes, and having the government cover some of the cost of the mandate?

Remember this?

The Court’s decision does not factor in the impact of the employer’s benefits choices on the vast majority of individuals who are not a corporation, but use contraceptives.

For these reasons and for the public health’s sake, efforts must be initiated and supported to override the decision by enforcing the mandate at the state and federal levels that health insurance plans must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives at no additional cost to the individual.

Sticks and stones can break our bones, and too many women know that sometimes words are just the opening act.

Last week the Supreme Court invalidated a Massachusetts law that creates a 35-foot buffer zone of safety to shield women entering abortion clinics from the vituperative abuse hurled by anti-rights protesters.  According to the National Abortion Fund, these protesters too frequently have turned violent.

The buffer zone decision is not our friend.  But the decision does not require us to concede, as  Laurence Tribe pompously proclaimed in Friday’s NY Times, that “neither empathy for [abortion partients’] anguish, nor the need to protect the safety of women seeking such services, nor the clear need to guard against the rising tide of state laws designed to restrict access to abortions, can justify far-reaching measures that restrict peaceful conversation in public spaces.”

According to USA Today, “The court ruled unanimously that Massachusetts went too far — literally — when it created 35-foot buffer zones around abortion clinics to keep demonstrators away from patients.

“The decision united Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberals, who said the distance improperly removed demonstrators from public sidewalks and spaces. The other conservative justices would have issued a more sweeping verdict, striking down the ban on grounds that it targets abortion opponents’  specific point of view.”

There will be much more to say about all this starting on Monday, when we learn whether and how the Court refrains from sacrificing its legitimacy in the Hobby Lobby case, which asks to assign religious beliefs to corporations, and on that basis grant corporations the right to reject scientific evidence and to deny its employees legally mandated coverage for contraception.

These cases challenge us to confront the complex web of factors that the law and advocates invoke to defend reproductive rights.  The ruling and other U.S. laws confuse money, ownership and privacy with women’s basic rights to safety, health, autonomy, self-determination and equal, non-discriminatory treatment; and the  government’s obligation to protect those rights.

We have to assert the strategies that have achieved progress to date: creating wide consensus in the court of public opinion that isolates and stigmatizes the beliefs, language and acts that undermine us, as well as winning legal remedies where possible, and .

We accept that verbal or physical sexual harassment is illegal at work, in part because it creates a hostile environment that discriminates against women.

But we’ve taken additional routes to isolate, stigmatize and suppress harmful speech and actions that are not necessarily illegal.  We’ve severely curbed the need for women to mentally teleport to a distant planet when walking past a construction site, in part by integrating the workforce, and in part by confronting men on the Neanderthal catcalling that too often ensued.  Real threats persist.  But, for example, Donald Sterling’s repugnant racial views and comments, undoubtedly long tolerated in private, met with swift justice in the court of public opinion once aired and confronted publicly.

Threats and acts of violence against patients are not tolerated inside any medical institution, and we cannot tolerate it en route.

Massachusetts should immediately replace and strengthen the buffer zone law, and Governor Deval Patrick and AG Martha Coakley have pledged to do so.

Laurence, honey, go soak your head.

The rest of us, let’s analyze the complex conditions we face, speak up, and mobilize in the interest of safety, health, and justice.

What’s Next?

Supreme Court to Take Straw Poll on Extreme Case

Claiming that “any religion allowed to be practiced only inside a house of worship, and not in the day-to-day business of life, is a worthless faith,” evangelical pastor Rick Warren’s Washington Post op ed  calls on the Supreme Court to assign “religious freedom” to corporations, including the divinely authorized power to dictate and overrule the intimate personal health choices of the vast majority of Americans. Hobby Lobby, a multibillion-dollar business with more than 550 stores, seeks to deny health insurance coverage for contraception for its nearly 16,000 full-time employees.

As the Supreme Court nears a “straw poll” vote on this case, women and men across the country are speaking out in opposition to Mad Hatter-style extremism, and respecting women’s rights to make personal decisions about our health.
At the March 25 Supreme Court hearing, the three women Justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – sharply questioned whether Hobby Lobby’s mega-corporate crafts chain has religious rights, and whether its owners may opt out of providing some forms of birth control to employees as a result.
On corporations and religious freedom: Justice Sotomayor: “How does a corporation exercise religion? I mean, I know how it speaks and we have, according to our jurisprudence, 200 years of corporations speaking in its own interests. But where are the cases that show that a corporation exercises religion?” (court transcript, p. 18)

On contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act: Justice Kagan: …Congress has made a judgment and Congress has given a statutory entitlement … to women [that] includes contraceptive coverage. And when the employer says, no, I don’t want to give that, that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.” (court transcript, p. 37)

Denying some contraception coverage to employees is denying coverage to all contraception:
Justice Ginsburg: “…there are 20 FDA-approved contraceptives, all of them covered by the Healthcare Act…[to Hobby Lobby lawyer Clement] You picked out, in one case what, three, and the other case four? Suppose the employer says contraceptives all together are against my religion, so I’m not going to give any contraceptive coverage…your argument, it seems to me, would apply just as well if the employer said no contraceptives.” (court transcript, p. 38)

Public opinion matters. And we’re speaking out. Here’s what some supporters who have had enough are saying:

Contraception? Really? We’re re-doin’ the *!*!*! fifties here?
Maya Elashi, OakLand, CA

When will this madness end?
Stephanie Norliel Chico. CA

Only women should decide about women’s health issues. No boss or any men period.
Margo Westerlund, Chandler, AZ

My contraceptive choice is to be made by me after discussion with my doctor. This decision will not be made by my employer or the government!
Renee Carter, Falls Church, VA

Keep corporations out of my uterus. Separation of church and state is the law of the land. Neither churches nor corporations have the right to write laws.
Rebecca Kane, Goodells, MI

We must guarantee that women do not lose the right to make the best decisions for their bodies, their families and their lives. We will not give in to bullying, and stand united to protect women’s right to govern their own reproduction!
Suzanne Cowan, San Francisco, CA

Whether religious organizations or secular corporations, employers do not and ought not have the right to restrict the health care (and by extension, the health insurance coverage) of their employees. The only possible exceptions would be employees of religious organizations who have themselves taken some sort of holy orders, in other words they have dedicated their lives to a religion and vowed to obey the rules of a religious order. Free citizens must have the freedom to access health care without restrictions imposed by their employers that differ from the law of the land, no matter how strongly the people running the business or organization feel about contraception, abortion, or other legally sanctioned medical practices.
Nancy Dunn, Granby, CT

The only person with a right to impose religious beliefs on a woman is the woman herself.
Randi Kinman, San Jose, CA

To Corporations and the Government: get out of my bedroom and stay out of it.
Karen Duncan, Los Altos, CA

I will boycott Hobby Lobby and any other business that sticks their nose and religion in their employees’ business because that is also MY BUSINESS.
Beverly LaClair, Newport, MN

To the Justices of the Supreme court of the United States,
For god’s sake, do not allow the churches, synagogues and mosques in this country to dictate the law of the land. If the religious objection to contraception is the goal, let them preach to their own. If the health and welfare of all of the citizens of the United States is at issue, the court must rule in our favor. Let women and their husbands and physicians have the right to accept or reject birth control and abortion. It is a right of every citizen to decide. And it is your job to protect that right.
Ida Luckower, White Plains, NY

To the Supreme Court: If you are going to limit a woman’s right to health care insurance that will not cover birth control and abortions, then I suggest you consider legislation that would make vasectomies mandatory. Don’t you think it’s time for men to step up to the plate and take full responsibility for birth control and unwanted pregnancies? That way, you wouldn’t have to consider all this legislation around a woman’s right to choose.
Alyse Ceirante, San Francisco, CA

I have my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing for a change!!!!
Larry Griffin, San Francisco, CA

Thank you for speaking out!

You can add your voice and support our video project to protest the extreme Mad Hatter right wing. http://bit.ly/1rj87VY

Please support our work:

Does the extreme right wing sound like the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party from Alice in Wonderland?

Attacks on access to birth control and abortion are out of touch, and off the deep end.

Legislators who are proudly ignorant about women’s anatomy and biology have been having a wild party setting new standards in government intrusion into our bodies.

Had enough?  Take a look at our new 1-minute pilot video to kick start our campaign to call out and push back against the extreme right wing, and to ramp up effective support for women’s reproductive health, rights, and justice.

This week, the Supreme Court heard from two corporations that claim they have a legal right to exclude 4 kinds of birth control from their employees’ health insurance coverage.  They claim they have this right because corporations have a religious conscience, a novel claim.

The Court is expected to take a “straw poll” vote on their verdict this week.

Public opinion matters.  Across the country, we’re speaking out.  See what some supporters who have had enough are saying (below).

This is insane!  These are businesses – not churches.  They have no business butting into their employees’ medical decisions!   M.L. Jones, Indianapolis, IN

Corporations have consciences?  Eggs are people?  But women are apparently not people with consciences who can be trusted to act responsibly.    Claire Wendland, Madison, WI

What is it going to take to make you get the clue that you have no damn business at all in making women’s personal medical decisions?    Jessica Kraskian, Park Ridge, NJ

Really!    Charlotte Taft, Glorieta, NM

Having lived when few birth control options were available I find it outrageous that men (mostly) still want to control women and their bodies…it is not theirs, it is ours…                          Marie Delloue, San Francisco, CA

Practicing one’s religion is all well and good, but enforcing those beliefs on others is wrong. The Bible doesn’t instruct us to force our beliefs on others, rather it teaches respect of the beliefs of others.    Hank Stevens, Gresham, OR

The Christian Taliban has no right to determine how women protect their own health.    Dianne Marsella, Aurora, IL

My body belongs to me.    Dolores Dempsey, San Diego, CA

Dear Supreme Court Justices,
Please uphold the Affordable Care Act by supporting a woman’s right to affordable birth control.  Thank You.         Carol Garvey, San Jose, CA

Thank you Trust Women Campaign for keeping us informed on what our opponents are manipulating each and every day. Roma Guy, San Francisco, CA

Thank you for speaking out!

Please add your voice and contribute to support our video project to protest the extreme Mad Hatter right wing.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard from two corporations that claim they have a legal right to exclude 4 kinds of birth control from their employees’ health insurance coverage, based on the owners’ religious beliefs.

Public opinion matters. Now.

The justices plan to meet privately later this week to cast a straw vote on the outcome.

One member of the court will be assigned to write the final opinion, after weeks of closed-door deliberations.  A decision is expected in late June.  Justice Kennedy is expected to play a key role in the sharply divided court.

These cases are dangerous attacks on your rights to effective birth control.

Here’s a sample of what the Supreme Court justices had to say:

Chief Justice John Roberts said that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, the corporations challenging the requirement, believed that emergency contraception was a form of abortion.  (Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign blogs have debunked this fake science.)

“There is not a single case which says that a for-profit enterprise cannot make a freedom-of-religion claim,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice Roberts suggested he was thinking of a narrow ruling allowing closely held companies like Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. to claim a religious exemption.

The court’s three female justices dominated the questioning during the first half of the session. Congress, said Justice Elena Kagan, made a determination that health plans must include coverage for a range of preventative care for women. When employers seek to deny that coverage on religious grounds, women are “quite tangibly harmed.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked, “Under the challengers’ arguments, do employer rights trump those of workers?”

Stop the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party! Protect contraception!

Join these supporters and sign the petition to tell the Supreme Court that the extremists who are attempting to hijack your right to effective birth control appall you.  Here’s a sample of what the American people have to say:

 Fake science??  You bet.    

Becky Mock, Burlington, NC

Corporations do not have a conscience. They are NOT alive. Thus, they do not have a religion. If people don’t like birth control, they don’t have to use it. Employers should NOT have the right to impose their religion on their employees.

Sophia Yen, MD MPH, Los Altos, CA

As an OB/Gyn physician, I see women who benefit from all types of contraceptives, both for pregnancy prevention and because of beneficial non-contraceptive side effects.  A woman’s employer has no business interfering in my ability to counsel and treat each woman according to her individual needs.

Jenny Robinson, Baltimore, MD

I fought this same battle 35 years ago when I needed birth control and could still reproduce. I don’t want to fight it again even though I can no longer have babies. It is still a woman’s choice to do with her body what she deems the right thing for her at the time.

Pam Smith, Allentown, PA   

This is a horrible abuse of power by the right wing. What happened to separation of church and state.  I am a Christian but do not want religion in my government. Current abuses are horrendous but this attempt is really against the best interests of the constitution of the US.  Please do not allow this to proceed. 

Cheryl Traverse, San Francisco, CA

The “religious freedom” argument behind the suit is, preposterous, as today’s NY Times points out.  Don’t fall for it!                                              

Ben Neufeld, Los Angeles, CA

Contraception is a critical part of women’s overall health and should be universally available.  Lisa LeRoy, Newton, MA

Access to birth control is not a corporate decision.

Laura Powell, Easton, MD

Trust women to make the best decisions for their health.  Employers have no right to discriminate among legal medications!

Robin Roth, San Francisco, CA

Get out of women’s personal lives.  How dare you try to save money by denying this.  I wonder do you still pay for Viagra, penis pumps, Cialis, hair restorer, etc. for men? Talk about greedy discrimination. I used to drive a long way to shop at Hobby Lobby. Not ever again.

Jean Taylor, Navarre, OH

Thank you to all who have signed the petition. Your words are heard and we appreciate your support in sharing your message and this petition with your friends and family.

The more people that know about this, the greater our impact will be.

We will be sharing more of our supporter’s messages as the week goes by, on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Be sure to submit your own and check back in to see if it has been posted.